Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 72h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive90.
→‎User:Radeksz reported by M.K. (talk) (Result: warned): rm warning by P: sorry, you're involved, and your warning might look misleadingly "official"
Line 843: Line 843:


Can't see a technical violation here - rv 3 is 't obviously an rv and you haven't bothered explain why it is. Edit warring from both sides, who may consider themselves warned. R seems to have done most in initiating talk pae discussion; M encouraged to reply [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Can't see a technical violation here - rv 3 is 't obviously an rv and you haven't bothered explain why it is. Edit warring from both sides, who may consider themselves warned. R seems to have done most in initiating talk pae discussion; M encouraged to reply [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:And MK is encouraged to stop block shopping against users he doesn't like.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


== [[User:Galassi|Galassi]] reported by [[User:Volodymir_k|Volodymir_k]] (Result: Note left on talk ) ==
== [[User:Galassi|Galassi]] reported by [[User:Volodymir_k|Volodymir_k]] (Result: Note left on talk ) ==

Revision as of 09:04, 5 February 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    Reports

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    Special:Contributions/91.130.91.84 reported by User:THF (Result: Stale)


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [7]
    Stale - Sorry that the admins overlooked this report. The body of the report should normally include the date it was filed. The IP you complained about kept changing Ramanujan's nationality from Indian to Tamil, but he appears to have stopped editing that article. If there are any ongoing issues, please submit a new report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Russavia reported by User:Grey Fox-9589 (Result: Article is protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [8]


    • 1st revert: [9] (13:40/17:53 January 31)
    • 2nd revert: [10] (12:07/14:42 February 1st)
    • 3rd revert: [11] (16:16/18:01 February 1st)
    • 4th revert: [12] (19:37/19:52 February 1st)
    • 5th revert: [13] (20:14/22:11 February 1st)


    • The first revert isn't necessarily part of the 3rr, but it's where the revert warring started, the two reverts after that are self-evident. The fourth revert changed the content in something controversial, (and something that is factually incorrect too (His revert regarding Borizovsky is incorrect too since he bought the company kommersant not in 1998 but in 1999[14]). In his final revert, admist the minor changes he removed a title called ==dissidence==, something he had also done in his first and second revert and something which me and two other users attempted to discuss on the talk page.[15] and he did so before replying there.
    • Maybe this isn't the right place but this user is also acting pretty disruptive. During the revert warring at 18:48 Russavia also posted a message on the talk page of User:Biophys he was warring with (he was previously blocked for herassing this user), saying the other user was disruptive[16] and accusing him of a lot of other bad stuff. At the time the other user had made two reverts. On the talk page of the Litvinenko page he had also pointed out that this user doesn't WP:OWN this article which I think is exactly how he's editing. Perhaps unrelated, but he often accuses users of being disruptive even when they make good faith edits. Apparently there was more revert warring by Russavia today at a page which he's trying to get deleted.[17] where he responded to the same User:Biophys with More disruption from Biophys - he didn't include any sources for the second paragraph - i'm getting sick of the WP:TEND editing by this pov-pusher
    • Diff of 3RR warning: This user is well-aware of the 3 revert rule which he has broken several times before. I've reported him once before as well, and wasn't sure if I should do the same thing again, because last time it caused a lot of emotions. I'm still doing it because it's unfair, since I'm now not allowed to revert his actions back when I disagree with them as this can get me blocked too. I've also seen people getting blocked for just edit warring when they hadn't broken 3rr. I embrace such policies because it's not pleasant discussing issues like that. Grey Fox (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I made two series of edits in Litvinenko today, and none of them was revert. Biophys (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am more than happy to take whatever punishment is given out to me, and thank again guys for not again advising me of this. First to deal with Biophys' "evidence". Those revision were removing WP:BLP that Biophys and Martintg re-inserted into the article, unless of course it is totally ok to accuse people of war crimes without a single reference:

    A few days after receiving the medal, Glebov was accused of committing war crimes by targeting the Chechen civilian population while leading a Russian Airborne Troops unit (119th Airborne Regiment). The prosecution claimed that Glebov shot dozens of unarmed Chechen men during an unsanctioned military operation in Grozny, and then placed weapons near their bodies in order to fabricate a victory. The case was eventually shelved and Glebov was allowed to retire.

    Where exactly is the source for this? At least when Biophys tried to present the accusation that Putin was a paedophile in an article as fact he used a reference (to a fringe, terrorist website). Both Biophys and Martintg have re-inserted unreferenced WP:BLP into the article, where's the punishment for them? I bet there will be NONE AS USUAL (William Connelly, you reading this?).

    The Litvinenko is not 3RR, it is called article improvement. The first link is improvement. Revert 1 and 2----just because Biophys engages in WP:TEDIOUS editing by insisting that I discuss my edits for inclusion, well I got news for him. WP:TEDIOUS states:

    There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict WP:BOLD. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[67] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

    The Arbcom which this is linked to is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive. This basically says that Biophys has been disruptive. Wikipedia is not a debating society, nor is it a place to engage in advocacy. So he can claim he has only done two reverts, but his reverts are clearly disruptive as per that arbcom decision.

    Revert 3 is again more article improvement, rewording and fixing of sources, etc. Revert 4, is well changing a sentence structure, and well, removing whitespace, fixing wikicode, etc (you know all those menial tasks that most usually shy away from).

    In regards to Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union is not Russia (as much as Biophys likes to portray). We have Allegations of state terrorism by the Soviet Union in which Soviet-era allegations are separation in order to keep NPOV (we don't include Ukraine, Estonia, Moldova, etc in this articles so we?). It appears Hmains was unaware that the other article existed, hence he reverted. Unfortunately yes, I did breach 3RR, as did Hmains, and unfortunately, it is not possible for me to revert my 3RR as Hmains has been able to do. It appears this is a result of a misunderstanding, and it can be discussed like adults and without disruption from people such as Biophys.

    Anyway, this will all likely fall on deaf ears too, so just block me, give everyone else a free pass and be done with it, as per is usually done around here. And of course, it doesn't matter that I'm not editing those articles at the moment due to myself writing up evidence for WP:AE for the issues such as I mentioned above. Russavia Dialogue 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This editor has also been edit warring in the article on The Economist: [18] and [19]. I think that a block would be in order. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with regard to The Economist, regardless of my previous disagreements with Russavia. He made just two reverts, and note that his piece was sourced. We could argue on talk, whether this section needs curtailing, but it definitely deserves inclusion. I'd acquit Russavia of that charge. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Normally I would agree, but it is part of a wider pattern of nationalist POV pushing and general incivility. Any attempts to rationally discuss content issues are met with rant of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Martintg (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, and he made 3 reverts on The economist actually. 3rr clearly states The rule applies per page; reverts spread across multiple pages so that an editor does not revert a single page more than three times do not violate the rule (but may indicate disruptive editing). I'm pretty sure this is the case. The way Russavia replied here is pretty much how he usually replies, apparently we've broken loads of rules systemetically, and therefore he is allowed to behave like this. Any good faith edit he does not like is the breaking of a rule according to him. He will type up giant paragraphs in which he accuses users of a lot of bad things and also recalls disputes from a long time ago that have nothing to do with the actual dispute, such as an apparent quote about "paedophilia" from a year ago. I understand people do not enjoy arguing with this guy 24 hours a day.
    As for the reverts for the Litvinenko not being reverts, I don't think you get the defenition of WP:Revert Russavia. In the first revert you edited a lot of stuff written by other users, so that's undoubtly a revert. The 2nd and 3rd revert are not justified because Biophys broke a rule; he didn't, I agreed with his edits since you typed up a lot of material that was obviously non-neutral. The revert after that was also a clear revert Russavia, you replaced information about berezeovskiy with something that's not true. I could go on, but it's no use. No matter how obvious it is that you've done wrong, you will never see it this way yourself. Grey Fox (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NOT NEUTRAL? Are you f'ing kidding me? Show me just what was not neutral? What exactly is NOT NEUTRAL about this:

    Livtinenko met Boris Berezovsky in 1994 when he took part in investigations into an assassination attempt on the oligarch. He later began to moonlight for Berezovsky where he was responsible for the oligarch's security.[12] The moonlighting by Litvinenko and other security services personnel was illegal, but the State somewhat tolerated it in order to retain personnel who were at the time underpaid.[12] In 1997, Litvinenko was promoted to the FSB Directorate of Analysis and Suppression of Criminal Groups, with the title of senior operational officer and deputy head of the Seventh Section.[14] According to Dimitri Simes, the Directorate was viewed as much as a part of organised crime as it was of law enforcement.[15] Litvinenko's moonlighting for the controversial businessman was not investigated, but often investigations in Russia were selective and often targetted only at those who had stepped out of line.[12] Throughout his career he was not an 'intelligence agent' and did not deal with secrets beyond information on operations against organised criminal groups.

    Everything I write is sourced to a reliable source, in this case a scholarly source, and you too are claiming it is not neutral? The problem that Biophys and you have is that it tells in a neutral way that he was moonlighting for Berezovsky, that the moonlighting was illegal (yet overlooked by the govt), and that his unit was regarded as much as a part of organised crime as it was of law enforcement (I do find it somewhat funny that people such as Biophys like to portray Russia as a corrupt, police state, yet don't like this information in this article? Why the hell is that? It's not accusing the person of being corrupt, mind you). Your words about me inserting false information about Berezovsky, I believe you are referring to the statement "in the newspaper that he owned at the time"? This was an error on my part, as there is also information to be included on their appearance on ORT, which is what was owned by Berezovsky at the time. That does not excuse the massive revert of relevant, sourced information presented in an NPOV fashion, however. --Russavia Dialogue 15:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not going to bother discuss all that here Russavia, you should have discussed this at the talk page instead of the edit warring. There are a lot of concerns with the way you are trying to portray this man's biography, but I'm not going to raise them here. Grey Fox (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Normally I would agree, but it is part of a wider pattern of nationalist POV pushing and general incivility. Any attempts to rationally discuss content issues are met with rant of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Martintg (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nationalist POV pushing? What a laugh. I am Australian, as are you Martintg. You have never tried discussing a damned thing with myself, and the only time you have ever had a thing to say on my talk page, it was basically you telling me that you were going to create Putin-Dobby. So, Mr Putinland do not accuse me of being a nationalist POV pusher, and don't forget to tell these fine folk that you are also stalking my edits. --Russavia Dialogue 14:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nick-D, as I said on your talk page, you removed sourced material from an article. If you think it is too much, then fine, edit it, and reduce it. As another editor ended up doing (which was then removed as trivia (b/s). Regardless of we think, we write about what sources tell us, and the opinion of a "western" journalist who was based in Russia on a "western" magazine's reporting in Russia, is notable to some degree. Also note the inclusion of the example of The Economist's reporting of the Irish famine, that too is quite notable as one can see here which states "A month later, which another season of starvation looming, The Economist, peering down from the heights of ideological purity, condemned was it regarded as the disastrous result of the Government's intervention in the Irish economy" and "The Economist, the The Times", normalised the horror of the Famine, and, by doing so, erased it. Ideologically inspired propaganda cynically ignored or denied reality". and "The most brutal, cowardly, and calumnious libels were found in the English press upon the Irish people, whose conduct ought to be lauded. There was the ruffian Times, and then The Economist, the free trader...but all these papers had levelled their brutalities at the people of Ireland. The Economist had basely charged the Irish people with flinging themselves like slaves upon the bounty of the English - without energy or exertion...these outrageous attacks upon the people were evidence that nothing would be done effectively for the relief of Irish distress...". That is from a book entitled "Daniel O'Connell, the British Press, and the Irish Famine". This too is all notable opinion which deserves a place in the article. But you chose to delete the entire lot, without discussion, and my IP stalker and others have decided to game the system by arguing to exlude ALL Russian sources from this article too, thereby arguing to exclude any notion of any "Russian POV" from WP, unless of course it agreed with their own POV. Be damned with that rubbish. --Russavia Dialogue 14:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm Australian", that doesnt matter Russavia. You've been told recently by an admin too. You not being ethnically Russian is not an excuse to behave like that. Grey Fox (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And that admin is at least going to hear my side of things. So Grey-Fox, where is the scorn for Martintg's stalking of my edits and general harrassment? Do I do this to you guys? Not on your life mister. --Russavia Dialogue 14:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have made so many baseless accusations of everybody being out to get you, stalking you or whatever, that nobody cares anymore. That is one of the reasons why it's harmful to cry wolf. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about Martintg Russavia, I have not interacted with him. Have you tried asking him on his userpage? I don't stalk you that I know. In many of the articles you and I edit, I was active long before you was. You're 68th on the List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits, it's no surprise that you encounter many of the same users everywhere, especially since most of your editing is about glorifying the Russian government. Grey Fox (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what Grey-Fox...perhaps if we didn't have articles stating Putin is a paedophile, I wouldn't need to "glorify the Russian government". It's got nothing to do with glorifying anybody or anything. It has to do with providing a multitude of views with conform with NPOV. Until such time as articles are NPOV, and cover all major views, then I will continue to participate in this project. Of course, if you really want to get rid of me, then I would encourage people of writing articles from a NPOV stance in the first place, instead of simply "dishing the dirt". --Russavia Dialogue 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The funny thing is there has never been such an article, it's all in your head. Grey Fox (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All in my head? "Among those who knew about Putin's paedophilia...", does that ring any bells with you? Not only does it state a matter of fact, but it also claims others know. --Russavia Dialogue 16:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, do you remember what happened when I reworded the above in order to make it clear it was an accusation, and also added information from other sources on this claim, which called it "wild" and "unsubstantiated"? I do, a "compromise version" version was made, in which all material which I added was removed, and the claim was re-presented as fact as above. Do you remember what happened then? I do, there was gaming of the system going on, in which I was blocked and the editor who re-inserted these statements of fact got off scott-free, and the blocking admins totally ignored any report of BLP, and refused to even look at it. Want to guess who did that "compromise version"? They do these "compromise versions" a lot where they remove ALL edits by other editors in a sign of ownership of articles and revert back to their own desired version. And I am the one being accused of POV-pusing....go figure. --Russavia Dialogue 16:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Russavia the reason why nobody else was blocked was because there was no BLP violation. The quote above was placed in quote itself, so that they only showed the words of Litvinenko, and not a statement of fact. You made the entire BLP violation thing up, and it seems that after 4 months you still haven't gotten over it, because you've been alleging this constantly in unrelated discussions. Yes it was indeed all in your head. Grey Fox (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of that was irrelevant. The only relevant question: can a user violate 3RR rule simultaneously in two articles, conduct edit waring in several others, and believe that he was right and everyone else was wrong. If this is fine, no block or other actions (such as placing him to Digwuren list) would be required.Biophys (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Biophys, Grey Fox and Martintg appear to be working in concert to get Russavia blocked, I'd like to point out, that in my view these three users have a strong history of tendentious editing, and share an (unusually strong) agenda in WP. They have also themselves been involved in edit warring and (at least near-) violations of 3RR. As far as I can see, most of the "controversial" edits by Russavia are merely attempts to fix the unbalance created by the trio's edits. I think that any admin making a decision should take into account the behaviour of the three users mentioned. Every editor should be treated equally. Offliner (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've actually never really interacted with Martintg before, you're just making stuff up because you seem to have the same agenda as Russavia, judging from this and your behaviour at various Russian related articles. Grey Fox (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Will an admin just block me and User:Hmains already and be done with this shit. I have argued that I am in favour of the equal treatment for all, and I will continue to argue for that in future. Both myself and Hmains have breached 3RR, so just block us and be done with it. Unlike many I take responsibility for my edits on WP. --Russavia Dialogue 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • No reason to block any user who (like Hmanis) politely debated the problem, apologized, self-reverted and did not fire any personal accusations. That was actually Russavia who came to his talk page with threats: "Now I will remeber you". Biophys (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean self-reverted after you left a message on his talk page, encouraging him to do so, so that you could report me after he had done so? HAHA. You play a good WP:GAME Biophys. Anyway, in the words of the very same admins who refused to block you but blocked me, blocking is supposed to be preventative, and blind freddy can see there is no edit warring or reverting going on, and there hasn't been before this report was brought here. But still block me anyway, right? --Russavia Dialogue 18:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmains has never been blocked for violating 3rr before Russavia, you have. It's only natural for Biophys to inform him on the rule. Grey Fox (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I don't give a fig if Hmains has been blocked before, whether Biophys games the system, or whatever. I, unlike many, will take responsibility for their edits on WP, and not act dumb and outright bullshit like some, so will an admin block me already so that these people can sit back and rejoice in yet another victory for their pedantic ownership and their outright POV-editing of articles, and when I return, I will join you all over at WP:AE. It's like you people think I really care, it's the internet for shit's sake. --Russavia Dialogue 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given his blocklog of previous 3RR violations, this current report of 3RR across multiple articles, his combative attitude and the fact that EE topics are under discretionary sanctions (under which provisions he was previously blocked), a long block is in order here. Martintg (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of order. I was never blocked under that arbcom, it was for alleged WP:HARRASS\OUTING of Biophys. At no stage was I ever advised of that Arbcom at the point of blocking, and I will be asking for that to be removed. As to my "combative attitude" what the f' does one honestly expect when they are being stalked and harrassed all around WP by you and others Martintg. Most hilarious is that you are bringing up my alleged harrass/outing of Biophys, but by all tokens you are guilty of the same thing. Nice attempt to game though there Martin ;) --Russavia Dialogue 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear, what a delightful mess. Let's start with Glebov: [20] removed source which states unverifiable things). If you (Ru) mean, removed for BLP violation, you need to say so. Furthermore, there is no requirement for sources to be verified, only that they be reliable. Whether these ones are or not I can't say. This [[21]] is a slightly closer attempt, but should not say "unsourced" (because it clearly is sourced). Your complaint, if you have one, is over the reliability of the source. Anyway, no-one says you've broken 3RR there so I'll drop that.

    Allegations of state terrorism by Russia is closer, but I'm not sure why #3 [22] is a revert. Hmains has 4R in the last 24h, without even counting his rv/self-rv pair, so gets a Warning re edit warring.

    Alexander Litvinenko ditto. If you're going to report reverts which aren't obvious, please include sufficient explanation to make them obvious.

    All seems rather summed up by the presumably unintentionally ambiguous I've reverted Russavia's attempt to remove mention of dissidence before it could be resolved here on talk.

    In short: there is edit warring on both sides and you need to talk (civily; again, warnings). I'm not inclined to block either side of this mess for the moment, but certainly will if you continue William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for recognising that there was edit warring on all sides. I have admitted my part, yet no-one else is. And I will discuss issues, so long as it is real discussion for improvement of articles, instead of going thru the motions of talking to a brick wall with article owners. Given that, if this issue is now closed, I am off back to editing. --Russavia Dialogue 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    William could you please explain who else has been edit warring? There's only been one user whose made more than two reverts I think. I was also thought that 3rr is like an electric fence. I've also seen loads of users getting blocked for making three reverts on a single page, let alone more than a numerous pages. Concerning Russavia, this isn't an incident, but it's systematic and that's why I reported him. Another question, does this mean that you are going to watch the pages in question now? Or someone else will? Thanks. Grey Fox (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Edit warring by Russavia (aided by Offliner) in Litvinenko just resumed: [23]. Note that Russavia was previuosly blocked for edit warring over the same article.Biophys (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on, end this block fishing already. Everyone can see that there is no edit warring going on, just normal article improvement, with discussion and well argumented edit summaries. Offliner (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that was new revert by Russavia. That was a good article. Not any more.Biophys (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can not believe the audacity of this Biophys. I reverted the article because THE LEAD IS A COPYVIO as per the edit diff, but Biophys being a (you don't want to know what I think about his bullshit) conveniently forgets to make this clearly known here, and he also fails to mention that I have posted on the talk page, and Grey-Fox and I have come to a quick agreement, that I will rewrite the lead and will post this on the talk page first, so that it can be discussed. Quit the shit and nuttery Biophys, I've have a f'ing gutful of it. Hopefully the admins will see this, and you, for what you are, and what you are doing here. --Russavia Dialogue 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Biophys is partially wrong, probably because of his believe that reverts only count when they are major reverts. The one who was edit warring was offliner who made 3 reverts, not you Russavia. At the same time the way you reply to this is completely below standards. Grey Fox (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately Russavia continue to blindly revert any constructive changes in this article instead of looking for a compromise:
    • 1st revert
    • 2nd revert.Biophys (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, it appears Biophys is going to run back here everytime an edit is done to the article. It was indeed Biophys who demanded that we discuss changes to the article (in a sign of WP:OWN, because it negates WP:BOLD), so myself, Offliner and Grey Fox have been discussing the lead, in the 3 of us have managed to come up with a compromise for, with one matter still under discussion. Biophys has then come along and made unilateral changes to the article which goes completely against his own demands to discuss the article. His edits do not have consensus, and have not been discussed on the talk page. We are trying to create a neutral article here, and we are working on the lead first, and in a sign of WP:AGF myself, Offliner and Grey-Fox are discussing the article, it doesn't help when people who have had a demand of discussion thrown upon them are discussing, whilst the one making the demands is making such changes. Now Biophys is welcome to discuss also, but if he is going to make changes in such a way, it will be resisted given his demands on us. His inclusion of information for which there is not consensus is not helpful, and he surely knows that. --Russavia Dialogue 05:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to protect Alexander Litvinenko article until there is some consensus on the dispute. Please work towards these consensus on the talk pages. Please discuss behavior of other editors on the RfC's, not the 3RR board. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Russavia is also continuing to edit war on The Economist article, and is still re-adding material which has no support in the dicussion on the article's talk page: [24] and [25] Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am questioning the first few of the people on the talk page as they are not here to help build an encyclopaedia, they are here to advocate (as is obvious by their consistent arguing in favour of exclusion of any Russian sources...in order to not allow any of that POV to come thru, unless it comes from a fringe newspaper such as Novaya Gazeta, and they don't want anything bad being said in favour of Russia on WP. I, however, am here to help build an encyclopaedia, and balanced "criticism" (not the type of negative criticism for criticism sake) is warranted. If I have to provide another ten sources (which will be in Russian) to demonstrate the opinion (and this is how it is presented) that they are anti-Russian and engage in biased coverage of Russia, I will do it. And I have also mentioned, that I will also include information on their reporting of the Irish famine, which will take into account their POV also, which one can see I have already started doing. Nick, you have not assumed good faith, even calling my edits "politically motivated". I'm not a card-carrying member of United Russia (believe it or not, although I'm not Russian, I used to support Yabloko), so there is no political motivation in my edits, but rather the need to present alternative POV on the subject. As it stands now the article needs Template:Advert, Template:POV and Template:Refimprove templates on it, as over half of the 60-odd sources are sourced to The Economist itself. It seems to me that because the section is "criticism", you believe in not AGF that I have only the intention of including materials which bash the magazine, and that is not the case. A magazine which makes its business in criticising others, it is only natural that others are going to criticise it also. And as much of that Economist criticism is scattered all over Russian topics, it is only fair that a sentence of opinion on that criticism is present in their article. Or is The Economist is somehow immune where all other articles are not? So yes, I have reinserted the materials, and also starting to expand upon it in relation to Ireland, because by WP:IAR, it is my firm belief that your objections for inclusion are not within the spirit of WP:AGF. Like I've said, block me, it really doesn't phase me, I'm here for the betterment of the project, and won't allow myself to be sidelined first by my stalkers who try to game the system, policies and guidelines, and then by people who have not AGF with those edits. AGF, and then you will see that you are sorely mistaken with both your own opinion on myself and my edits. --Russavia Dialogue 11:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are the one who has been trying to pass issues with the editorial positions The Economist took in the middle of 19th century as fresh and valid criticism of the newspaper after failure of your earlier attempt to pass The eXile's insult comedy piece as such a criticism, you really, really shouldn't be the one to complain about "negative criticism for criticism sake". Glass houses are rather fragile, you know. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


    • Previous version reverted to: [26]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [32]

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

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

    Ydnar12 reported by Plastikspork (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [33]


    • 1st revert: [34] (removed white font)
    • 2nd revert: [35] (removed white font)
    • 3rd revert: [36] (removed white font)
    • 4th revert: [37] (may or may not be same user, but same edit)
    • 5th revert: [38] (may or may not be same user, but same edit)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

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

    I don't know if this is entirely relevant, but here are links to the same revert on the Season 2 page: [40], [41], [42]. I stopped editing that section after the last linked revert. Plastikspork (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    3RR

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

    Notably,

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

    Disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    InaMaka reported by User:Showwould40q (Result: no vio)

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]


    • 1st revert: [46]
    • 2nd revert: [link]
    • 3rd revert: [link]
    • 4th revert: [link]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [47]

    Please follow this link [48] for more information.

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

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

    Siru108

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

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

    PRODUCER reported by Onyxig (Result: 1 week each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [49]


    Last 24hrs

    Previously (same section + other)


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

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

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

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

    [56]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [61]

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

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

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

    User:NothingWorthy at ExxonMobil (result: 24h)

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

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

    User:Ingushetia reported by User:Folantin (Result: indef)

    • Previous version reverted to: [62]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [69]

    User has long history of adding the same tendentious material to the article (it violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH). No communication on the article talk page. No response to recommendation on user talk page that he should undo his fourth revert. Deceptive edit summaries. Two other users have reverted his edits [70] [71] and warned him about 3RR in the summaries. The first also warned him he could be blocked without warning on the talk page [72]. --Folantin (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update User has now added what I presume is a false anti-vandal protection template claiming the article is protected (in his version, of course) until May [73]. --Folantin (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Blueboar, User:MSJapan and User:WegianWarrior reported by User:Ukufwakfgr (Result:no vio)

    This concerns the article Masonic conspiracy theories. User:Blueboar is unilaterally making edits that are still under discussion, and hiding them behind minor edits.

    The article had gone without a revision for 5 months, and was biased. The changes that I made were undone by User:WegianWarrior with the reason that the article is already excruciatingly neutral or something like that. Suddenly, however their interest has been renewed, and have made more than a handful of unilateral edits in the past few days, claiming deceptively that such edits were "discussed."

    There is reason to suspect that these users may engage in edit-warring as well as revert-warring. User:Blueboar has already been blocked for violating 3RR. This has been mentioned in Wikiquette alerts as well as the noticeboards of: conflicts of interest and neutral points of view. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:WQA tagged NWQA and referred back here. Gerardw (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm so what you are saying is that you are edit warring with 3 different people and they are all in the wrong and you are in the right? Theresa Knott | token threats 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that there is reason to suspect, and look at the edit logs for yourself. They are full of unilateral changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Blueboar has "already been blocked for violating 3RR". Three years ago. Unblocked after ten hours. Never been blocked again. Clearly, a recidivist hardened criminal. Throw the book at him!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you have more to contribute than sarcasm. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You got to admit though that it's bloody impressive how such a new user as Ukufwakfgr could find someone's block log like that. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read through the lengthy discussion at Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories and was wondering where User:Ukufwakfgr got the cajones to accuse the others of edit warring. His posts are one rude personal attack after another laced with foul language. The article is quite NPOV and his edits are clearly attempts to insert POV. (Taivo (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Please discusss why on the talk page, and actually read it instead of pre-judging or cherry-picking. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe he stated that he did in fact read the page. Theresa Knott | token threats 00:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He obviously skimmed through the more sensationalistic parts. Not good faith. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I have indeed read the Talk page. It's a sad commentary on how one person can disrupt carefully crafted neutral wording with what appears to be a nit-picking agenda. And the nit-picking is not always well-informed or even accurate. I have seen that Blueboar et al. have carefully and patiently tried to deal with Ukufwakfgr, but to no avail. Ukufwakgr's posts tend to be rude and insulting and when he doesn't think that others are paying enough attention to him he reverts to foul language. (Taivo (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Baseless allegations. Flamebait. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    While I don't want to get involved in the particulars, I'd like to say that just because Uku (don't mind if I call you that, right?) is the minority view here doesn't mean he should be ridiculed or ignored. Not to say he has been, but there's been a bit of irrelevant discussion concerning him which isn't the most productive thing that could be done. Likewise, Uku, try to be a bit more civil and collected. I'd encourage everyone to take to the talk page, including Uku, and sort out your differences there. If that can't be done, someone get back to me and I'll protect the page, but only if I see evidence of discussion that has been ignored by the warring party. Any questions, comments, concerns are welcome here or on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Two more users accounts are involved: Theresa Knott Taivo

    All 5 of them are acting in a grossly uncivil manner by repeatedly requesting that I comply with what I believe to be an unreasonable demand (to select one of my talking points and re-state it, even though each talking point has been discussed already). They have outrightly rejected my counter-proposal without discussion, and seem to agree on pretty much everything.

    Theresa Knott has abused her administrative priviliges by "redlinking" me, deleting portions of a comment I made, and providing additional support to the other users instead of demonstrating impartiality. She, along with Blueboar seem to be trying to play good-cop-bad-cop.

    Taivo has taken to engaging in revert wars in the talk page itself, calling my desired changes ugly or something like that. That user has hypocritically accused me of trolling, and has tried to remove the POV tag.

    So far, about 10 unilateral changes have been made to the page in the past 5 days, mainly by Blueboar and Taivo. I would really like to see this dispute resolved, if at all, rather than to resort to protecting the page. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Love the implication that they are sockpuppets by using the strikeout tag... classy, real classy. If a multiple of exeprienced users talls you that you're doing it wrong, and only you think otherwise, chances are good that you are, in fact, doing it wrong. Just saying...
    Any editwarring taking place is done by Ukufwakfgr, not to mention his breach of other rules and policies. I encourage everyone to read through his contributions and make up their minds. 158.112.84.234 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Majority doesn't rule on Wikipedia. More baseless allegations. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LOTRrules reported by User:yoganate79 (Result:no vio)

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

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

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

    User:Spartanad reported by User:Brusegadi (result:page protection)

    Article Arnoldo_Alemán.

    First_Version

    First_Revert

    Second_Revert

    Third_Revert

    Fourth_Revert

    Warnings:

    First_Warning

    Second_Warning

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

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

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


    • Previous version reverted to: [74] (the issue here is the adding the {{POV}} tag)


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

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

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




    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

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

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

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

    3 IPs reported by Politizer (Result: Protected)



    • 1st revert (Mismatch negativity): [80]
    • 2nd revert (Mismatch negativity): [81]
    • 3rd revert (Mismatch negativity): [82]
    • 4th revert (Mismatch negativity): [83]
    • 5th revert (Mismatch negativity): [84]
    • 6th revert (Mismatch negativity): [85]
    • 1st revert (Neurolinguistics): [86]
    • 2nd revert (Neurolinguistics): [87]
    • 3rd revert (Neurolinguistics): [88]


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

    Basically, the user started out repeatedly removing these two refs and saying they were "typographically inconsistent." I restored them and explained to him that it's inappropriate to remove refs because of the format in which they're typed; rather, he was welcome to change the format. He continued removing them (for a while using that same "inconsistent" reason), eventually starting to say basically "this section is about the MMN in general, and those references are about studies of the MMN in langauge"; my response was that even though it's about the linguistic MMN, it's still an example that's illustrative of the general point. But he has continued removing them, saying they're irrelevant and "unprofessional" (I pointed out that WP is not a science journal). He's also been saying people should listen to him because he's at the University of Helsinki, and people should ignore me because I'm just a student (aside: I think most people working on WP are students).

    He has also started to edit war at Neurolinguistics, an article which I have been working on for a long time and just submitted for GA review; I'm worried that his edit warring will destabilize the article to a point where it won't earn the assessment it deserves.

    Note: there are three IPs in this report; all three IPs have participated in reversions at MMN and messages at the talk page, and the last two have participated in reversions at Neurolinguistics as well—137.163.19.99 is the one most recently active. Obviously I'm not looking for a block or anything since it's probably a public IP (and a 24-hour block wouldn't make much difference anyway, given the time interval between this individual's edits), but maybe something along the lines of a ban from editing these pages directly (requiring him/her to suggest changes at Talk) might be appropriate. Also, I realize the reverts have not all been within a 24-hour span, but still I think the history and tendentiousness of the editor is egregious enough to warrant some response. Politizer talk/contribs 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected It is hard to be sympathetic to an editor who is warring to keep a reference out of an article. The use of multiple IPs (all from the same geographic area) does not inspire confidence, since they could be one person who is trying to avoid scrutiny. If this guy has such strong feelings about reference formatting, let him come back as a registered account, and let him wait for a Talk page consensus before making his changes. Both articles are semiprotected for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I just left a message at your page (before I noticed this), but this explanation from you makes me feel better. I noticed, though, that the protection on Neurolinguistics appears to be indef, rather than one-month...would you be able to change it so it expires in a month? Politizer talk/contribs 18:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. I fixed the expiry date. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DreamGuy reported by Collectonian (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: link


    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    Removing entire film's plot section under a false claim of it going against WP:NOT and pointedly ignoring a discussion on the article's talk page (in which consensus agrees the plot is well within guidelines). Technically, these extend beyond 24 hours, but it is obviously pointed and intentional edit warring. He had not edited since the last revert and as soon as he returned, he first removed the 3RR warning from his talk page with a summary of "removed bogus warning -- don't people ave any sense to not template the regulars?"[89] then returned to the article to do a 4th revert immediately afterwards in which he again stripped the entire plot (which, at this point is really vandalism to some degree). This is from an editor with an extensive history of edit warring and numerous blocks for it, including one in December. After his last revert, he also left a rather snarky message on my talk page[90]. Looking at his contribs, it appears he is doing this in multiple film and novel articles, which also speaks to an extensive cross article edit war. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring, no attempt to discuss on talk (unlike you, well done!). 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at his talk page, I'm concerned that this is an overall bigger pattern of a pointy disruption. It seems others on pages he did the same ripping of a plot section to have attempted to discuss and he either ignored completely or indicates that he is doing this because he has decided that WP:NOT forbids any plot summary. He told one editor, who tried to correct his claim, "it's pretty ridiculous for you to show up acting like you know everything and assuming that I must be a newbie ("welcome to Wikipedia") when I've edited this site several years before you ever got here and am the one actually following policies. The only "assistance" you can give me is to do what you are supposed to be doing." Though the issue here may be something for AN/I to look at the overall pattern (he's also doing a lot of pointed editing to biography articles, claiming multiple personalities are not real so removing them from articles where people are said to have them. Even more concerned about his behavior after reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. He clearly knew what he was doing, and just doesn't seem to care. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User with multiple IPs reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: Prot'd. )

    • Previous version reverted to: [91]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [92]


    Grsz11Review 20:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I was coming here to file this, but Grsz beat me to it. If you'll check the page, this IP has been trying to add these people to the page for a month now, and has been reverted by multiple editors. They obviously know what they're doing, as they filed a frivolous edit war complaint against me last night for reverting them, and threatened a 3RR report against anyone who reverted their latest change [93]. They claim to have been providing evidence of notability all along, but have never done so. From their commenst here [94], this IP is also the one responsible for trying to add a list of non-notable valedictorians to the page, so their disruption goes back even farther. Dayewalker (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result - I've protected it for a while (Can't remember how long). ScarianCall me Pat! 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    PUTHANDU.

    Mrinalini Reports IP # 125.17.14.100

    The Tamil new year is subject to some controversy at present. The current Wikipedia entry presents both viewpoints in a seamless text that flows quite well. There are 12 footnotes to back the two sides to the debate.

    IP # 125.17.14.100 however has been single-minded over the past month in removing sections whose evidence is backed with a footnote. The summary deletion of an important sentence, not to mention, removal of key phrases elsewhere means that the text loses useful information and nuance that is otherwise necessary to understand the ongoing debate.

    IP # 125.17.14.100 in turn introduces a PoV without evidence or a citation. This gives an ideological slant to the revised text. He has been consistent in unilaterally deleting information/citation and then replacing it with his PoV. It is one thing if he backs his PoV with evidence/footnote - but he does not. This is disruptive behavior.

    IP # 125.17.14.100 is the only individual involved in such arbitrary reverts and has refused to engage the other editors in the talk page which is the ideal forum to resolve disputes over content. Any point can be introduced provided it is backed with evidence while alternate views are not summarily deleted/replaced.

    He has reverted twice in the latest 24 hour period. He may or may not revert a third time. Please keep an eye and if appropriate help control such disruptive behavior. You had temporarily blocked him before but he always returns to re-engage in the never-ending edit wars where he is the sole individual reverting arbitrarily since January 1 to be precise. This is more than one month where the periods of quiet have been those when he had been blocked. No one else unilaterally deletes as he does. He also seems to confine his edits to this one page alone if one were to look at the record! This seems to be edit warring.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puthandu --MrinaliniB (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tallard reported by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Result: Full prot 72 hours )

    • [95] This is the stable version with the dupe references merged, the trivia section worked in to the main article. A new header added with info from the 1500s that was under "Modern perspectives". I also corrected a damaged url and swapped in a "main" template under a header. I also removed one unsourced statement, and reworded a double negative in a statement to the positive. That statement still needed a change of tense but was reversed before I could correct it.


    • 1st revert: [97] removing my tags added to unsourced facts
    • 2nd revert: [98] reverted and labeled as "vandalism" by her
    • 3rd revert: [99] reverted and labeled as "vandalism" by her
    • 4th revert: [100] reverted and labeled as "vandalism" by her
    • 5th revert: [101] this is where she made her last revert


    My encounter with her has been of her reverting my changes to the article saying that I am introducing religion to the article by reverting her deletion of the image from Gray's Anatomy, now she has switched to deleting any and all changes I am making to the article including the addition of references, and the merging of duplicate references. I am a scientist, not religious, yet some topics have medical, religious, philosophical, and legal definitions that are not identical to each other, and belong in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, it covers all aspects that are notable of a topic. I have gone through a request for comment which brought consensus to the engraving from Gray's to remain on the page, but now it appears every addition I make is being reverted based on the premise I am adding religion to a scientific topic and performing "vandalism". I have made over 60K edits to Wikipedia in over 4 years. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - I've locked it down for 3 days (at least I think I did). Please use that time to discuss... if it was any other admin you'd have been blocked. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure locking it solved any problems, it just set in stone one version over the other without evaluating the quality of any of the edits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it didn't. Neither version can be "correct" and I am not proposing that one is better than the other. That's what started the whole damn edit war in the first place. Richard, you're awfully fortunate that I dealt with the situation because I don't think blocking achieves much except angry contributors. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andrewjlockley reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: AGF warning )


    • Previous version reverted to: complex reverts; each one specified


    • 1st revert: [102] partial revert of [103] (restores "Rapid Arctic shrinkage is already occurring, with 2007 being...")
    • 2nd revert: [104] marked revert
    • 3rd revert: [105] reintroduces a whole pile of stuff added under [106] ("Lawrence et al(2008) suggests that a rapid melting of the sea ice may up a feedback loop that rapidly melts arctic permafrost...", "However, Buffett and Archer predict a much higher release of between 2,000 and 4,000 gigatonnes..." etc etc)
    • 4th revert: [107] repeats [108]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: warned editor post-reverts [109] but he rejects the warning [110] and even asks for a removal of the warning [111]. Several other editors try to reason with him [112] to no avail.


    Please also note that AJL has been pushing his POV onto the GW article for a while now; he has now exhausted most peoples patience, see his talk page and t:GW William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - I've gone soft: [113] - if someone could show me that he's acknowledged this advice and then chosen to ignore it, then I will block. Can't do it now; I feel sorry for him, and he seems a bit green for a user of almost 2 years. Message me if anything else crops up. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll do. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SonofFeanor and associated IPs (again) reported by Yilloslime (Result:mm, AGF)

    • Please see previous report from ~15 hrs ago, here
    • Since that report and subsequent warning and an admin, this user has again reverted:

    Yilloslime (t) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and warn him once again; however, if he does it again I'm blocking. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 03:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sfvace reported by Bubba73 (Result: blocked )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [121]

    User has been reverted six times by four different editors. User is also a suspected sockpuppet. Bubba73 (talk), 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Bubba73 (talk), 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see the report directly below this one. Tiptoety talk 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and Yellow Monkey and Silly Rabbit. Bubba73 (talk), 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sfvace reported by User:Silly rabbit (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: link


    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.161.212.181 & User:Madrok reported by Phoenix (talk) (Result: blocked )

    Bose headphones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.161.212.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Madrok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Madrok looks to be the newly created account name for this user.

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

    1. 14:59, 3 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
    2. 02:24, 4 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
    3. 03:36, 4 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
    4. 03:38, 4 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
    5. 03:54, 4 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
    6. 04:43, 4 February 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
    • Diff of warning: 1 2 3 4

    With comments like No matter how many times you delete this i'll keep on re-posting it. Let the facts be heard it does not look like this user wants to play nice. A time out might be justified. Any chance the someone could revert the last vandalism. I do not want to break the 3rr rule also. Thanks. —- Phoenix (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Romani people by country (Result: 48 hour block)

    Breaking of the 3RR by the user Mttl (4 revertings only for today), edit warring with the users Athenean, Behemoth, Olahus, DerHexer. --Olahus (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - Blocked for 48 hours for building up a mass of reverts over the past few days, including edit warring with DerHexer (whilst the latter was using Huggle, no less. Bad move!). ScarianCall me Pat! 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Radeksz reported by M.K. (talk) (Result: warned)

    Armia Krajowa‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous version reverted to: [122]

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

    1. 2009-02-04T02:25:41
    2. 2009-02-04T07:12:16
    3. 2009-02-04T07:44:51
    4. 2009-02-04T09:48:15
    • Diff of 3RR warning: user was already blocked for the edit warring [123]. M.K. (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those reverts are not identical, and whether they are reverts of good-faithed WP:BRD - with the ongoing discussion on talk about reliablity of removed sources - is unclear. Considering that the other editor, M0RD00R, is matching Radeksz tic-for-tat ([124], [125], [126]), but both of them are users in good standing with little history of edit warring, I have warned them both on the talk of the article and on their talk pages. If any of them reverts further (I suggested they both keep to 1RR a day on that article for a while), blocks to cool some heads down may be appropriate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus was heavily involved in edit warring on this same article [127][128] 2) Piotrus alerted User:Radeksz to participate in this article due to the new specific issues, which caused this edit war [129]. 3) Talking into consideration Piotrus long standing personal disputes with user: M0RD00R and a relationship with Radeksz. 4) Piotrus already gave Radeksz 3RR "warning" in the past. He should know better. [130]. I ask that the case be taken up by a neutral administrator, rather than close associate of one of the parties, who was admonished by Arbitration committee to avoid avoid edit-warring.M.K. (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if I got ahead of myself. But changes 1 and 2 are different than changes in 3 and 4. They are about a different source. I'd be happy to keep to 1RR on this article for awhile. It would also help if the discussion on the topic was actually carried out on the talk page rather than in edit summaries. I posted my reasons there on the two questionable sources. Waited a few days and only then removed them. This was immediately reverted by Mordoor who never bothered to respond on the talk page even though he had all the time in the world.radek (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please note that the previous block MK refers to was an admin's MISTAKE for which he apologized. I was reverting a known and frequent vandal on the Copernicus article (the one that keeps putting in "Copernicus was Polish!" in the lead) and the admin in question accidentally blocked me when he meant to block the vandal. The block was rescinded within minutes as soon the admin realized he made a mistake (I didn't even have to point it out). This is all clearly evident from the edit summaries in the link MK provides if he actually bothered to read them. I'm not sure I like this smearing of my reputation.radek (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous block MK refers to 2008-11-24T07:12:03 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) blocked Radeksz (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring, incivility.). In any case it just shows that you are well familiar with WP policies.M.K. (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't see a technical violation here - rv 3 is 't obviously an rv and you haven't bothered explain why it is. Edit warring from both sides, who may consider themselves warned. R seems to have done most in initiating talk pae discussion; M encouraged to reply William M. Connolley (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Galassi reported by Volodymir_k (Result: Note left on talk )


    • Previous version reverted to: [131]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [136]
    1. Galassi is definitely pushing his POV in there, reverting ALL changes.
    2. He does this without any discussion of his reverts at article talk page.
    3. He does not even read the changes by other editors, because otherwise he would noticed he made a typo.
    4. His typo was easy to notice: "noted in particular for his noted in particular for his", I pointed that twice (at article's talk page and at user talk page), but he didn't pay attention.
    5. Instead, he answered that my "English is too incomprehensible" [137]
    6. At the article talk page, I requested support for verification, and that was simply ignored.
    7. Comments to his edits say "unexplained deletion of cited material, rvv", but that is not true: nothing was deleted, it was moved into proper section. (And of course there are no any quotations.)
    8. His single reference is to non-neutral journalist.


    Thanks, -- Volodymir k (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - No blocks or protection as there hasn't been a rv in a few days but I have left a note on the article's talk page requesting discussion. All editors are forbidden from making any more reverts until they have worked it out between themselves. Recommend WP:MEDIATION as this is a content dispute. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    90.184.244.234 reported by Kendo 66 (Result: Page protected )


    • Previous version reverted to: [138]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [143]

    This user, seems to have a strong POV, that influences their edits, a request to discuss such things has been ignored. Kendo 66 13:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=268656364"