Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive201
User:E4024 reported by User:Athenean (Result: 72 hours)
Page: Varosha, Famagusta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: E4024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: reverted to two different versions, as explained below
Comments: Clear cut 3RR violation, 4 reverts within 15 hours, albeit to two different versions. In the first two reverts he edit wars with an IP editor over the caption, when I remove the image altogether, he reverts twice to keep the image in the article. He is also misusing WP:BRD, an excuse he frequently misuses to justify his edit-warring [6] [7].
- The user who reports me does not even know the name of the article. Obsessed to everything he believes Greek... --E4024 (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Making personal attacks is not going to save you, in fact it is only going to make things worse for you. talk) 13:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Making personal attacks is not going to save you, in fact it is only going to make things worse for you.
- And now a fifth revert in that same article. This really needs to stop. talk) 14:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- And now a fifth revert in that same article. This really needs to stop.
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Continued reverting even after commenting here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Wellbelove reported by User:Bondegezou (Result: )
Page: Steve Reed (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wellbelove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see above
Comments:
Hi. Steve Reed is a local politician who is now standing in a
I also realised after the event that Wellbelove had tried to start a discussion on his own Talk page, rather than the article Talk page. I have since left a message there.
I rather sleep-walked into this situation. I could have handled this better sooner, but at this point it seemed most sensible to come here for help. The article is currently in Wellbelove's preferred form. Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Note. A refreshingly honest appraisal of the situation. One way to close this is to block both of you. A better plan is for you to start a discussion on the article talk page (not the editor's talk page but alert them to the new discussion) to discuss the content dispute. If you're unable to reach agreement, there are WP:BLPN. I don't see the point in blocking you as you appear to have come to your senses and, despite the obvious breach of 3RR, a block would be more punitive than anything else. I will post a message on Wellbelove's talk page so they have notice of my comments here in case they resume edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Capscap reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: )
Page: )
User being reported: Capscap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]
Comments: A 1RR article. I gave him the opportunity to self revert but his response was to insult me. [20] Sepsis II (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that all of my edits are discussed on the talk page for the article and are widely agreed with by other editors. In the course of editing this article, I have made over 260 edits to the talk page as compared to a total of 32 edits to the article itself, including minor edits. For a comparison, Sepsis has only edited the talk page 13 times, yet has made at least 17 edits to the article.
Specifically relating to these claims, you can see that I went out of the way to discuss the first edit here:
I'm not even sure how the actual reversion I did (the second link) is an issue. The term was a deliberate decision thoroughly debated and agreed upon as a resolution on the talk page
It would have been nice if Sepsis II made a boda fide attempt at solving this elsewhere instead of threatening me while refusing to give me any clue as to what he's talking about.
I'm trying to be a positive contributor to the article and it's quite an annoyance to have to deal with someone who is running around just looking for reasons to harass others. The fact that Sepsis II was just blocked earlier in the week, tried to hide evidence of the block by labeling it as "harassment"[21], and has made 3 reports on this page within 24 hours should say something. Just to put that in numbers, that's 1 report for every 4 talk page edits.
Thanks, Capscap (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note. Shifting the focus of the report from you to Sepsis is unhelpful. Do you understand the restrictions that have been imposed on the article? Did you understand what Sepsis meant when they warned you? Do you understand that you violated the restrictions, or are you still maintaining that you did not? As an aside, how do you come up with those numbers (260 edits, etc.)? According to toolserver, you have made a grand total of 121 edits since creating this account on November 16.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
User:LittleBenW reported by User:SMcCandlish (Result: 48h)
Page: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#rfc 3950EDB (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- This raises more than just WP:ANI, let me know.
At
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]:
- It's more complicated than that, being a long talk page thread, not just some article text. I cover everything important, skipping over a lot of more minor transgressions.
- More than 24 hours ago, but relevant for background –
- Effective revert by collapse-tag censorship of criticism by others 1: [22]
- Asked to stop misleading editing tactics by another editor: [23]; LittleBenW personally attacked him later (see below)
- Asked to stop ad hominem attacks by another editor: [24]
- Personal attack (accused another critic of "vandalism"): [25]; later edited the attack to be worse, not better: [26]
- Effective revert by collapse-tag censorship 2: [27]
- Effective revert by collapse-tag censorship 3: [28] (moved his existing "shut up" collapse tags to encompass more comments that didn't agree with him)
- Today, mostly all in the last few hours –
- Warned against continuing his pattern of incivility and personal attacks by another editor: [29]
- Incivility against another editor: [30] (repeated this "you don't have anything useful to contribute" slur against me later[31] but I had also strongly criticized his proposal, so it didn't particularly offend me, but it shows a pattern of hostile dismissiveness that impedes WP:CONSENSUS)
- Effective revert by collapse-tag censorship 4: [32] (here, someone had posted a totally unrelated topic, without a new heading, and LittleBenW chose to censor it without apparently even reading it, and continued to do so repeatedly, even after warnings)
- Effective revert by collapse-tag censorship 5: [33] (he intentionally expanded the scope of the collapse tag so that it not only hid responses to his proposal summaries, but now also hid opposition to his entire RfC proposal.)
- Real revert 1, and personal attack (accused me of "vandalism" for removing his censorship collapse tags: [34]
- Real revert 2: [35]
- I warned him of 3RR: [36]
- Personal attack against me: Accused me of "hate speech and vandalism" for giving him a 3RR warning: [37]
- Effective announcement that he won't let anyone comment in the section he's censoring for "2 to 3 days more": [38]
- Real revert 3 and personal attack again ("vandalism"): [39] (here he is reverting my attempt to make his straw man attack heading actually represent the opposing views it is a silly caricature of: [40])
- Arguable incivility toward me: Accused me of "hate speech and vandalism" again, for daring to criticism him and cite policy: [41] (by itself I could let that slide as ignorance of their meanings, since I was quite critical of his proposal and tendentious editing – short of incivil, but admittedly intemperate – but it's part of an obvious pattern of responding to criticism with nothing but attacks)
- Personal attack against me (accused me of "hate speech and vandalism" again, for nothing other than an oppose !vote that said nothing about his editing at all): [42]
- I warned him a second time of 3RR: [43]
- Incivility to an other editor (accused him of "repeated intimidation" simply for criticizing, and this is at least the third time in this debate he's done so in similar wording, to various critics):[44]
- Real revert 4: [45] (put back the collapse censorship)
- Real revert 5, via undo tool (about as rude as templating the regulars), and another personal attack on me as a "vandal": [46] (he re-reverted my even more moderate attempt to clean up his straw man, and put it back to his original version at [47]; note it is also a false accusation that I am "vandalising" his proposals)
Today alone, this means 5, (even 7, depending on how to define them) reverts, some of them after two explicit warnings in two places, on top of the NOT, OWN, NPA, CIVIL, AGF and other issues, which the user has also received multiple warnings from various editors about, for many days running (and years, really).
If it's relevant, I can also provide diffs that prove that some of the criticisms and opposition he's censoring pre-date his posting of his numbered summary stuff, so his claim that he's just trying to postpone comments on an unfinished summary is false on its face, but I'm skeptical we need to get into such nitpicks in any depth, when the 3RR and other policy problems are so clear.
Diff of edit-warring / 3RR warning:
- First vandalism-by-negligence warning in edit summary at the BLP talk page, since user was clearly actively engaged in that page, not in user talk
- First 3RR, tag on user talk page, to be "official" about it
- Second 3RR warning and second vandalism-by-negligence warning in edit summary; the text of my post was also a WP:NPAwarning (one of many this editor has received in the last few days from multiple parties)
- Final warning, at BLP talk page, in both prose and edit summary, while I prepared this noticeboard filing
- See User talk:LittleBenW#3RR warning for summary of other warnings by me and others.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on topic's talk page:
- Reversion of vandalistic edits (whether malevolent or simply negligent) does not require discussion, per WP:3RR
- Nevertheless, see already-posted diffs for clear edit summaries: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], and the warnings cited above already.
- And, I tried to raise the behavioral issues anyway in talk, but it's probably too late at this point. The user's rampage has already been disruptive to the whole assumptions of bad faith, and pretense that the critics said something stupid or can't even be understood. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
- Despite LittleBenW being a whirlwind of negligently incautious editwarring just a while ago and again, 11:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC), this attempt at BLP talk page discussion, like the one on his own user talk page, has still gone nowhere over two hours later, and BLP talk page posts by others remain censored by him, so enough is enough.
Comments:
I not only think a block is in order, but the weird, disruptive "proposal" mess he's generated as a severely non-neutral,
My own reversions have been solely to remove LittleBenW's attempts to silence other people in the debate by abuse of collapse tags, and I have performed that revert exactly three times as of this writing; he has since re-re-re-inserted them, and I consider it perfectly proper per
PS: See also http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons - It's almost all LittleBenW listening to himself talk and shutting everyone else up when he thinks he can. Engaging in sport argument seems like
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 09:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Response by LittleBenW
SMcCandlish has repeatedly trashed a heading of the proposal: He unilaterally changed the heading Arguments against adopting the English usage of reputable sources in English Wikipedia to Arguments against forcing all of English-language Wikipedia to use only the bare, diacritics-free 26 English alphabet letters and Arguments against removing diacritics—none of which are what the proposal is about—and he continues using insulting and slanderous language. I have never before encountered him on Wikipedia, but he is making grossly false, stupid and libelous claims about me. He is insulting other contributors by criticizing their English. LittleBen (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- That just constituted a WP:CIVIL is not "WP:ASSKISSING", and we own our own emotions – if someone is "insulted" by it being pointed out that their proposal based on nonsense, that's their problem, and not WP issue of any kind. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.12:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Updates by SMcCandlish
- He did it again[53], reverting my non-revert third attempt at compromise language that does not demonize those who oppose him. That's at least revert #6 on his part (I remain at 3, and all were in response to his vandalism-by-negligence, so are irrelevant for 3RR purposes). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 11:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- He just reflexively reverted again[54]. I just bent over backwards to refactor (not revert)[55] so that LittleBenW can continue to "hide", with collapse tags, the (should-be empty) comments section about his "abbreviated" forthcoming proposals, while moving the already-posted comments on (uniform opposition to) his "summary" proposals, and he just censored them again. His edit summary for this doesn't even make sense, and that's irrelevant anyway. This has to stop immediately. Note also that user ignored attempt to raise these issues in discussion (or, at his talk page, responded with personal attack). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 11:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours and warned to future conduct on this page. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it should be with regard to future conduct about that issue, not the page, really. Half the reason it's come to this is that his modus operandi is to WP:MOS, or some random article's talk page (he's done that several times). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib.
- Thanks, but it should be with regard to future conduct about that issue, not the page, really. Half the reason it's come to this is that his modus operandi is to
- Thank you. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 13:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Factcolony reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: 24 hours)
User being reported: Factcolony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
See details below
- 1st revert: here was a revert of this edit made by WLRoss at 06:42, 2 November 2012, that added the failed verification tag. Discussion on the talk page has been ongoing since then. Factcolony is well aware of that and participated in the discussion. I reverted the removal here because discussion of the issue is ongoing and the editor does not have consensus to proceed.
- 2nd revert: here within 24 hours, to remove the failed verification tag again.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See Talk:Hamas#Canada.27s_designation_of_Hamas
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] See below.
Comments:
I explained the editing restrictions at
User:Tuntable reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Warned; Turntable blocked 48 hours)
User being reported: Tuntable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [56]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]
Comments:
Tuntable has systematically been reverting edits to the Windows RT article, regardless of any other edits made, to a specific version prior to any other changes if they do not contain a reference to a factually incorrect claim that "it will only be able to run software that has been certified by Microsoft and placed in the Windows Store" (which is incorrect, since enterprise side-loading is possible, as mentioned), and do not expressly refer to the store as a "walled garden", both of which are loaded terms that are affecting neutrality. He also restores the incorrect statement that the change was for security reasons, despite my revisions using sources from an actual development blog (which was also used to source a "Development" section which was also completely removed just today due to the systematic,
He attempted to start a talk page discussion, but he canvassed multiple editors with a message about the discussion that was inferred to be biased due to its tone, and he still insists to me the only person whose opinion matters in the conversation—despite my revision which introduced more neutral statements about the restriction being approved by third-parties in the talk page discussion, he still reverted it back to the version with biased wording, and has attempted to brand me as the one who started the edit war, despite the fact that it was technically him.
ViperSnake151 Talk 17:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Warned. There's been no breach of 3RR by either editor, but rather a slow edit-war over days. I've left warnings on both editors' talk pages about battling in the article and noting that if it continues, the editor may be blocked without notice.Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Sadly no. The edit war continues. ViberSnake continues to revert important work, and you can see his comments above to get the flavour of the discussion. I invite other editors to contribute to the poll on the talk. (There was also some vague talk of copyright? Even if it were true it does not justify a total revert. Provide details and they can be addressed.) Tuntable (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Turntable failed to heed my warning and restored their edit, replete with copyright violation. They also plastered editors' talk pages with requests to participate in the "poll".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Saintonge235 reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: 31 hours)
User being reported: Saintonge235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [62]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68], [69] and [70]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]
Comments:
Please note edit summary for fourth revert; it would appear that Saintonge235 is attempting to make a connection between an individual's political philosophy and their literary review. The relevancy of which has been questioned by multiple editors, both in edit summary and talk page posting. The fifth revert reinstates the reverted content while the edit summary refers to another component of Saintonge235's edit. Saintonge235 has not responded to any talk page message relating to their activity at Watch on the Rhine (novel) even though they have made use of talk pages in the past. Page protection has been tried; as user Saintonge235 is autoconfirmed and not responding to messages, I'm requesting an indefinite block pending the user's unambiguous commitment to editing within Wikipedia policy. Tiderolls 18:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Tide rolls, assuming sanctions for edit-warring are warranted, please explain why you think an indefinite block (the editor has never been blocked before) is needed. What policy in particular (aside from edit-warring) has the editor violated, and what makes any policy violation so egregious that we should jump straight to an indef?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Bbb23. In my mind, lack of discussion when approached by another editor in good faith is borderline unpardonable. It could easily be a sign of "newness" as well, but this user has, as stated above, demonstrated they understand the use of article talk pages. To be fair, Saintonge235 has posted to their user talk regarding this situation. Saintonge235 was invited to the article talk page; a statement on their user talk is practically non-responsive, IMO. Tiderolls 18:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Follow up. Saintonge235 has now posted to the article talk page but has yet to self-revert. Tiderolls 19:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Saintonge235 is stalling on the article talk page without reverting; the answer to their latest question is contained in my original post in that section. Tiderolls 20:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- As an editor involved in the content disagreement with Saintonge235, I agree that sanctions for edit warring appear warranted, although perhaps not an indefinite block. It may be relevant to note that Saintonge235 has been externally canvassed – by the author of the novel that is the subject of the article – for the purpose of editing the article so as to discredit reviews critical of the novel; as reported here. Sandstein 20:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see the external website because it requires a login. However, assuming someone complained on the Internet about the article, how do we know that Saintonge came in response to the complaint? Is it a ) 21:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- The user has edit warred and refused to self-revert. The impetus for their registering an account seems a tangental concern. Tiderolls 21:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps. At any rate, I registered to obtain a login. The forum discussion started by the novelist includes several contributions by a user named "saintonge", in which the Wikipedia edits made in accordance with the novelist's request by the account Saintonge235 on Wikipedia are reported. The forum comments by "saintonge" are signed with a real name that matches both usernames. That looks like conclusive identification to me. Sandstein 21:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- The user has edit warred and refused to self-revert. The impetus for their registering an account seems a tangental concern. Tiderolls 21:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see the external website because it requires a login. However, assuming someone complained on the Internet about the article, how do we know that Saintonge came in response to the complaint? Is it a ) 21:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours I've blocked Saintonge for 31 hours for slow edit-warring over several days and for refusing to acknowledge their misconduct. Based on the disputed content issues and the belated discussion by Saintonge, I see no basis for a longer first block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Truthisnow reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Declined)
User being reported: Truthisnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [72]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]
Comments:
Truthisnow added a section on "The Neo Advaita tarp" which, after reading the source, appeared to be more
- Diff of explicit invitation to discuss on the talk page [75] Lova Falk talk 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Declined. There was no actual breach of 3RR. The editor has stopped reverting as of 2 days ago. The SPI investigation is still open.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
User:46.241.191.141 reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Range blocked)
User being reported:
46.241.191.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.190.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.171.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.185.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.133.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.149.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
46.241.152.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79] [80]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]
There's a dynamic IP which is edit warring across multiple pages to insert a very problematic map. Previously 3 articles (Kirovabad pogrom, Armenians in Nakhchivan and Armenians in Baku) were protected because of the edit war by this IP. The IP ignored the invitation by the admin to discuss the problem here: [82], and continued edit warring on other pages. I think the IP range needs to be blocked to stop disruption. Grandmaster 19:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note. According to this tool, 8,192 IP addresses would be blocked based on the three IPs you list.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's too many. Is there any other way to stop disruption by this anon? Grandmaster 20:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming the addresses are actually dynamic (Geolocate says they come from a dynamic pool but labels them static), we'd have to assume that blocking them would be fruitless. Therefore, the only effective means is semi-protection on each article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Here are the rangecontribs from 07:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming the addresses are actually dynamic (Geolocate says they come from a dynamic pool but labels them static), we'd have to assume that blocking them would be fruitless. Therefore, the only effective means is semi-protection on each article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's too many. Is there any other way to stop disruption by this anon? Grandmaster 20:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Result: 46.241.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked three weeks. If you see any continued reverting about this map by Alcallurops or Tzir-Katin, considering reporting them here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
User:75.72.168.252 reported by User:Belchfire (Result: Warned)
User being reported: 75.72.168.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [86]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]
This appears to be a new editor who simply does not understand basic Wikipedia concepts, and chooses to ignore friendly requests to work collaboratively. [92] I see no reason to believe he even knows that a Talk page exists.
- Warned. The breach of 3RR is clear. However, no one took the trouble to engage the IP in a discussion of the content removal. I have therefore warned the IP on his talk page. In addition, I note that another editor has now supported the IP and removed the same material from the article. It seems like it's time to discuss the content disputee on the article talk page. Indeed, it should have been done before now.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Bbb23, your handling of this incident is faulty on two counts: 1. Somebody DID attempt to engage the IP in a discussion, plus he was given a stop sign warning. He ignored both. 2. Concurrence of another user does NOT excuse four consecutive reverts of the exact same content. Ever. Belchfire-TALK 05:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Dara Allarah reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )
User being reported: Dara Allarah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [93]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]
Link to discussion page is not applicable. I am just an external observer. The second party to the edit conflict stopped as soon as they got a 3RR warning. The reported user continued and was this is the reason they got reported. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I only noticed the warning after my last edit and I stopped after I'd read it. I requested that the user who was removing cited material take the matter to the talk page (but he refused), and I've now opened a section on the talk page myself. I won't engage in revision warring again but as I'm fairly new to wikipedia I didn't know how to respond to revert vandalism (I think it's called). Looking at the other ed's talk page he seems to have a history of it - but I realise now that my respond was the wrong way to handle the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dara Allarah (talk • contribs) 05:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: As the original filer I suggest this be closed as no action. The editor reported has helped clean up the article and even got a barnstar by Yworo. No edit-warring danger is imminent. talk) (Result: )
User being reported: Stealthepiscopalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 06:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 04:22, 17 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 523381983 by 66.237.186.98 (talk)")
- 22:23, 22 November 2012 (edit summary: "The author of the previous edit clearly does not understand Crowley's Masonic history - he received the MM degree in France")
- 03:41, 23 November 2012 (edit summary: "He got the A&P degrees in Mexico on sight but had not yet received the MM degree which he got from Anglo Saxon and which resulted is his revision of the word")
- 04:23, 23 November 2012 (edit summary: "correct the source documents you are citing verfiy my assertion and contradict yours")
- 04:37, 23 November 2012 (edit summary: "The Antient and Primitive confers degrees from the 4th to the 33rd - your assertion is regarding the 3rd or MM word")
- 04:47, 23 November 2012 (edit summary: "yours is the change you take it to talk - Crowley was made a 33rd in Mexico on sight and did not recieve the MM degree, it happens George Bush is an example")
- Diff of warning: here
—
- Comment: No edit-warring danger has been imminent from this editor. I suggest this be closed as no action. See also my comments just above. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
User:StAnselm reported by User:MrX (Result: Declined)
User being reported: StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 00:01, 22 November 2012
- 1st revert: 00:01, 22 November 2012 (edit summary: "added wikilink, removed dubious, unsourced assertion")
- 2nd revert: 00:40, 22 November 2012 (edit summary: "restored deleted text and wikilink")
- 3rd revert: 00:58, 22 November 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by TW)")
- 4th revert: 20:47, 22 November 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by TW)")
- 5th revert: 06:49, 23 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 524447681 by 75.72.168.252 (talk) reverted edit warrior, who has been reported")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None (I'm not a party to the content dispute)
Comments:
StAnselm has been warned on several previous occasions about edit warring and has apparently not taken heed.
Here are some warnings that I delivered to StAnselm myself:
Other users have previously warned StAnselm about edit warring:
StAnselm has previously been blocked for edit warring. They do not seem to accept that this behavior is disruptive to the goal of building an encyclopedia and that it drives new editors away:
A report was filed at AN3 less than 90 days ago, but was not closed by an admin, nor was any action taken:
Thank you. - MrX 13:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note. I've asked StAnselm to post an explanation here as to his conduct on the article. As I said on their talk page, although I was somewhat sympathetic to the IP's breach of 3RR (see report above), I see no justification for StAnselm's.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, to be honest, I had a look at the edit history, and thought that this fifth edit didn't fall within 3RR. Yes, I know I'm not entitled to 3 reverts, but more than 24 hours had elapsed since the third edit. This is all accepting the numbering system above. My first edit was, in my mind, helping this IP editor out. I didn't remove all the material that was added, just one dubious sentence, and I added what I though was a helpful wikilink. The fact that this wikilink kept on getting removed shows that he or she probably didn't know much about Wikipedia and edit histories. But it's hardly fair to call it a "revert" - I was keeping as much of the IP's material as possible. Same with the second revert - it is quite unfair to call it a revert. A comparison between my versions shows that I kept much of the IP's material (such as the $349,857.25 figure). So my latest edit was, according to my reckoning, my third revert. Anyway, MrX and I have had some past history, and there has been some bad faith between us, which would make me question the neutrality of this report. This doesn't seem to be a report presented reluctantly, it looks like MrX is looking for an opportunity to have me blocked. I have indeed been blocked before (more than a year ago), and that was deserved, but no action was taken on the last report, presumably because it wasn't deserved. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- You made four reverts starting at 22 November 00:01 through 22 November 20:47. If you don't think they constitute reverts, then you should read WP:3RR more carefully. As for your coment re MrX, I don't care much about any "bad faith" between you, but assuming it's true, why would MrX advise you not to war with the IP if MrX wants you blocked? You could have self-reverted at the point of the warning, you would have had only 3, and it would have been a sign of good faith on your part. I didn't look at the last report here to see whether there was any merit to it or not. I'm trying to keep this focused on now, or at least the recent now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have to go out this morning, so I don't have a chance to read through WP:3RR. It is certainly possible that I have misunderstood things - as I said, I thought at the time that the first two edits were not reverts. If I was wrong, then I am sorry. StAnselm (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have to go out this morning, so I don't have a chance to read through
User:187.36.81.70 reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: Protected)
User being reported: 187.36.81.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [107]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]
Comments: The user has no right to delete sourced content from the article, particularly since he bases his position on original research (against
The poster above has no right to distort the subject of an article by posting a misleading quote from someone who is no authority on the topic in question at all.
This is the quote he so much wanted to post there:
"Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries".|Daniel Stowell[1]}}
Daniel Stowell is not a military historian, nor is he specialised in the history of Argentina, Brazil or Uruguay. The quote you claim would have come from this book, "Balancing Evils Judiciously", http://books.google.com.br/books/about/Balancing_Evils_Judiciously.html?id=fQTaGwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y, which is not about the subject at all: "For the first time, all the proslavery -- but also pro-black -- writings of Zephaniah Kingsley (1765-1843) appear together in one volume. Kingsley was a slave trader and the owner of a large plantation near Jacksonville in what was then Spanish East Florida. He married one of his slaves and had children with several others. Daniel Stowell carefully assembles all of Kingsley's writings on race and slavery to illuminate the evolution of his thought. The intriguing hybrid text of the four editions of the treatise clearly identifies both subtle and substantial differences among the editions. Other extensively annotated documents show how Kingsley's interracial family and his experiences in various slaveholding societies in the Caribbean and South America influenced his thinking on race, class, and slavery".
This is clearly not about the topic Cisplatine War at all. He was no expert, and his quote is clearly misleading.
Contrary to what the quote would imply, throughout the conflict:
- The Brazilian Armed Forces blockaded Buenos Aires and caused serious economic consequences to them (Buenos Aires was basically the only place for interaction with the outside world, and the United Provinces were heavily dependent on exporting and importing United Provinces); you can read about these consequences from the Argentine themselves ("Los efectos de la guerra en la economía de las Provincias Unidas", http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/3/3-029.htm). Brazil lost some naval battles, but after the battle of Monte Santiago their navy was reduced practically to nothing, and they could no longer operate in high seas; Brazil had the naval supremacy right in front of Buenos Aires.
- When it comes to the operations on land, if Rivera penetrated the territory of the Missões, if they won some battles (Sarandi and Ituzaingó), the results were, in fact, inconclusive, since they lacked the means to repel the Brazilian Forces, so much so that the two major cities of Uruguay at that time, Colonia and Montevideo remained under Brazilian control throughout the conflict.
In short, the quote he so much wants to post is a biased portrayal of the conflict, a misleading one, not coming from a specialist. And it makes it look like the United Provinces won the conflict, which they did not, if they had Uruguay would have been annexed.
Please pay attention another poster also noticed how inappropriate is that quote: "And the unknown editor complaining is correct when he said that it was said by a non-expert. However, I don't believe that the quote is the main issue in here. The article as a whole should be reworked and improved. Removing of keeping the quote won't resolve the main issue, which is the article itself". --Lecen (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cisplatine_War 187.36.81.70 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I don't oppose the suggestion of the user Cambalachero, the quote could reformulated into text appropriate and then cited as a reference. The way it was posted it sounded like some final judgment on the matter, which is wrong, since Stowell is no expert on the conflic, no military historian and he has not even written a book about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cisplatine_War 187.36.81.70 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Result: Article protected five days. This is a good opportunity for both sides to discuss on the talk page, and bring more sources. If the IP is contentiously editing one article (as it seems) from multiple IP addresses, he should stop this practice since it violates WP:SOCK. The Stowell book that MarshalN20 found is a curious source for the stated claim. Perhaps MarshalN20 can explain how a book about a Florida planter comes to address the topic of the Cisplatine War, or if it cites any references of its own. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)(Result: 2 weeks)
User:EditorInChiefSD reported by User:Shrike
User being reported: EditorInChiefSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]
Comments:
The article is under 1RR. The user is clearly in combat mode to push his POV in other articles too [117] and [118]--WP:RX21:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)- Also see EditorInChiefSD's disruptive edits at Palestinian incitement - battling multiple editors. Clearly an out of control editor who needs a timeout... if not something more substantial. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Probably should have been longer. Any repeat after expiration of the block should be met with a block of one year or a topic ban. The POV-pushing and disruptive editing may militate in favor of an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
User:76.102.172.86 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 72 hours)
User being reported: 76.102.172.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [119]Earlier reverts (before 24 hr period):
In his edit summaries the user referenced "discussion on talk" though s/he has not said anything there. Instead, apparently, s/he was referring to discussion from long time ago, buried deep in the archives [128]. This suggest that this is not a new user but some banned user returning to stir up trouble again.
Previously the anon IP also edit warred (more than 24 hrs) on the Stefan Banach article, until it had to be protected [129]:
- 1st revert: [130]
- 2nd revert: [131]
- 3rd revert: [132]
- 4th revert: [133]
- 5th revert: [134]
- 6th revert: [135]
- 7th revert: [136]
That's when s/he moved over to the
Jozef Pilsudskiarticle.The IP has also made racist and bigoted remarks on talk:
- [137]
- [138] " Instead of these ridiculous reverts, try doing something that you guys are good at - like fixing some leaking faucets, installing few toilet bowls here and there or introducing us to a hot bloodied Agnieszka or two" - racist stereotypes and sophmoric bigoted jokes
- [139] "I don't mean stealing cars!" - more moronic bigotry, implying Poles are only good at stealing cars.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]
- User:Pass a Method reported by User:Frankfort05(Result: 48 hours)
User being reported: )
Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APass_a_Method&diff=524795794&oldid=524780495 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APass_a_Method&diff=524796097&oldid=524795931
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=524777116&oldid=524251888
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=524788095&oldid=524777649
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=524795207&oldid=524794623
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&diff=524796745&oldid=524795670
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I sent several messages to the user and explained it to them and asked them many times to discuss it on the talk page but they just kept refusing.
Comments:
Pass a method is once again in an 'edit war' on this article. This user has done the same thing several times before, and I think he has been blocked for sort of thing more than once before. I feel that he is ignoring me and just doing whatever he wants to do on the article, and I feel he is attacking me needlessly. I'm pretty sure that he is a well experienced contributor here and so I don't understand why it was so difficult to get him to go to the talk page of the article and talk things out. He has also reverted my edits without even an edit summary. His style is *very* aggressive and seems to get angry whenever anyone objects to something he does. I linked him toWP:OWN, but he still keeps at it. I told him that he should go right away to the talk page because of whatWP:BRD says, but he still keeps reverting me instead of discussing it first. What am I supposed to do?? --Frankfort05 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The first diff was not a revert, it was an addition/woding. The second diff was a compromise where i merely restructured the paragraph to seperate religions from denominations. Hence i made 2 reverts, not 4.talk14:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)- talk) 15:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)) 15:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now that an administrator has decided that he was edit warring, can his edit warring be reverted? Can someone please undo his last edit on the article as no one has agreed to it on the talk page? Thank you. --Frankfort05 (talk
- I don't normally undo in these circumstances unless there's a clear policy violation apart from the edit-warring. It's not only not my role to become involved in the content dispute; except in limited cases, it can make me involved. There are 837 watchers of that article. You should be able to get a consensus from some subset of those watchers as to which content is best. I wouldn't revert yourself, though; let someone else do it if you obtain a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see. But that seems to allow those who commit edit warring to 'win' though. Meaning that their edits stay. At which point am I able to revert it myself? Oh and where did you get the 837 number from? Is there a link somewhere in each page? Thank you. --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a function of winning. WP:3RR is mostly a procedural policy to prevent disruption to articles. Other than the exemptions to 3RR, it's not content-related. Blocking an editor for violating 3RR prevents further damage to the article, but it isn't intended to take sides in the content dispute. In any event, another editor reverted Pass a Method's last change. However, to answer your now moot question, I simply wouldn't touch the part of the article that the edit war was about because you could be accused of edit-warring. Theoretically, you could wait until you're outside the 24-hour period, but some might call that gaming the system if your reversion comes too soon after the period expires. Finally, on any page, when you are looking at the revision history of the page, there is a link toward the top middle, "Number of watchers". That will give you the number of editors who have the article on their watchlists. If you see a hyphen, that means the number is fewer than 30. BTW, when I did it earlier, it worked, but a moment ago, there was an error message. Toolserver is a wonderful collection of tools, but it has technical problems from time to time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's why I put 'win' in quotes. Just saying that it sometimes might allow edit warring users to get their way.... Oh and one more important question: what should I do if Pass a method goes back to being rude and edit warring when he comes back? Look I even noticed that he just ignored what you said about removing the block notice from his talk page; he's removed it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pass_a_Method&diff=prev&oldid=524804958 ! I mean, how does someone deal with situations like this? --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- If Pass a Method resumes edit-warring on the article, you can report them again. Generally, it does not require a brand-new violation of 3RR to block based on a resumption of the same behavior after expiration of the block. As for the removal of the block notice, I've revoked their talk page access so the block notice cannot be removed again. Unfortunately, some editors get very angry when blocked and react badly, although Pass a Method habitually removes notices from their talk page. The removal of most notices is permissible, but not a current block notice. BTW, any more questions you have (and it's good that you ask questions), feel free to post them on my talk page rather than here as this thread is getting kind of long.--User:Pass a Method reported by User:Kevin McE(Result: Declined)
- If Pass a Method resumes edit-warring on the article, you can report them again. Generally, it does not require a brand-new violation of 3RR to block based on a resumption of the same behavior after expiration of the block. As for the removal of the block notice, I've revoked their talk page access so the block notice cannot be removed again. Unfortunately, some editors get very angry when blocked and react badly, although Pass a Method habitually removes notices from their talk page. The removal of most notices is permissible, but not a current block notice. BTW, any more questions you have (and it's good that you ask questions), feel free to post them on my talk page rather than here as this thread is getting kind of long.--
- Yeah, that's why I put 'win' in quotes. Just saying that it sometimes might allow edit warring users to get their way.... Oh and one more important question: what should I do if Pass a method goes back to being rude and edit warring when he comes back? Look I even noticed that he just ignored what you said about removing the block notice from his talk page; he's removed it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pass_a_Method&diff=prev&oldid=524804958 ! I mean, how does someone deal with situations like this? --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a function of winning.
- I see. But that seems to allow those who commit edit warring to 'win' though. Meaning that their edits stay. At which point am I able to revert it myself? Oh and where did you get the 837 number from? Is there a link somewhere in each page? Thank you. --Frankfort05 (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
User being reported: )
Previous version reverted to: [142]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147] (deleted by PaM from his/her talk page)Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148]
Comments: While I disagree with what PaM wants to add, and have explained why I think it inappropriate, it is not a totally unreasonable proposal. But having been asked to discuss the matter, he/she evidently considers the fact of having passed comment on the talk page as licence to change the article again. I note that another editor has also placed a 3rr warning on the user's talk page [149]. Kevin McE (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Declined. This report is a bit more unusual than the report above on Same-sex marriage. The first edit by Pass a Method was in fact an addition; they added an image. Moreover, Kevin acknowledged that his first reason for reverting Pass a Method (removing the image) was wrong. However, Kevin then took a different tack and said the image doesn't belong in the article. After that point, Pass a Method made 3 reverts in a row. If you don't count the first edit by Pass a Method, which I'm inclined not to, each editor made 3 reverts before the battle stopped. That is one of my reasons for declining to block. The other reason is I blocked Pass a Method above for 48 hours for the war at the other article, and I think that's sufficient. It might have been reasonable to increase the block beyond 48 hours, but I decided it was more punitive than preventive. The most important thing for Pass a Method to draw from these two reports is that they need to stop reverting in articles and then subsequently claim their reverts are not reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- You have misinterpreted that, partly due to a confused edit on my part. PaM did not merely add an image in that first edit, (s)he replaced one, thus deleting the image originally there. Per the definition at 3RR ( A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material) this is a revert. I began editing the caption that PaM put on the second picture, but because I was looking at a related page, I saw the second picture already in situ, changed tack, saved, recognised my error, and then resumed my original intention. At that stage, we had had a simple BR of the BRD cycle (with a slight hiccup at the R stage). Thereafter PaM made three further reversions without waiting for any support towards a consensus.
- At the same time, banning a banned user seems pretty pointless, however, it should be on record that PaM has two breaches of 3RR on his record from today, lest he continues with such behaviour (this is evidently not a first offence).
- Presumably I cannot now restore the page to the state it was in before PaM's interventions without myself being in breach of 3RR; could someone please do so? Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct; I did misread the first edit Pass a Method made and technically that means they breached 3RR, but your "confused edit" did somewhat mitigate the breach. And I'm disinclined to increase the length of the block. Normally, I would strike my language above, but it would make this thread even more confusing, so, hopefully, the subsequent dialog between clarifies my error.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
User:CaroOlsen reported by User:Jæs (Result: not blocked)
User being reported: CaroOlsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [150]- 1st revert: [151]
- 2nd revert: [152]
- 3rd revert: [153]
- 4th revert: [154]
- 5th revert: [155]
- 6th revert: [156]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [158]
Comments:
For several months, User:CaroOlsen (also editing as User:70.79.64.73) has reverted no fewer than five other editors to repeatedly reinsert a spam link to a publicity site for a "biography project" she claims to be writing about a notable living person, Léo Apotheker. There is no reliable sourcing indicating she has a publisher, is actually even writing such a biography, or that it is authorized. Even if there was reliable sourcing for all three of those facts, I think it would still be spam. It seems clear that she's going to continue reverting to reinsert her link regardless of objections from other editors or any of our policies. jæs (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've reverted the link as inappropriate, and I feel it is inappropriate and BLP violating enough to blacklist the site. My specific comments are on the article's talk page. If another administrator disagrees with the assessment, please feel free to revert my administrative actions (the blacklist) without consulting me. As to blocking, I don't see that she reverted again since the mild warning you gave her; at any rate, the blacklist should prevent that specific reversion. Kuru (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
User:77.42.209.47 and User:77.42.198.203 reported by User:Zozo2kx (Result: page protected)
User being reported: 77.42.209.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 77.42.198.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [159]- 1st revert: [160]
- 2nd revert: [161]
- 3rd revert: [162]
- 4th revert: [163]
- 5th revert: [164] (blanked the page)
- 6th revert: [165]
- 7th revert: [166]
- 8th revert: [167]
- 9th revert: [168]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [169]Comments:
The user insists on adding the word "tabloid" to the newspaper article, without providing any sources. He has been reverted by 3 different editors including myself. Yazan (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Page protected. It looks like there are multiple editors with 3RR problems there; I've protected the page for a short while to encourage a discussion on the article's talk page. If the IP persists after the protection expires without discussion, let me know. Kuru (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Protected)
User being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [170]- 1st revert: [171] at 05:30, 22 November 2012
- 2nd revert: [172] at 05:56, 22 November 2012
- 3rd revert: [173] at 06:01, 22 November 2012
- 4th revert: [174] at 06:19, 22 November 2012
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175] and a second time at [176]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Skyfall#Plot over 700 words
Comments:
Two editors, independent of each other, myself and User:Schrodinger's cat is alive, have trimmed the wordy version preferred by User:Prisonermonkeys, who inexplicably appears to insist on using the passive voice ("The car is driven by Carl") rather than the active voice ("Carl drives the car') — a standard thing that Writing 101 teaches you not to do— and creates plot-bloat taking the straightforward plot to over 700 words. Despite discussion, he insists on edit-warring and reverting to a version of which two different editors disagree with him.On a separate but related note, his edit-summary at his 4th revert exhibits
WP:OWN: "Feel free to re-word as necessary (it might be in passive), but I expect a full explanation for any reversion." --Tenebrae (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)- I was accidentally reverting stuff that I didn't intend to revert, and I have since realised my error. My issue was elsewhere in the paragraph in question, and that issue has since been resolved to my satisfaction courtesy of an edit by another user.
- My concern, however, is the way Tenebrae has handled this. Firstly, the instructions for reporting a 3RR make it clear that a resolution should be sought on the article talk page. Tenebrae did indeed attempt that, but never informed me that he had started a discussion (which he should have done, since another editor was involved); if he had, I may have realised my error sooner. Instead, he kept sending me warnings about being in violation of 3RR, and while I am equally aware that editors must warn one another if they are part of a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard, the way he presented hismelf made me feel as if he was trying to force his edits through by theatening adminstrator intervention.
- Secondly, the wording of Tenebrae's warning made it clear that "one more edit" would result in the issue being brought here. That warning was made at 6:11. However, a check of the article history page shows that my only edit after 6:11 was different to my edits made before then. When explaining my rationale for these edits, I explained what I was trying to do. I suspect that, when I made the edit at 6:19, Tenebrae never actually checked its content, and instead reverted it on sight. If he had checked it, he would have seen that my edits prior to 6:11 added 16 bytes to the page, but my edit at 6:19 added 50. Although this only represents a relatively small change to the size of the article, combined with my edit summary - which made it clear what I was changing, and had made clear to Tenebrae on his talk page - should have been enough for Tenebrae to review the edits to see what changes I had actually made. This is something I do before making any page edits.
- Finally, in discussing the page activity with Tenebrae, I mentioned my issues with the page content twice: once at 6:03, and again at 6:15. In the half hour between my first explanation and his posting the issue on this noticeboard, Tenebrae made no move to address my issue with the page content. Between his failure to a) direct my attention to the article talk page and the discussion, b) actually check the differences between page revisions, and c) make any attempt to address my issue with the content, I feel he could have handled this a little better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- He had not one but two warnings; to suggest that I somehow "made" him edit-war is disingenuous. Also, 3RR and edit-warring don't have to involve the exact same edits: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." It's hard to see how 4 reverts isn't a bright-line violation, whatever his rationale.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I never said that you "made" me do anything - only that you were far too quick to bring the issue here, and that if you had taken five minutes, you could have resolved the issue sooner. Instead, you ignored the issues I raised and threatened adminstrator intervention at every turn. The net result was that it felt like you were trying to force your edits through, particularly since you never gave any consideration to the issues I raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment to admin
This is something of a storm in a tea-cup, with what was a rapidly changing section of an article with three editors tweaking in order to improve, rather than a major conflab. The current version is (I think) one we are all vaguely happy to put up with, if nothing else and so peace, harmony and a stable state currently exist (at the time of writing, at least). In my not very humble opinion,talk) 07:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)- I respectfully disagree. If we start letting edit-warring editors off when they have made 4 reverts, that's a bad precedent and a dangerous slippery slope. They key to fair administration of any sort is consistency. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Page protected. Rather than handing out blocks (plural), I've protected the page for 3 days. Work out the plot on the talk page. I recommend that you work out the exact wording that is supported by consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)unfair
Without sounding like a child stamping his feet, it seems a bit unfair to prevent other editors from constructively editing the page when this was down to two editors. One of whom was repeatedly warned about the 3RR. The plot was already established and agreed on in the early days of the films release. Sorry, but protecting the page doesnt punish the editor(s) responsible but instead punish other editors. MisterShiney ✉ 21:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- MisterShiney, may I suggest you read User:GeorgeLouis(Result: No action)
User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Version of article before all the reverting took place: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&oldid=524374658
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [177] (most if not all of the sources in question are journalists rather than pundits -- calling them "pundits" denigrates them inapprorpiately)
- 2nd revert: [178] (→Oil of Melaleuca, Inc.: unexplained removal of detail about FDA restored)
- 3rd revert: [179] (→Idaho political and judicial campaigns: unexplained removal of name)
- 4th revert: [180] (→LGBT issues: inappropriate addition -- that was not the quote provided in the sources cited)
- 5th revert: [181] (→Operations: flufffy padding -- this is not sufficiently relevant to VanderSloot to warrant inclusion in the BLP -- see Talk)
- 6th revert: [182] (Undid revision 524433071 by GeorgeLouis (talk)--once again, a basic description is advised per WP:BTW -- if there is disagreement with GL, go to talk to explain why it doesn't apply here)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:talk) 03:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on whether "commentators" are "journalists":Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Synthesis_and_sourcesDiff of attempts to resolve dispute on whether "commentators" are "journalists":
Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Improving_GLBT_sectionDiff of attempts concerning wording of "FDA letter" section:
Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#FDA_letter_._._.Diff of attempts concerning wording of "FDA letter" section:
Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#edit_requestDiff of attempts concerning wording of "FDA letter" section:
Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Getting_back_on_trackDiff of attempts concerning use of the disputed "full quote":
Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_2#Inclusion_of_full_quote_in_LGBT_sectionDiscussion of Melaleuca as a "direct-marketing" company:
Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Consumer_Direct_MarketingComments:
RIR's frequent reversions are so disruptive that the other Editors have a hard time improving this article.Go here for other 3RR activities involving this editor.
Reply
GeorgeLouis cant seem to tell the difference between "editing" and "edit warring". The malformed scattershot attempt to cobble together a bunch of unrelated edits is not evidence of edit warring. I left self-explanatory edit summaries and comments on the talk page justifying the edits. No one is being impeded from "improving" the article in any way whatsoever (with the exception of your attempts to impede me). This is roughly the third time in as many weeks that GeorgeLouis has filed a frivolous 3RR report against me. This is not an appropriate was to resolve editorial disputes; it has crossed the line into
WP:HARASS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)- Furthermore, with respect to this notice being malformed, George's alleged 3RR warning was not a 3RR warning; it was a notice that he had reported me for edit warring. In reality, he provided no warning and he left no new comments on the talk page concerning the edits. GeorgeLouis's position seems to be that I need his permission to make straightforward, justified edits on the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- The applicable advice is "If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing { { subst:uw-3RR } } on their user talk page." I considered it, but RIR made his edits quite rapidly, so he went way over the top before I could warn him. What's more, he is well aware of the policy, as evidenced by the conversation here. talk) 09:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- My point stands. You did not leave a warning, yet you misleadingly represented a link to the 3RRNB notice as though it were a warning. Secondly, you left no comments on the talk page subsequent to my edits, and the edits themselves were warranted, as indicated by my edit summaries and talk page comments explaining the rationale (which should have been quite clear). You are abusing 3RRNB and your non-stop harassment cannot continue. I will be filing a user conduct dispute to resolve the matter. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the adverb should be "mistakenly," not "misleadingly." I struck out the claim I made above and explained the situation there. I hope this satisfies everybody's sense of fairness. talk) 04:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)) 18:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently everyone should just revert until their heart is content. BB and Ed seem to be the only admins paying attention here, and they simply refuse to act on explicit violations. If you doubt this, you can check the last 4 reports in, oh, the last month. Arkon (talk
- I believe the adverb should be "mistakenly," not "misleadingly." I struck out the claim I made above and explained the situation there. I hope this satisfies everybody's sense of fairness.
- My point stands. You did not leave a warning, yet you misleadingly represented a link to the 3RRNB notice as though it were a warning. Secondly, you left no comments on the talk page subsequent to my edits, and the edits themselves were warranted, as indicated by my edit summaries and talk page comments explaining the rationale (which should have been quite clear). You are abusing 3RRNB and your non-stop harassment cannot continue. I will be filing a user conduct dispute to resolve the matter. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- The applicable advice is "If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing { { subst:uw-3RR } } on their user talk page." I considered it, but RIR made his edits quite rapidly, so he went way over the top before I could warn him. What's more, he is well aware of the policy, as evidenced by the conversation here.
- It is hard to think of anything less pleasant for admins than to wade into this kind of dispute. In an ideal world, we would persuade three of the contending parties — RIR, Collect and GeorgeLouis — to take a voluntary break from editing the article or its talk page for a month. The alternative would be to open a thread at ANI that would either become a giant slugfest or be ignored by editors generally as just another example of partisan bickering. Such an ANI thread would appear not to be a good use of time (or of patience at ANI). The current RFC/U of Rhode Island Red is at least one place where the issues might be focussed and where a possible solution might be worked out. But to restate my first point, a voluntary agreement by the three editors to abstain for a month might help to push the debate at Frank L. VanderSloot towards a version of the article that most people could support. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't pleasant because you guys have punted on clear violations. That is on your heads. Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot in 2012. If you truly do not consider yourself to be part of the dispute your agreement not to edit the article for a period of time should be no hardship. If you won't agree to stop editing, will you at least agree not to revert either RIR or GeorgeLouis for a period of time? I appreciate that you had agreed to wait for the outcome of the RfC on attack ads, but reverts have continued since then in other areas, causing the dispute to come back here yet again (though you aren't part of the latest iteration). Supporting BLP is valuable work. If you would agree to abstain from editing, you would be expressing confidence that there are other editors willing to defend BLP in the mean time. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't pleasant because you guys have punted on clear violations. That is on your heads.
- Ditto. I was not involved in this section until you, yourself, added me. Nor have I made any contentious edits whatsoever since you asked me not to. Cheers. WP:INVOLVED. Ed's analysis of the situation is purely in his role as an administrator. Nothing prevents him from including you in his proposal. He is not restricted to the editors named in the report. The continuing disruption in this article is damaging to the project, and anything an uninvolved admin can do to ameliorate the situation would be a godsend. So, listen to what he has to say, and stop pushing back.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh spare me. If you can't handle the fact that your inaction has contributed to this, and prior reports, I suggest you turn in the mop. And I will continue saying so, in the non-policy breaking manner that you so kindly pointed out. Frank L. VanderSloot. It would be hard for anyone to claim that you have nothing to do with this dispute. If AN3 is going to do anything it has to be based on evidence and should address the long-term war. If we go diff-by-diff this will be longer than the O. J. Simpson case. We can restore a normal editing environment more quickly if we can get a voluntary agreement among the three parties that seem closest to the issue. If the case needs to be handled with blocks they are likely to be extremely contentious. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have abided by the RfC as you had specifically requested. I have not actively edited the article nor talk page with anything remotely contentious at all. One article edit, and a few talk page edits for the RfC. I was not involved in the matter at hand here, other than being brought into it by Ed. And, if I recall correctly, being a certifier at the RFC/U does not mean that I have any active editing content disputes with RIR - if you read that process it is about civility and his repeated claims of "tag team" and "collusion" which is not germane to the discussion here at all. Now if you can show me that I have made edits contrary to consensus on that BLP or that I have made any edits contrary to my agreement to abide by the RfC, then tell me. Bringing me into this kerfluffle is, as far as I can tell, without merit. I would point out that my 'single edit in the past week was not contentious per WP:BLP and I trust you will agree that is reasonable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)) 17:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to EdJohnston for telling me I had been mentioned on this page. I am active on the BLP but I have only reverted twice (1 & 2 and don't engage in edit warring. Most of my contributions have centered on research and copyediting. I think one of the biggest things that this BLP needs is for cooler heads to prevail. The RFC is a good place for that and the discussion in slowly progressing there. I'm working on my response now. My biggest annoyance is being told that I'm colluding with other editors. I am concerned that if there is a 30 day truce by the three editors, it will will not have any effect once the month is up. After all, this notice was first filed because Rhode Island Red spent several days away from the page and engaged in a flurry of reverting after his/her return. The same thing happened after the page was temporarily protected. I appreciate that there are two admins willing to volunteer their time on this issue. I have a question for the admins: what happens next? I've never been in an edit warring situation before. Will the RFC reach a conclusion? Thank you, Andrew (talk
- I have abided by the RfC as you had specifically requested. I have not actively edited the article nor talk page with anything remotely contentious at all. One article edit, and a few talk page edits for the RfC. I was not involved in the matter at hand here, other than being brought into it by Ed. And, if I recall correctly, being a certifier at the RFC/U does not mean that I have any active editing content disputes with RIR - if you read that process it is about civility and his repeated claims of "tag team" and "collusion" which is not germane to the discussion here at all. Now if you can show me that I have made edits contrary to consensus on that BLP or that I have made any edits contrary to my agreement to abide by the RfC, then tell me. Bringing me into this kerfluffle is, as far as I can tell, without merit. I would point out that my 'single edit in the past week was not contentious per
- Oh spare me. If you can't handle the fact that your inaction has contributed to this, and prior reports, I suggest you turn in the mop. And I will continue saying so, in the non-policy breaking manner that you so kindly pointed out.
- "There are several ways an RfC can end: the bot can automatically delist the RfC, the RfC participants can agree to end it, or it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. If the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, formal closure is advisable. Requests for closure can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, but they may be closed earlier. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue, and whether editors are continuing to comment." ([185]) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Aside from the admin comments (which I greatly appreciate incidentally) these comments illustrate some of the problems surrounding the BLP. Collect denies having any responsibility for the conflict on the article -- I strongly disagree with this contention. I would argue that he, along with GeorgeLouis, is a primary source of the conflict. Collect repeatedly asserts that his edits have not been "remotely contentious at all" and yet the example he gives of one of his most recent edits is in fact very contentious -- it was yet another example of content blanking/whitewashing.[186] The line of text Collect removed has been in the article for quite some time, was not challenged, and was fully supported by the cited source. To say that this edit was not contentious shows either a lack of honesty or a lack of awareness as to what constitutes contentious.
- Arkon's bloodthirsty comments above are stunningly belligerent. I have never and would never speak to an admin (or even another editor) so disrespectfully. The irony is that George and Collect are trying to tag me as being uncivil and yet Arkon's comment is more uncivil than anything I've said in connection with the VanderSloot article. It's noteworthy that Collect actually endorsed Arkon's incivility with his "ditto" reply, showing that he doesn't object to incivility per se (at least not when it supports his side of an argument) and that he has turned his editorial objections into a personal witch hunt against me.
- As for Andrew (aka (Andrewman327), he's a member of WP Project Conservatism (a fact which he has never disclosed during the VanderSloot discussions).[187] His edits have not been innocuous as he suggests, and he has tried to whitwewash the same material that George and Collect had been tendentiously trying to purge from the article,[188] He has also bee a regular talk page contributor, and in all cases, he has marched in lockstep with George and Collect. The involvement of several editors with an obvious conservative political POV is one of the problems I've been complaining about, not simply because they have a particular pre-exisitng political bent but because that political bent seems to be responsible for biased editing (POV pushing, whitewashing), TAGTEAMing/vote tipping, and abuse of WP policies and GLs.
- I think a 30-day timeout would be great, as it would allow us to focus on long-term solutions to the problem (and I would appreciate hearing some suggestions in that regard). But I do fear that other editors with the same politically-motivated agenda will step-in and continue editing contentiously, so it would be nice to find a prophylactic remedy for that scenario. It look like the POV problem isn't going to fix itself and our admins are correct in pointing out that some of the non-binding DR options are labor intensive and not necessarily effective. That's why I've felt that this conflict needs to be resolved through a binding mechanism. Otherwise a recurrence of disputes after the 30-day timeout may be likely. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like George has no intention of going along with the proposal; at least not until after he makes some more tendentious edits.[189] Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot#Request for Comment 2. Opening further content RfCs is an option worth considering, for the points still in dispute. As I expressed at User talk:Rhode Island Red#Continued reverting at Frank L. VanderSloot, I believe that RIR has behaved in an especially stubborn way. (Check Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 51#Frank L. VanderSloot for an example of RIR failing to negotiate and engaging in endless TLDR). Currently there is an RFC/U open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Those who believe this article suffers from an especially bad editing climate might participate there and see if something can be worked out. It is even conceivable that a negotiated solution might emerge at the RFCU. I considered fully protecting the article for one month but decided that there is enough hope of positive developments to let it run for a while. If this article shows up yet again at this noticeboard I imagine there may not be much admin patience left. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well you can't exactly say that nobody agreed -- I did! The lack of willingness on the part of George and Collect to accept a moratorium speaks volumes though. Incidentally, I never once reverted because of TAGTEAM per se. I reverted because the edits were tendentious and not supported by consensus or policy. My argument was that TAGTEAM often appeared to be the mechanism used to support the tendentious edits and POV pushing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
(Result:Warned)User:AnthonyMark00 reported by User:Ian.thomson
- Looks like George has no intention of going along with the proposal; at least not until after he makes some more tendentious edits.[189]
- I think a 30-day timeout would be great, as it would allow us to focus on long-term solutions to the problem (and I would appreciate hearing some suggestions in that regard). But I do fear that other editors with the same politically-motivated agenda will step-in and continue editing contentiously, so it would be nice to find a prophylactic remedy for that scenario. It look like the POV problem isn't going to fix itself and our admins are correct in pointing out that some of the non-binding DR options are labor intensive and not necessarily effective. That's why I've felt that this conflict needs to be resolved through a binding mechanism. Otherwise a recurrence of disputes after the 30-day timeout may be likely. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Enough. Next person to edit this fantastically unproductive discussion, or continue it elsewhere, gets a 24 hour block. Fair warning. There's gotta be something better to do; let's go find it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Page: Gail Riplinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AnthonyMark00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [190]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [195]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here it is so far. As I've pointed out over and over, the link he's adding is not her official site.
Comments:
User has also (incorrectly) reported me for vandalism for removing his vandalism reports from the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)- Yes what I would like to add is that I dont really care! I was esentially looking for this section anyway Ian just beat me to it.
- But it's as simple as this, the information provided in the article, the link in question is from her publishing company. As far as I have found out the only one she works with. Now you deny this being used as evidence of her work but you dont actually give a reason why
just your own opinions on the content of the site.
- So it appears the good will guidelines ONLY apply to the friends and the editors & administators here on wikipedia. Becuause here I am trying to add documented, historical & verified evidence. Gone through the guidelines, But no one can give me a straight answer, except "I think this..." "I think that" GIVE ME A BREAK!.
- So as I say this is fine, do whatever you want. I understand now I am outnumbered. But that will not be for long or forever! Ian I promise you, I will call upon men (theologians) with more knowledge on this subject in one hand than you and I both have put together!
- And then we will see if you can manipulate the truth with the help of your ignorant friends.
- Because this is what this is!
- AnthonyMark00 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok it's fine I thought Affiliates were allowed IAN dont ever message me directly again!
- AnthonyMark00 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- As I pointed out earlier, AV Publications publishes her works, and appears to be her primary publisher. You not knowing that (and ignoring when others have pointed that out) doesn't change that fact.
- You've been spamming a link for a publisher she worked with, which was not her main publisher, and not her official site (even by Chick Publications' own admission!). When other editors have pointed this out, you alternated between ignoring what others have had to say and changing your argument when it became impossible to do so.
- At any rate, "I'm right" (as if that was the case) is not a justification for edit warring.
- As for your "ignorant" remark, "ignorant" means that people do not know something (for example, you are, by your own admission, ignorant of who Riplinger's real publisher is). The other editors are not ignorant of the site's guidelines, and they have not supported your edits. A sane and reasonable course of action would be to follow their example and ask their advice. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Anthony has acknowledged the definition of an official site on the article's talk page, so I don't think there's any need for administrative action at the moment. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
AV Publications does not produce any books. Chic does. As far as I can see AV is setup to let her retain intellectial rights over her books (like many authors do) So far I can find no other company producing the books. Now the rules are clarified to me I will accept it up to the point where I have to point out the degree of nepitism I am seeing here. As none of you can deny that the rules do allow for exceptions.
Not only that but as they are mentined repeatedly throughout her materials I see no reason why they should not be considered a primary source of evidence also?!.
Those two points alone imply at double standards & hypocracy. So you can sleep tonight Ian as I will let it go.. for now! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Nepotism"? I don't think that means what you think it means. Yes, there are occasional exceptions, but in a situation like this, you will need an exceptionally convincing argument to make one. I think you'd be well-advised to just leave this issue alone, period. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- No need for administrative action at the moment ? Oh I don't know. Repeatedly edit warring in a link to a site that hosts bigoted and ignorant garbage in order to include a worthless zero-reliability bio into an article covered by BLP and trying to defend it by, amongst other things, encouraging other editors to look at the British National Party page as an example seems suboptimal. Threatening to return having "call[ed] upon men (theologians)" (not woman, probably no gay people either judging from chick.com) is also not ideal. Also he vandalized my talk page, but that may be tradition I am not aware of, and I'll let it slide. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not blocked Anthony, clearly, you could have been blocked from editing the moment you broke the WP:V to understand what citation standards are acceptable on this project -- and please discuss with other editors on the talk page of the article rather than simply enter into a revert-war. Please ensure that you do not indulge in an edit war again. You will be immediately blocked in case you do so. Thanks. Wifione Message19:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 3)AV Publications claims to publish her books, Google Books lists AV Publications as her publisher, nothing on Chick.com indicates that Chick publications is anything more than an occasional distributor.
- If any other admin takes a look at this, I'd like to point out that almost all of AnthonyMark00's edits fail to assume good faith from others, and are either like this or trying to defend a conspiracy theorist who worked for Chick publications. His continued failure to assume good faith and his "for now" remark indicate that he's not here to cooperate. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- And for clarity: I meant that there was no need for admin action on the grounds of edit-warring only; there are other grounds for which further action might be justified, but I'm probably involved by now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Whats going on now? Are you trying to say that I am BNP?! Or that I'm sexist????? Ok this feels like im in a "FREAK" part of the internet. Thing is you can read Hoyland! So you (and anyone) can see that I was using them as an example of a distateful page with multiple affliate links (it's still up there).
FYI I'm of ethnic origin (which I suspect will also get me in trouble with a few here judging by YOU!) Let me remind you ALL something. YOU DONT OWN WIKIPEDIA!
It is as much MINE as it is yours! And I think you all knew what I meant when I meant to write nepotism. Ok time to get back to MY life now, and the real world. You should try it! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- We had no idea what your racial background is, and it's insulting that you think we care whatever it is. There are policies and guidelines that determine whether or not an editor is allowed to edit here, and you've done almost nothing but go against them. Those policies and guidelines are there to prevent conflict, the sort you've not only caused but have gone looking for with inflammatory accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- (cross-posted from article talk page) I'm now telling you in my admin capacity to drop it, both the issue and any issues you have with the editors. Enough is enough. Don't go to his page and you won't have to read whatever comments he makes. I'm sure he'll extend the same courtesy to you. If you post any more rants like you did here, blocks will follow in short order, if indeed another admin hasn't decided on a block already (which they're welcome to do if so inclined). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
So you imply that I was trying to promote the BNP wikipedia page as well as being sexist! And when I give a good reason as to why that was not the case, I am now playing the race card? Ok so what you want is you can all attack me (personally) as much as you want. And it's alright as long as I dont try and to defend myself or my views...You can block me! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sexist? Where has anyone mentioned your gender (as far as I'm aware, we're all males here), and no one has accused you of promoting the BNP, only for spamming Chick publications. Please don't make accusations without evidence, it amounts to a personal attack(and is a lie anyway).
- You were the one who mentioned your "ethnic origin," and then said that that you think that'd get you in trouble with us. You all but called us racist when you were the one who brought it up to begin with: you were playing the race card.
- Please point to one personal attack I've directed at you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm done with you Ian.. But I think I must give you guys important feedback. Writ in my opinion has been the only one of you who dealt with this situation correctly. I dont think you guys realised, all the way though I was being open and objective towards you. But repeatedly I made points which were simply ignored.. (Not a good idea with me & took up more time)
Writ was the ONLY one who responded to my actual questions and arguments, while others put on what I call a "do as we say attitude" which only made me fight my corner harder. You should know I am here to correct what I feel are errors that I feel I have found on the site.
But also to learn (good researching methods). And as a Christian it's important to me as many more people are starting to look to you guys as an authority so you need to get this right!
Something to take note of. AnthonyMark00 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your first few posts were accusations of corruption, looking for a fight. When asked (using pre-written template messages designed to be non-confrontational) I warned you you'd get in trouble if you continued to edit war. You would demand evidence from other editors against your arguments, ignoring it when they posted it or changing your argument when it became impossible to ignore. You continued to assume bad faith and bear false witness against your neighbors. Writ and I were both providing you with the means to avoid getting into further trouble, the only difference was I did so by pointing out mistakes you had made instead of offering more general advice you could interpret as not condemning your actions. Is it really a Christian thing to behave as if one cannot make mistakes? No, that's pride, pure and simple. Is it Christian to refuse the possibility of cooperation, but to instead seek out fights? No, that's wrath. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
And now your questioning my faith? What do you know of my faith? And bearing false witness? You must not realise EVERYONE can read through EVERYTHING we have written to each other (what you have not deleted that is!) As far as I know, I'm not in any trouble Ian, because unlike you! I am simply here for the sake of truth.
And I dont have to demonstate ANYTHING to you! (An apostate).when it comes to my faith. When YOU take time to sit down with a bible. Only then can we talk theology.
@EDITORS Why are you allowig this to continue? On this very page you are warning me against continuing this argument. But yet you are allowing him to create repeated personal attack posts as though you cannot see it! Where are his warnings? AnthonyMark00 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliments, but please. Wikipedia in general is aware of the stakes with our articles; we've been forcibly reminded about it in the past. This really doesn't need to be a contest to get in the last word. Just let it go. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Bhuttonazia reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No action)
User being reported: Bhuttonazia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Previous version reverted to: [196]
- 1st revert: 20:13 11 November
- 2nd revert: 15:42 12 November
- 3rd revert: 09:12 14 November
- 4th revert: 18:29 14 November
- 5th revert: 13:18 15 November
- 6th revert: 11:21 18 November
- 7th revert: 09:30 22 November
- 8th revert: 16:22 24 November
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning
Comments:
18:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a report for violation of- Why do you think the article is subject to ARBPIA? Not that I'm an expert in these matters, but it doesn't seem obvious to me. I don't see a notice to that effect on the talk page or an edit notice warning when you edit the article, nothing that would give any editor notice that the article is subject to editing restrictions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Its ARBIPA (India-Pakistan-Afghanistan) not ARBPIA. ARBIPA allows admins to issue discretionary sanction (DS) in this topic area. Previously most of my edit warring (not 3RR) reports were closed without an action, so I assumed it this time happening again and that is why suggested a warning about DS at least. Also because the editors overall edits look problematic (furthering a POV) to me. And it was just my opinion, of course I am also not an expert in DS matters. --SMS Talk 20:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- My error, I read it wrong. I've put a general sanctions template on the talk page, but I don't feel comfortable notifying the editor. Only one editor has ever been notified, and only a few have ever been sanctioned. The decision itself is fairly general, and I'm not sure it should be applied here. I don't think you'll get very far with WP:RFPP if your main concern is about Bhuttonazia and Pk5abi as both editors are auto-confirmed. Even if you are concerned about the IPs, there doesn't seem to be a lot of recent activity to justify semi-protection. Another admin more familiar with these particular sanctions and articles may view this differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Bbb23 for looking into the matter. Probably the best way for me to stop this disruption would be to get involved in the content issue. I will dig in for some reliable sources on the topic whenever I get time. --SMS Talk 21:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think I was of much help, but I appreciate your professional, non-confrontational style in discussing the issues.--WP:ARBIPA, the committee sanctioned some editors for 'turning Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines.' Though at some point Bhuttonazia might deserve warning under that decision, there's not enough information here about the content of his changes. Admins probably won't have the patience to click through everything and look for something showing national bias. Bhuttonazia didn't violate 3RR either. I am worried that he never uses talk pages, but that's not enough to sanction for. He has not continued to edit Karachi since you left him a 3RR warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)(Result: No violation)
User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Nbauman
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar&diff=next&oldid=524966588
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar&diff=next&oldid=524995974
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] This is not a 3RR (yet).Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar&diff=next&oldid=524985808
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar&diff=next&oldid=524995525Comments:
Help! We are having an edit war at Death of Savita Halappanavar.User TheRedPenOfDoom, who is not an Administrator, has declared a discussion in Talk closed, even though he does not have consensus, and even though he is making edits to the article about that discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar&diff=prev&oldid=524996515 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar&diff=524996613&oldid=524995974
Who has a right to close a discussion in Talk? How are they supposed to do it?
(The issue is whether Savita Halappanavar would have died if she had received a prompt abortion.)
User TheRedPenOfDoom is just edit warring, deleting well-sourced information, without discussing it in Talk. In addition, he's trying to cut off discussion by declaring the discussion closed.
What are the applicable guidelines here?
What do I do?
--Nbauman (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The applicable guidelines are the same ones that I have been linking for you. User:SudoGhost(Result: Protected)
User being reported: Chimon21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [197]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sherry Chayat#Hear-say emails
Comments:
I was asked to give a third opinion on the article's talk page and recommended opening a discussion at RSN. Other than that I have no involvement in the article, but there appears to be an edit war going on betweenGhost22:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)- Result: Article protected two weeks. Please use WP:BLP regarding Shimano. If consensus is reached, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is not an anonymous web site. The archivist is clearly identified as Kobutsu Shindo Malone, who a prominent American Rinzai Zen priest and founder of The Engaged Zen Foundation. He is a figure with a well-established reputation in the Zen world, and certainly qualifies as a reliable source.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
) (Result:48 hours)User:Alohamesamis reported by Viriditas (talk
User being reported: Alohamesamis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 20:30, 26 November 2012 (edit summary: "rm ridiculous contradictions")
- 20:35, 26 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 525011517 by Widr (talk). Edit was clearly explained.")
- 20:55, 26 November 2012 (edit summary: "still ridiculously contradictory")
- 21:27, 26 November 2012 (edit summary: "rm contradictions, again. A wrap is not a "generalisation" of a burrito, burrito is merely the term given to a wrap containing a certain range of ingredeients.")
- 22:55, 26 November 2012 (edit summary: "per talk")
- Diff of warning: here
—Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
- Please note how the warning was given at 22:23, 26 November 2012[203]. The user then deleted the warning at 22:50[204] and deliberately made a fourth revert at 22:55.[205] See also: WP:FORUMSHOP. Alohamesamis (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- For someone whose account has only been open for a month, and has only 99 edits, you sure know a lot about Wikipedia's policies. ... Wait, I bet you've been editing – or even just observing – for a long time as an IP, and you only just decided to start editing with an account now, and that explains how you know so much with so very little experience, right? Well, maybe ... or maybe you're a sock, like maybe your old account got blocked for edit warring and being rude and combative and generally disruptive, so you made a brand new account - something like that? Doesn't matter, really, because this account pretty much appears to be disruptive, combative and an edit warrior, hardly distinguishable from a disruptive troll. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Intoronto1125 reported by User:Cossde (Result: no violation)
User being reported: Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [208]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [209]
Comments:
The inclusion of controversial content by Obi2canibe has been contest and discussion stated on the talk page. However Intoronto1125 has began reverting and reentering the content with vague edit summaries and no participation in talk pages. Cossde (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)- Removing large and sourced information indicates vandalism. In fact, you are the one that has reverted more then one editor on that article, not myself. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 05:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Obi2canibe has added content which is referenced with WP:RS sources like UN.org,BBC,HRW etc which user Cossade removed and Intoronto put back as it was removal of large content which is sourced.Cossade had reverted 3 times whereas Obi2canibe or Intoronto have not reverted 3 times.Please note cossade himself has been warned for 3RR.Cosade can add NPOV for the section rather than removing the content as it sourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
No violation. I'm not sure I'm understanding why this is here. Please communicate with the other editor, and note that you are closer to a 3RR block than he is. Kuru (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
(Result:No action.)User:Capo689 reported by User:7&6=thirteen
User being reported: Capo689 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 04:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 18:48, 27 November 2012 (edit summary: "")
- 01:58, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 525227492 by Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)")
- 02:56, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "")
- 02:59, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "")
Diffs of
WP:3RRwarnings on his talk page:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACapo689&diff=525258828&oldid=525256128
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACapo689&diff=525256128&oldid=525255033
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACapo689&diff=525255033&oldid=525254847
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACapo689&diff=525254847&oldid=525254659
I also warned him in the edit summaries in the article:
- 21:20, 27 November 2012 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs) . . (8,690 bytes) (-413) . . (Undid revision 525247482 by Capo689 (talk) Reads like an ad. WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:ELNO [WP:OR]] Take it to the talk page please) (undo)
- 21:58, 27 November 2012 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs) . . (8,692 bytes) (-411) . . (Undid revision 525254117 by Capo689 (talk) Please take it to the talk page.WP:3RR)
7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Declined The editor has made no edits at all since being warned. talk) 11:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)(Result: )
User:Blake24 reported by User:Hires an editor
User being reported: Blake24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: link permitted- 1st revert: 05:54, 19 November 2012
- 2nd revert: [05:59, 19 November 2012
- 3rd revert: 06:00, 19 November 2012
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I don't have one. See below
Comments:
I've made arguments that seem reasonable to me for each revert I've made, and the other user just reverts with no explanation. He's trying to dress up the page with what I call "peacock images" that don't add encyclopedic content. And he keeps trying to remove the slums picture, which the talk page shows amply that this is something that should stay. The other person doesn't seem willing to talk at all about any of this. I suspect that it's the same individual(s) using the same couple of IP ranges and now they are using Blake24, but also what appear to be socks for some of the discussions on the talk page. I further realize that I'm guilty of some edit warring myself, but I feel that I've made efforts to resolve this issue. It's been one that's been ongoing for years, really. I've been accused of "owning" the page, which I feel is not accurate. I want to see the article improve, but the dressing it up aspect I believe isn't improving it. PS This form is too difficult to fill out correctly. This isn't normal behavior for me to be doing this.Hires an editor (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)- Note. What you need to do is talk to the editor, preferably on the article talk page. The editor's history indicates that he never talks, but you can't assume that; you have to try. So, I suggest you open a topic up on the talk page and see what happens. In the meantime, I will leave a note on the editor's talk page to respond here. I can't speak to the sock puppet allegations. I see from his block log that he has abused multiple accounts in the past, but you'd have to file a report at talk) (Result: Page protected)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 07:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 04:03, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 525232927 by talk) Actually, that's not what policy says")
- 04:04, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 525232960 by talk) restore formatting")
- 06:19, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "talk) to last version by Beyond My Ken")
- 07:29, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "talk) 07:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
I'm not surprised that Yworo ended up here. It may well be true that I breached 3RR, I'll leave it to the admin who closes this report to determine, and I will accept whatever conclusion they reach -- but this is part of a much wider situation, which I hope that the closing admin will take into consideration.
- WP:IAR.) 08:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This time, I was determined not to to do what I've done in the past, which is to cowtow to Yworo's bullying and hold back from reverting him. This time, I wanted to make it clear to him that he could not bully other editors as he has done in the past. That may have lead to me pass the brightline, and for that I apologize, and I am willing to take whatever sanction is applied -- but there should also be an understanding that bullies such as Yworo have no legitimate place on Wikipedia, and should be sanctioned for their lack of imagination, authoritarian predilections, and inability to edit collegially and colaborative. (That, of course, is not a demand, simply a statement about how things should work here.) Beyond My Ken (talk
- I've protected the page. Please take it to talk. There is no deadline, after all. etc etc.
- I chose protection over blocking in this case, because there is apparently already an AN/I discussion, and would prefer you both talking with each other to resolve this rather than being blocked and not discussing. But if the edit warring continues after the protection expires, obviously further sanction may be necessary.
- As there is an AN/I discussion, further discussion can continue there, and this can be closed, I think. - talk) (Result: Warned)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 06:22, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 524220683 by talk) So here's how it works, Yworo is off doing whatever it is he does (possibly harrassing other editors)")
- 06:52, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 525276758 by talk) I've had disagreements with other editors, and have come to respect them, despite our differences, but Yworo seems to me")
- 07:29, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "talk) to last version by Beyond My Ken")
- 20:28, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "rem tag with with no connected discussion on talk page, as is required")
- Diff of warning: here
BYK continued with a fourth revert on a second article subsequent to the previous report. Tag had been replaced by another editor, not me.
—
talk) 21:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)- Maybe you should stop edit-warring with him then, Yworo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I stopped last night. I haven't touched any of the articles involved for over 12 hours. He's still going. ) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's a different article with a revert less than an hour ago. That's not forum shopping, it's an additional continuing occurance. talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The whole set of articles was discussed and is still being discussed at WP:ANI. Picking off articles one by one, as you are doing here, is a waste of volunteer time. Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever. He made an additional edit that put him over the line on a second article. Feel free to enable him by ignoring his actions. talk) 21:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- (WP:3RR, it's possible to be sanctionably editwarring without making three reverts on any given article. 3RR is a brightline rule, but it's possible to be editwarring without breaking it. You may want to reconsider pressing this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that blocks are preventative, not punative. I have not and will not continue to edit war. BMK has less that 2 hours ago actually continued. talk) 22:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that blocks are preventative, not punative. I have not and will not continue to edit war. BMK has less that 2 hours ago actually continued.
- (
- Whatever. He made an additional edit that put him over the line on a second article. Feel free to enable him by ignoring his actions.
- (ec) Then it could have been noted in the currently ongoing discussion at AN/I. I'm not a fan of continuing to protect pages - which prevents all editors from editing, not just the edit warring ones - when blocking may presumably resolve the disruption. I sincerely suggest that you two go back to discussing at AN/I. If you two have stopped discussing and have returned to edit warring, then, as I noted above, further sanction may indeed happen. I haven't yet personally looked at the reverts in question. (I'm in the middle of something else in RL), but wanted to comment that I obviously have no problem with some other admin assessing this situation and taking whatever necessary action. - jc37 21:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The 4th revert was of an edit by Westeastis here (talk · contribs). That recently created account seems highly problematic. Something beginning with "T" and something beginning with "S"? Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Okay, so here's my opinion, for what it's worth: yes, BMK was technically edit warring. Obviously. But, I don't think a block is necessary here, because I don't see how an editor, within an hour and a half of registering their account with no real contribs, could make that revert (not addition of a new version of the tag, but a revert) in good faith. Reverting again wasn't the optimal response from BMK, I guess, but not block-worthy; I'd probably just give BMK a friendly, hand-written "warning", consider and then probably decide against a trout for Yworo for opening this, and call it a day. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not me. I never have and never will use socks. Might compare its IP to BMK's though, he has a history. But sure give me a troutslap on my talk page. There's a first time for everything. talk) 22:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you seriously think that WP:SPI with a checkuser request. BMK has no history of socking at all and I am surprised at your suggestion. Mathsci (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the process. Nowhere near enough evidence. Socks can be used for framing though, but I'm sure any admin with experience has seen that and won't jump to conclusions either way. I suggest it only because I saw it in his block log: Abusing multiple account on 26 January 2010. talk) 22:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yworo's implication that I have used sockpuppets in the past may be technically correct, but it is highly misleading. My history is clearly laid out here, which Yworo is aware of since I pointed him to it just today on Thumperward's talk page, and a link to which has been on my user page for years. I can only assume he posted the comment above as another part of his campaign of harrassment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Actually, I hadn't seen the update to Thumperward's talk page yet. Since you are so upfront about the history, I have no further concerns and withdraw the suggestion. talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Actually, I hadn't seen the update to Thumperward's talk page yet. Since you are so upfront about the history, I have no further concerns and withdraw the suggestion.
- (edit conflict) BMK had alternative accounts as discussed here.[211] Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Westeastis here was indeed a sock, but both Yworo and BMK were entirely innocent. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up, I'm glad to hear it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- And with that, I think we're done in this particular thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, but won't somebody please troutslap me? talk) 23:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a little one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, but won't somebody please troutslap me?
- And with that, I think we're done in this particular thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up, I'm glad to hear it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Westeastis here was indeed a sock, but both Yworo and BMK were entirely innocent. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yworo's implication that I have used sockpuppets in the past may be technically correct, but it is highly misleading. My history is clearly laid out here, which Yworo is aware of since I pointed him to it just today on Thumperward's talk page, and a link to which has been on my user page for years. I can only assume he posted the comment above as another part of his campaign of harrassment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the process. Nowhere near enough evidence. Socks can be used for framing though, but I'm sure any admin with experience has seen that and won't jump to conclusions either way. I suggest it only because I saw it in his block log: Abusing multiple account on 26 January 2010.
- If you seriously think that
- It's not me. I never have and never will use socks. Might compare its IP to BMK's though, he has a history. But sure give me a troutslap on my talk page. There's a first time for everything.
- The whole set of articles was discussed and is still being discussed at
User:Liverpool9898 reported by User:Lugia2453 (Result: Blocked by Kinu as a vandalism-only account)
User:Tinton5 reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: Both editors warned; XLR8TION blocked 24 hours for personal attacks)
User being reported: Tinton5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natina_Reed&oldid=525454348
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natina_Reed&oldid=525416639
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natina_Reed&oldid=525393598
- 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natina_Reed&oldid=525021395
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinton5&oldid=525449695Comments: I have notified editor there is NO wikilink for the U.S. in article. It appears he is using anti-American sentiment in his decsion. --00:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)XLR8TION (talk) -->
- Note. This has to be one of the sillier disputes I've seen on this page. If either of you wants to discuss the issue on the article talk page, fine. Otherwise, any further edit-warring over ) 02:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Diffs are preferred, XLR8tion: you should know that by now, given your block log for 3RR. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Here we go: editorial decision on this editor's part is that it is indeed overlinking: no sane person in the world would navigate from some musician to go, "hey! what is this US everyone is talking about?" Even adding "US" is pretty ridiculous since there is no other New York City or whatever anywhere. Having said that, this is indeed a silly dispute, and I think both are at 5RR now. As a matter of fact, XLR8tion should probably be under some permanent 1RR restriction given their block log. No mas, please. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was trying to avoid expressing an opinion about the merits. And in all fairness, there've been lots of reverts but not even a breach of 3RR in a 24-hour period. I believe it all started on November 12 when XLR8TION added the wikilink. Finally, it's true that they have a long block log, but there've been no blocks since over a year ago. It seems that they are blocked on an annual basis (although they skipped 2009).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Drmies, please keep your opinions to yourself. I can name numerous cases of bad editing on your part that would exile you from this site. As for the wikilink, there is none in the US so how it can be overlinking? The warring editor is not the brightest bulb as he didn't know Queens was not part of NYC and I had to point that out due to feebleness of his mind. --99.254.29.175 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- WP:RX(Result: No action)
User being reported: 173.45.200.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 09:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 06:48, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "")
- 07:30, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 525279069 by Trahelliven (talk)")
- 09:19, 28 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 525285172 by Poliocretes (talk)")
- 05:33, 29 November 2012 (edit summary: "Reversed the undo done by Poliocretes & included the latest contribution by Pluto2012 (Please STOP undoing my changes!)")
- 05:56, 29 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 525495654 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk)")
- 06:22, 29 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 525498443 by Shrike. Discuss before undoing! A Knesset document is not a legitimate source, but an outside document of the conflicting parties (Israelis-Palestinians) might be considered as legit.!")
- 07:24, 29 November 2012 (edit summary: "Restored the previous rev. Again, discuss before undoing!")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [212]
]
Comments:
.The artile is under 1RR the user already broke 3RR.- Declined Even if the article is under 1RR, this is a new user we're talking about. Since they have not made any reverts since the warning, they should not be blocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Trio The Punch reported by User:Jeannedeba (Result: 31 hours)
User being reported: Trio The Punch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
The user repeatedly adds unsourced speculation about the pope's sexual orientation to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI, after it has been pointed out that it is a BLP violation, and after the user has been warned[217]. The user also edit wars to include a POV tag to the article in question without reasonable justification and without any support, based on his own strong personal POV that "The article currently portrays the pope as a defender of the children, which is not NPOV, because there are quite a few reliable sources saying the opposite" (the material in question has been completely stable for many years, so adding a POV tag to such a high profile article based on a personal POV with no support is clearly highly disruptive; it looks like the user should get his own blog to voice his own POV). Jeannedeba (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Diff of warning [218]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Oh god do you want yet another boomerang? Do you honestly think people will be fooled because you used this page first? You are the one that should be reported. Not only did Jeanne not try to resolve this dispute on the article talk page, she is now actively forumshopping hoping to find someone to support her. See
WP:BLP, I reverted it and warned her, she still continues. Trio The Punch (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)- Dear Trio The Punch, we are discussing your violation of the 3RR rule here. I find it interesting though, that someone whose first contribution to the talk page is "The article currently portrays the pope as a defender of the children, which is not NPOV, because there are quite a few reliable sources saying the opposite" and 4 times adds unsourced speculation that the pope is gay, accuses other people of being "POV warriors". Unlike you, I have been involved in productive work on this article for years. Jeannedeba (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did a lot more for Wiki than you, but that is unimportant. In reality you've spent a lot of time trying to get the word rape in a section header at the Assange article while I've been helping people on the refdesk. You deleted much more than that one sentence... Trio The Punch (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. I have to go now, I'll be back later.
The first revert listed above is dated 26 November. Hard to see how there could be a 3RR violation here. If there are other types of difficulties, perhaps this is not the venue for them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Trio The Punch has now well exceeded 3rr on the article talk page. Repeatedly inserted BLP violations after being warned about BLP and now also after being warned about 3rr. Marauder40 (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, since my earlier comment there have been additional reverts today, well beyond 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Alejandro Daniel Toso reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Declined )
User being reported: Alejandro Daniel Toso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Previous version reverted to: [219]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: blocked a week agoComments:
User was blocked some days ago for edit warring on the same article and resorted to same behavior after the block. The other party involved exhibits similar behavior, but is an anonymous editor and on dynamic IP range. --SMS Talk 20:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)- While it would be nice if Alejandro were communicating, his edits appear to be returning the article to its original state, while the IP is removing sourced information. To me, that's vandalism (or POV warring, or something) by the IP, not a fault with this user. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
User:98.26.30.240 reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: No violation)
User being reported: 98.26.30.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Previous version reverted to: [222]
Comments:
This user keeps reverting to some kind of "My Little Pony" link. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)- No violation. They only reverted twice in a 24-hour period. No one has explained anything to the IP. I'm not even sure what's wrong with the IP's link; I don't get what you mean by "some kind" of link. You also failed to notify him of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I notified him just now; I told him to stop vandalizing The Hub (TV channel) page. He put in a link titled "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fandom". AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't notify them of this discussion as the instructions required you to do. If you think leaving them a message telling them to stop vandalizing (which I saw) is helpful in terms of explaining what you think they are doing wrong, you are incorrect. If I don't even understand what is wrong with the link the IP added, how can they be expected to?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I notified him just now; I told him to stop vandalizing
User:ParkSehJik reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 24 hours)
User being reported: ParkSehJik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [225]
- 1st revert: [226] 21:47, 30 November 2012
- 2nd revert: [227] 00:0,2 1 December 2012
- 3rd revert: [228] 02:06, 1 December 2012
- 4th revert: [229] 02:17, 1 December 2012
- 5th revert: [230] 06:23, 1 December 2012
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [231] 03:44, 1 December 2012
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [232] 05:23, 1 December 2012
Comments:
There are at several open discussion threads on this article about proposed changes by this editor . TFD (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Sean.hoyland reported by 24.177.121.29 (talk) (Result: No violation)
User being reported: Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [233]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See [236], user has been blocked previously for edit warring on this very article.Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [237]
Comments:
Article is subject to
WP:ARBPIA's 1RR restriction. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)- No violation Exempt from 1RR as reversions were of you, an IP. No breach of 3RR. I'm not blocking you for breaching 1RR because you were notified after your two reversions, because you haven't reverted since, and because you are arguably new.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/70.108.116.94 reported by User:Hello71 (Result: no action)
User being reported: 70.108.116.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [238]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Red_Dawn_(2012_film)#POV
Comments:
- Declined. I don't see any reverts by the IP after the sole warning on his talk page; only a comment on the article's talk page. I'm not sure that blocking someone who may not have been aware of the rule 15 hours after his last revert would be constructive. I may be missing something. Kuru (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Kurzon reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: 24 hours)
User being reported: Kurzon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [244]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [250]Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Wreck-It Ralph#Plot length
- User:Alhanuty(Result: Stale)
User being reported: Deonis 2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=525161399
- 2nd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=525275117
- 3rd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=525409778
- 4th revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=525161399
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User:Gwillhickers reported by User:Quarkgluonsoup (Result: No violation)
Gwillhickers Gwillhickers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [251]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [256]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [257]
Comments:
Gwillhickers has violated 3rr again and has a history of whole sale reversions of whatever he doesn't happen to like. I have tried to deal with him and compromise, though he will have none of it. I even made major changes to the edits he kept reverting though he simply reverts back, and as you can see on the talk page, doesn't even respond when I try to discuss with him.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)- "whole sale reversions"?? Nonsense. All my edits involved restoring deleted and sourced content removed by the complaining editor with no discussion. All content was sourced and arrived at by discussion and consensus. I am not sure whether or not my restoring content, my 'reverts', have exceeded the limit allowable within 24 hours, and if it has, I apologize. This is not the first time Quarkgluonsoup has come to the troubled and controversial Jefferson page and has made massive edits and deletions with no discussions and with an apparent contempt for consensus. Quarkgluonsoup's immediate and recent edit history and his/her unwillingness to communicate with fellow editors speak for itself. I will refrain from further edits on the Thomas Jefferson page until this matter is resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your claims and sources were highly dubious, though despite this I retained the sources in my efforts to clean up the mess you made. I changed my edits in response to your claims, though you refused to discuss it and just reverted everything four separate times. This very controversial section (Thomas Jefferson and slavery) was in much better shape a few months ago but somehow most of the citations then have mystery been deleted. You have no respect for the facts, just your goal of using Wikipedia as a sounding board to rewrite history.
- Regardless, your 4 edits within 24 hours violated 3rr.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Insert : More nonsense, with nothing specific to show for. All content is sourced, and you have got zero evidence that says otherwise -- your generic attack on the many sources involved notwithstanding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless, your 4 edits within 24 hours violated 3rr.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The last two reported edits are one after another 2012-12-02T06:21:31 and 2012-12-02T06:27:18 and so are simply one revert by definition. The time between the other reported edits 2012-12-01T09:25:42 and 2012-12-02T06:12:31 is very large. Barely 24 hours between the first reported edit and the last set. The warning was made at 2012-12-02T06:40:03. Does not seem to be a case here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Two reverts are two reverts. There is no Wikipedia policy definition that says two reverts count as one. Wikipedia policy is "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." 4 reverts in 24 hours violate the rule, regardless of how they are spaced.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given your edit history and lack of discussions I guess all you can do now is insist that Görlitz follow 'the' letter of the law -- all the while you continue to ♠ 08:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Two reverts are two reverts. There is no Wikipedia policy definition that says two reverts count as one. Wikipedia policy is "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." 4 reverts in 24 hours violate the rule, regardless of how they are spaced.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
User:DrKiernan(Result: Page protected)
User being reported: Miguelemejia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [258]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [263]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia#Anna Anderson
Comments:
This is a very clear and obviously deliberate violation of the three revert rule.talk) 09:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)- Page protected Since you've been pushing the limit yourself, I don't think it's fair to block him by WP:LETTER. Therefore I have protected the page for 1 week to allow you two to discuss it out on the talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)(Result: 24 hours )
User:Akashasr reported by User:Sitush
User being reported: Akashasr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [264]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [269]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- this on their talk page
- Responses here
- ... and here
- ... and here
Comments:
) 17:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Contributor seems to know their way around, having also opened a premature discussionUser:Sepsis II reported by User:Ryan Vesey (but everybody is at fault) (Result: Warned)
User being reported: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (Ignoring this)- Reverts by Sepsis II
- 1st revert: [diff] Note that this revert was not within 24 hours of the most current edit war over the issue
- 2nd revert: [270]
- 3rd revert: [271]
- 4th revert: [272]
- Reverts by Brewcrewer
- Initial addition, not a revert [273]
- 1st revert: [274] not within 24 hours of most current edit war over the issue
- 2nd revert: [275]
- Revert by Epeefleche
- 1st revert: [276]
- Revert by They think it's all over
- 1st revert: [277]
- Revert by FreeRangeFrog
- 1st revert: [278]
- Action by Ryan Vesey
- Action [279] (Note added to talk page)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [280] [281]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [282]
Comments:
So this report is pretty complex. Brewcrewer added {{SPA}} to two editors in the AFD discussion. One of them was Sepsis II. The discussion set off an edit war, first between Brewcrewer and Sepsis II, and later Epeefleche, They think it's all over, and FreeRangeFrog who each only have one revert. I created a notice section on the talk page after noticing the beginning of the recent phase of the revert war. Brewcrewer has not reverted after that, while 2 of Sepsis II's reverts and the reverts from each of the other three editors came after that point. Sepsis II's talk page shows deleted messages from each of the editors who restored the tag, I haven't gone too deep into that issue. Sepsis II seems to be the most liable in this situation; however, I am not advocating for or against any administrative action against any of these editors, I am just attempting to provide a comprehensive view of the situation and I ask for an administrator to step in so this discussion can be resolved. Ryan Vesey 01:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)- Sorry, but what? The SPA tag says that the account named "has made few or no other edits outside this topic." So fucking what? I have "made few or no other edits outside" the broader topics in which I have an interest in on wikipedia, also, as is the case for the vast majority of editors here. If the application of the tag is appropriate here, then we should probably all be tagged with SPA. That being said, Sepsis II's edit history seems to indicate that s/he is editing within the broader topic of the Israel-Palestine conflict, therefore s/he should not be considered an SPA per WP:SPATG. Removal of the tag, then, in practicality applies due to it being an exception based on reverting vandalism.
- On the other hand, the use and insistence that it be used through reverting seems to be a case of Argumentum ad Hominem. If anyone should be in for sanctions, it should be those reverting his/her removal of the tag. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs] 02:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I know this has been 'closed' however, my action was based on Sepsis II's edit history. I do not see an SPA there, thus my revert of the application of the tag. An SPA is an obvious attempt to manipulate the discussion, much like yelling "sockpuppet" in a crowded AfD. §FreeRangeFrog 02:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Warned. I've warned the editors on the AfD talk page (not on all of their individual pages - Ryan may be willing to do all that work, but not me). The gist of it is that no editor should add a SPA tag to any other editor's vote for the duration of the AfD. The whole thing is really silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
User:72.208.223.99 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 24 hours)
User being reported: 72.208.223.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [283]- 1st revert: [284]
- 2nd revert: [285]
- 3rd revert: [286]
- 4th (and sort of 5th) revert: [287] and [288]]
- Not a revert, but a false edit summary: There's a quote explicitly stating that Marx wrote eschatology, and the sentence removed never claims that Camus wrote eschatology!
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [289]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [290]
Comments:
User has been edit warring to insert original research, refusing to acknowledge that he was engaging in original research, and refusing to acknowledge that we do not accept original research. The fourth and fifth reverts were manual and partial reverts, but still restoration of the material he was edit warring over, verbatim. The fourth is also counter toWP:LEDE, which states that the lede summarizes the rest of the article (if he was really concerned about removing uncited material instead of simply restoring his edit, he'd have removed the last four paragraphs of the intro, anyway). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)User:Earth100 reported by User:Inks.LWC (Result: Not blocked (for now))
User being reported: Earth100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [291]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [296]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [297]
Comments:
The edit war seems to be revolving around 1) expanding an image caption and 2) which image should be used. For simplicity, I've only given diffs to the war on the caption, becaus the war over the image itself is a bit more split up, and would be harder for me to link diffs to. Since both parties violated 3RR on the caption, I thought including diffs on the image war would be redundant, so I haven't included that. If the admin who deals with this case would like me to do that, I'll do so as well.Inks.LWC (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)I need to slightly amend my previous statement, as the war involves both an image and its caption and a second image: The edit war seems to be revolving around 1) changing an image and expanding its caption and 2) changing another image. For simplicity, I've only given diffs to the war on first image (with the caption war), becaus the war over the second image is a bit more split up, and would be harder for me to link diffs to. Since both parties violated 3RR on the first image, I thought including diffs on the second image war would be redundant, so I haven't included that. If the admin who deals with this case would like me to do that, I'll do so as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think I was of much help, but I appreciate your professional, non-confrontational style in discussing the issues.--
- Thanks Bbb23 for looking into the matter. Probably the best way for me to stop this disruption would be to get involved in the content issue. I will dig in for some reliable sources on the topic whenever I get time. --SMS Talk 21:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- My error, I read it wrong. I've put a general sanctions template on the talk page, but I don't feel comfortable notifying the editor. Only one editor has ever been notified, and only a few have ever been sanctioned. The decision itself is fairly general, and I'm not sure it should be applied here. I don't think you'll get very far with
- Its ARBIPA (India-Pakistan-Afghanistan) not ARBPIA. ARBIPA allows admins to issue discretionary sanction (DS) in this topic area. Previously most of my edit warring (not 3RR) reports were closed without an action, so I assumed it this time happening again and that is why suggested a warning about DS at least. Also because the editors overall edits look problematic (furthering a POV) to me. And it was just my opinion, of course I am also not an expert in DS matters. --SMS Talk 20:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
