Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 473: | Line 473: | ||
--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 03:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 03:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
*Hold on--user is currently blocked, temporarily, a block which is likely to be extended. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
*Hold on--user is currently blocked, temporarily, a block which is likely to be extended. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Discospinster]] reported by [[User:Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' targeted mines only<br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a}} |
Revision as of 03:24, 13 August 2012
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
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 You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
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. |
|
User:Teachingyeshua reported by User:Evanh2008 (Result:Indefinite )
Page: Two House theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Teachingyeshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (hope that's okay): I chose direct engagement on the user's talk page, rather than starting a thread on the article talk page, which would probably go unnoticed anyway. Let me know if that's a problem.
Comments:
On Torah, Shema Yisrael, and Hebrew Roots as well. No bright-line 3RR violation as of yet, but I think this needs administrator intervention as soon as possible. The user has reverted several times after receiving a level-four warning. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of indefinite. Edit-warring, disruptive editing, spamming, user name violation. Evan, if you have a moment, it would be great if you could clean up the affected articles. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Another admin point of view:
- I see no edit warring, no reverts except on the part of the nominator. I see only attempts to re-try inserting progressively improved versions of the same edit into an article, ending with a version reasonably free of bias, and sourced.
- The evidence above does not show more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period.
- I see no spamming other than trying to reference a book. No link spamming.
- There is no user name violation, as the username does not seem to represent a group, at least not in evidence by this user's edits.
- Therefore I consider an indef block a bit excessive. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Another admin point of view:
- I didn't think it was promotional, either, and I'm unsure about the user name thing as well. There were definitely reverts, though, as you can see above. I made clear that there was no 3RR violation, however. I didn't even come here looking for the user to be blocked, anyway, but I don't particularly object, given that he continued edit warring well after a level four warning (given by another user, not me). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The user was adding material sourced to this website in many articles. In my view, that alone violates WP:ORGNAME. The about us of that website begins with "We are believers in Yeshua, keepers of the Written Torah, and purchased by the redemptive work of the Body of YHWH, Yeshua." The material added essentially promotes the beliefs of the website. One of the "books" cited by the editor is here. The Eddie Chumney "book" is on videos and other websites - it is apparently a DVD. I saw no indication that the editor was responding to any warnings but simply kept stubbornly adding similar material. He can, if he wishes, request an unblock, but I saw no indication of him being a constructive contributor.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't notice those links. Full agree then, in that case. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
User: Dennis Bratland reported by User:76.76.65.172 (Result:Declined )
Page: Freaknik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Dennis Bratland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [2]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User Dennis Bratland appears more motivated to defend the event's image than to present this topic objectively. Not requesting a block, necessarily, just editorial oversight, especially in light of the controversy surrounding the topic.
Comment - This is not the place for oversight requests - Please go to WP:Requests for oversight. Mdann52 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin
Declined. Putting aside the malformed report, Dennis has reverted only twice (your diffs abve are of your reversions). You should stop reverting and stop calling Dennis's actions "vandalism" as they are not. I suggest you take your content dispute to the article Talk page. As an aside, the IP does not really mean "oversight" in the WP-technical sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Diffs
User:75.176.3.213 reported by User:208.38.59.161 (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Kaitlyn (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.176.3.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [9]
- 22:14, 9 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
- 00:14, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
- 00:44, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
- 03:15, 10 August 2012 (edit summary: "")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.176.3.213&diff=506746204&oldid=504060699
User has been warned twice before on talk page by different editors, and myself and others have commented in edit summaries about rules they've been breaking, even adding hidden text about not breaking these rules yet they continue. Is adding fansite as living person's official website, going against Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling by adding poorly sourced moves and week-by-week accounts (also a violation of WP:NOT)
Comments:
--208.38.59.161 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Triomio reported by User:Martinvl (Result:48 hours )
Page: International Bank Account Number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Triomio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:This warning is 3 days old. User:Triomio recevied a 24 hour block as a result of that warning, but this does not seem to have stopped their behaviour.
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Martin, please pay attention to your editing of the article. Reverts are not just "reverts". Read the policy. Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I note that the 2nd of the 4 reverts mentioned above was not performed by User:Triomio, but by another editor. That leaves 3 reverts. In the same period the filer, User:Martinvl had, despite complaining about similar actions by others previously, also performed 3 reverts to that article:
And has, since the block and warning to himself being applied, performed yet another:
- 4th revert: [19]
82.132.249.192 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
User:124.169.68.39 reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: as below)
Page: AC/DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.169.68.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26], [27]
Comments:
IP persistently adding (4 times) a paragraph about a computer virus to an article about a rock band, with no discernible connection other than the name, although the name has several meanings. I and another user have reverted the IP twice each, and the IP has refused to discuss it, preferring to use edit summaries to tell others to use google search. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I note the 3RR warning was placed after the 4th revert, and there have been none since then. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- The 3RR warning was placed before the 4th revert. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something critical, the warning was at 22:22 and a subsequent revert at 23:11. I've blocked him per the report below. Kuru (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
User:124.169.68.39 reported by User:Moxy (Result: 24 hours)
Page: AC/DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.169.68.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Added info about the Gauss state-nation-created trojan that uses 0xACDC as its encryption key
- 1st revert: Undid revision 506787047 by Bretonbanquet (talk) - AC/DC is the bands name, so how can you say it has nothing to do with the band?
- 2nd revert: Gauss was developed by the same team which developed Stuxnet which destroyed 1000+ nuclear centrifuges in Iran. There is only a 1 in 65535 (0xFFFF) chance that their use of ACDC as their encryption key is incidental
- 3rd revert: Perhaps u can word it better than I can, but pls google "Iran ACDC Thunderstruck" as only 2wks ago Iran's atomic agency reported their volumes were set to 100+ w/ ACDC Thunderstruck. This is a 2nd issue
- 4th revert: "Bretonbanquet" keeps deleting what is clearly an AC/DC reference made by this trojan (either that or a 1 in 65535 random chance), that is not just referenced my a virus, but one that has been developed by the USA and/or Israel. Please google.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article User talk page: explanation of deletion - two different attempts at communicating
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four reverts, was warned prior. Kuru (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Kylethegreat098 reported by User:Still-24-45-42-125 (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kylethegreat098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [28]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34][35]
Comments:
This is edit-warring, verging on vandalism, even if it's not 4RR in one day. He keeps making the exact same change -- from 2002 to 1999 -- which gets reverted with explanation. He doesn't respond on his talk page. He doesn't participate on the article talk page. This is a prominent WP:BLP article, so I'm requesting a short block to maybe force him to engage with us and explain himself. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I just noticed that he was actually at 3RR just as Still is at 3RR too. He warned the user at 4:21 and then made this report at 4:34 before the 4RR which was actually at 5:41. The first revert does not count because it was his change which was reverted afterwards. ViriiK (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Added more info
- There is more to this whole story:
- Still is at 3RR at this same article: [36], [37], [38]
- Here [39] Still ironically accuses Kyle of "slow edit-warring" when Still is slow edit warring right along with him!!!
- Still was edit warring at Conservatism in the United States 2 days ago. Diffs: [40], [41], [42]. Arthur Rubin predicted that Still would be blocked for this violation of policy [43]. But he wasn't.
- Still just came off of a block for edit warring just 8 days ago for edit warring.
- Still's behavior is far, far worse than the editor he is reporting.
- 24 hours. Can't ignore the fact here that Still repeatedly attempted to initiate discussion, and was repeatedly ignored but the reverts continued. It's BRD, not BRRR. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I consider ViriiK's attempt to make this all about me to be incredibly hostile and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Let's close this and move on. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Still's "attempts to initiate discussion" were unsuccessful, because he was just making assertions. Still, we might as well close this. I don't think Still's actions on this article deserve a block. Other articles, perhaps. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's untrue.[44][45].
- Please don't mislead administrators with false statements. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection to hatting or removing Still's and my comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- How about retracting the statements you made that I've shown to be false? Not even asking for an apology. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, the second seems to be an attempt at discussion, although based on a false premise; a number of sources did report 1999. The first is not an attempt at discussion (at least, by your standards), because it doesn't state a potential reason why his edit was wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're batting 0 for 2. The first simply asked him to explain his edit. It didn't argue for or against. It just tried to engage him in discussion as opposed to edit-warring. Since it did not state disagreement, there was no obligation to support such a statement. The second does mention that our sources say 2002, but this is true. While there are sources that mistakenly say 1999, we considered the totality of sources, not just the ones that were corrected by others. So, in short, both were attempts at discussion, yet you're bending over backwards to deny this.
- Why even bother? ViriiK's attempt to WP:BOOMERANG this at me has already failed because, to be frank, it was irrelevant. What you're doing is even more so. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, the second seems to be an attempt at discussion, although based on a false premise; a number of sources did report 1999. The first is not an attempt at discussion (at least, by your standards), because it doesn't state a potential reason why his edit was wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- How about retracting the statements you made that I've shown to be false? Not even asking for an apology. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Still's "attempts to initiate discussion" were unsuccessful, because he was just making assertions. Still, we might as well close this. I don't think Still's actions on this article deserve a block. Other articles, perhaps. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I consider ViriiK's attempt to make this all about me to be incredibly hostile and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Let's close this and move on. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Evlekis reported by User:Majuru (Result=No violation)
Edit-warring, infringement of 3RR, at Rona Nishliu's page. [46]. Majuru (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- There has been no infringement, the reverts stand at three apiece and I have not been involved in any activity on that article since this thread. Furthermore, an attempt at discussion by me has been launched hereso it is down to the other party to comply from this stage. Nothing more to add, the first admin to view this should close the case instantly. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Nicely contrived revision difference! But to find to whom I was being "grossly incivil", perhaps we should unmask the very contribution that my edit was addressing. So if the person I insulted senses the gravity of the affront, I sure he will report himself at some point. Click this link to get the full picture! ...and then end this pointless discussion. I'm not returning here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- May I ask you, who were you referring to? Majuru (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- To myself, examine the edit rather than the summary. Whilst typing the original draft, I had the incorrect text on my clipboard - I evidently misfired when attempting to copy the website address and so pasted the obsolete information but did not realise until after sending the post. To clarify, I was the idiot for ploughing ahead without checking my errors. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- May I ask you, who were you referring to? Majuru (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And apart from you both being engaged in this mediation request I see no attempts by Majuru to address the reverts at this particular page Rona Nishliu as Evlekis suggested. Majuru, this might actually bounce back at you since it looks like an attempt of retaliation for what you perceived as an insult [51]. Next time try to sort this kind of conflict via user talk before reporting anyone, and Majuru may receive a block when pulling another stunt like this. De728631 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- On an additional note: Evlekis, next time you make a mistake while editing please try to limit "idiotic" comments of this kind to talking to yourself or someone might in fact think you were up for violating other editors. De728631 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Martinvl reported by User:82.132.249.199 (Result:Declined )
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page: International Bank Account Number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [52]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58], [59]
Comments:
In the same period that User:Martinvl was performing these reverts he was also complaining about similar actions by User:triomio, and giving outrageous excuses for the reinstatement of the long-term content (see examples [60], [61]), untainted by "reference needed" tags, and even filed a 3RR report (diff) against him, resulting in triomio being blocked for 48h.
Just over 24h after the first of the sequence of reverts listed above, he started again (presumably hoping to avoid the 3RR 24h time limit) with this sequence:
82.132.249.199 (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note. The last 3 diffs listed above were "consecutive" and count as a single revert.Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- The complainant is using a bare IP address. Could it be User:Triomio who is currently blocked for 48 hours? If so, the complaint should be ignored. Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. De728631 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note. Given that User:De728631 has sided with Martinvl against User:Triomio in a discussion on Talk:International Bank Account Number and in the edit history of Friesland (disambiguation) and is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Frisia, a subject area in which Triomio has had a few disputes recently, he may not bring an open mind to this discussion. 82.132.249.193 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC) (I was also the filer of this 3RR report, my ISP issues dynamic IP addresses. 82.132.249.193 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC))
- Note. This edit [65] came after BobK pointed out that Martinvl had reverted one of BobK's edits as well as all of Trimio's edits.
Martinvl decided to self-revert, restoring BobK's edit, then reverted the rest of Trimio's work.[Exact sequence provided below.] I believe this falls well within the "self-revert" exception. GaramondLethe 23:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- That revert was a full revert, but with BobK's contribution left in place. It was only to satisfy BobK's complaint that his contribution had been blown away in the collateral damage of Martinvl's blanket revert attack. BobK reverted Martinvl and Martinvl reverted BobK again, except for BobK's prior additions, the nett self-revert component was this [66] from this revert. So yes, it was a real revert, it undid a previous contributor's contribution. So I've un-struck it.
- 82.132.249.195 (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC) (I was also the filer of this 3RR report.)
- It is evidence that Martinvl was even prepared to revert BobK in his attempt to continue the edit war. He might have preserved BobK's content to attempt to keep BobK on-side, but a revert is a revert. 82.132.249.194 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- n.b. The exact sequence:
- 03:53 10 Aug: Martinvl reverts Triomio's and (inadvertently) and Bob K's edits.
- 13:01 10 Aug: Bob K31416 reverts Martinvl with the comment "Martinvl, you reverted my edit in addition to Triomio's. Try again and please be more careful."
- 13:24 10 Aug: Martinvl complies with the comment "Merging the best of the last two versions".
- The above accounts for the first two of the four edits given as evidence by user 82.132.249.199. GaramondLethe 12:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Merging the best of the last two versions" meaning reverting all of Triomio's additions again, but carefully preserving BobK's contribution this time, to appease BobK. 82.132.249.194 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note. This edit [67] (the fourth provided by 82.132.249.199 above) occurred after Triomio had been blocked. Seeing as how Martivl followed the correct process to resolve the edit war, I'm not sure he should be dinged for continuing to edit the article after that process had been completed. GaramondLethe 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- He continued the edit war, despite knowing that his opponent had just been blocked for it. 82.132.249.194 (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note. User:Garamond Lethe has also allied himself with User:Martinvl in disputes with Triomio in the International Bank Account Number article and on its talkpage. He has also allied himself with Martinvl in other recent disputes between Martinvl and other editors in Kilometres per hour and Stone (unit). In those cases the main opposition editors were also accused of being sock-puppets. This duo appear to have a history of using this tactic to "strengthen" their case. 82.132.249.195 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC) (I was also the filer of this 3RR report.)
- Declined. Enough with the attacks. I'm declining this report partly because the evidence of a clear violation is lacking and partly because it's now stale.Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
With Bbb23 being an involved admin as being involved in another dispute at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto with me, also concerning Martinvl and Triomio, I do not accept that he brought the necessary level of neutrality to make this decision. There were 4 reverts in 24h, despite warnings. That much was clear-cut. 82.132.249.198 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin (but you seem to have problems with admins) but I would have to concur with the close. I don't think it was wise for Martinvl to revert the edit after Triomio was blocked. While it is undesirable for someone blocked for edit warring to get their version preserved simply because they violated 3RR, it's not a game and it would have been better to leave the reversion to someone else (when the editor is simply blocked for edit warring rather then, for example being a banned user). However the more complicating factor is that Bob K31416 only reverted Martinvl because of what was evidentally a mistake by Martinvl which Martinvl corrected and reinstated their earlier edits. So while I would urge Martinvl apply caution in the future (both in not reverting things that they don't have a good reason to revert, perhaps by accident, and also considering letting others clean up after an edit warrior if they themselves are already close to or at the limit); it seems that even if this was a technical brightline 3RR violation, given it's fairly stale by now it's best to just let be unless edit warring continues. As for the later edits, they would at best only count as one revert, as already mentioned, but I'm not sure there is any revert there. It looks like more normal editing to improve the article which was not disputed by anyone nor undoing someone else's work. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
User:SecretStoryStyle reported by User:RachelRice (Result: Both editors blocked for 24 hours)
Page: Big Brother 9 (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).
Previous version reverted to: [68]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]
Comments: This user has abused the page and I've found it very annoying putting it back to how it was normally. Also, I put a warning on his page and he replied on MY talk page, so I have put a link of his reply to my talk page above. --RachelRice (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both editors blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Youreallycan reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Page protected)
Page: British Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 20:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 19:44, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "Ed Milliband is a living person that is not even in the catagory British Jew - is clearly not notable as a british Jew - open a RFC")
- 19:50, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "As per my commentsd - living person that is not even in the BLP cat British JewUndid revision 507087743 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)")
- 19:53, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "POv pushing BLP violator - Undid revision 507088197 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)")
- 20:43, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "BLP - you open a discuasiohn - the subject is not even in the wiki cat British Jew so does not belong in the infobox here - Undid revision 507094282 by Viriditas (talk)")
- 20:55, 12 August 2012 (edit summary: "BLP - the subject is living and we have not even catagorised him as a British Jew - so there clearly needs discussion in regars to this disputed addion")
- Diff of warning: here
Comments: User is using the excuse of WP:BLP to engage in edit warring, even though the subject self-identifies as a British Jew and there is consensus for inclusion. User has been asked to use the talk page but refuses. —Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can we just get an admin to lock the page? Youreallycan is before ArbCom. It makes more sense to let them sort it out rather than handing out any blocks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I should note that if Youreallycan is blocked for this it will be his 8th block for edit-warring and his 20th block overall; the wider issue of his conduct is currently under review at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan. It would be helpful if the administrator who deals with this matter could notify the arbitration page of the outcome so that arrangements can be made for YRC to participate in the arbitration while blocked. Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Amazing who shows up here. WP:BLP was, IMO, properly invoked on this, and the history of those promoting conflict seems to be worth noting here. Wikipedia is not the arena of a MMORPG in which to get your foe in as many simultaneous battles as possible, and in the case at hand, I suggest this battle be dropped by simply protecting the article. BTW, some of the YRC blocks were, IMHO, of less than major import especially counting very short blocks which most people regard as pro forma only. And generally for civility issues, not for violation of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- BLP was not properly followed. It is Off2riorob/Youreallycan's pet theory that the subject is not a British Jew, even though there is consensus for including the subject as a British Jew and the subject has self-identified as a British Jew. Off2riorob/Youreallycan has been blocked at least 10 times just for edit warring, and in each instance he's promised not to do it again.
List follows.Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)- Your drive by escalating revert was not beneficial diff in any way - Your comments are simple content discussions - open a RFC on the talkpage - there are clearly disputes - Ed Miliband on his BLP is not Categorized as a British Jew - has not been presented a a notable such etc etc - go discuss - its disputed about a living person - Youreallycan 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your reply is disingenuous. You were the one who de-categorized Miliband and you are the one who disputes his categorization. The subject self-identifies as a British Jew and there is consensus for inclusion. I've discussed this already in another forum, only to discover that you were pushing original research and your pet theories about who can be Jewish. What's going on here and in other places, is that you use the cry of "BLP" as a cover to push your POV. You disrupt multiple articles with your behavior and you make a mockery of the policies and the community. There's no discussion about your edits on the talk page because you have no way of defending them. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your drive by escalating revert was not beneficial diff in any way - Your comments are simple content discussions - open a RFC on the talkpage - there are clearly disputes - Ed Miliband on his BLP is not Categorized as a British Jew - has not been presented a a notable such etc etc - go discuss - its disputed about a living person - Youreallycan 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Although being a party to a request for arbitration does not exempt an editor from 3RR or any other policies, it would obviously be quite awkward for Youreallycan to be blocked right as an arbitration case concerning him is about to open and an RfC concerning him is still pending. In lieu of continuing this AN3 report to a result, I instruct Youreallycan not to edit British Jews, List of British Jews, Ed Milliband, or any related page until the arbitration is resolved. I am not expressing an opinion here regarding whether a valid BLP issue has been raised, but if it has, it is not the sort of BLP issue that creates a risk of harm to the subject of the article such that it needs to be addressed immediately. If Viritidas were to step away from this issue temporarily as well, this would also be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Given the above and the fact that the page involved has been fully protected, I have closed this report. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Khodabandeh14 reported by User:Barayev (Result:24 hours )
Page: Rumi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khodabandeh14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Though there is a consensus, User Khodabandeh14 is violating the WP:3RR in Rumi. The matter has been discussed on Talk page, and it has been decided that the claims related to the ethnicity of Rumi will be mentioned with references in a different section, the Origin. As the ethnicity of Rumi is a debated matter, we have decided so. Please check it here, Talk:Rumi#Let.27s_replace_POV_with_a_Neutral_Point_of_View. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Also, I couldn't inform Khodabandeh14 about his/her violation of WP:3RR as his talk page is protected. I hope one of the administrators can do this. Thanks for your understanding.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- This is frivolous charge as the fourth one is a follow up edit and not a revert. Also the users refuse to go to mediation and a concensus has been on the page since August 11th for many years. Two/three users all of the sudden cameup with a new concensus without any input. It is notable that these users are just reverting now without participating in the talkpage. I will work with the current edit until these users use mediation. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please note I have ask the user to enter mediation but he has not responded. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see you have already ruined the article with your POV about Rumi. I'll not struggle with you, so I step back. Admins decide. Thanks. Barayev (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't know what you mean by "the fourth one" as only three diffs are listed. However, the report is not "frivolous". You have made four changes to the article in less than 24 hours. The reporter just neglected to list the fourth. Some admins are not inclined to count the first change as a revert. Your attitude, though, is concerning. It doesn't matter what the consensus is. It doesn't matter whether you've invited another editor to participate in mediation. Neither exempts you from the dictates of 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have asked the editor Barayev (the filter of this report) for mediation in his talkpage.. he simply says he "doesn't have time". [79]. So what I am supposed to do when a user doesn't have time for mediation and upsets a concensus that has been there for five years? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are other kinds of dispute resolution. Certainly edit-warring is not an appropriate response.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this issue has been RFC'ed to death, and the article is protected due to constant vandalism. I am opting for mediation to settle the issue once and for all. I have been the only one that has suggested mediation, because I know the issue is very clear. We need someone with some knowledge of the region to look at the arguments of both sides and then decide. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm trying very hard to get you to recognize that your frustration with the processes available to you does not entitle you to violate policy. Mediation is a voluntary process. You can't force others to mediate. Nor do you get to choose a mediator with specialized knowledge. Very little on Wikipedia gets "decided once and for all." Barring policy violations to the article or reportable user conduct, you are limited by what's available to achieve consensus and maintain that consensus in the article. If you become so frustrated that you feel compelled to edit-war, then you should stop editing the article entirely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you. However, there has been a concensus for 5 years. All of the sudden two users comeup with a new concensus in two days (which is not enough time). I agree that I can not force someone to mediation. However, this shows my good will by asking for mediation. I am also not violating any laws and I only reverted three times to a concensus that has been there for 5+ years. You can see the talkpage. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also my fourth edit is a justaxposition.. thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm trying very hard to get you to recognize that your frustration with the processes available to you does not entitle you to violate policy. Mediation is a voluntary process. You can't force others to mediate. Nor do you get to choose a mediator with specialized knowledge. Very little on Wikipedia gets "decided once and for all." Barring policy violations to the article or reportable user conduct, you are limited by what's available to achieve consensus and maintain that consensus in the article. If you become so frustrated that you feel compelled to edit-war, then you should stop editing the article entirely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this issue has been RFC'ed to death, and the article is protected due to constant vandalism. I am opting for mediation to settle the issue once and for all. I have been the only one that has suggested mediation, because I know the issue is very clear. We need someone with some knowledge of the region to look at the arguments of both sides and then decide. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are other kinds of dispute resolution. Certainly edit-warring is not an appropriate response.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have asked the editor Barayev (the filter of this report) for mediation in his talkpage.. he simply says he "doesn't have time". [79]. So what I am supposed to do when a user doesn't have time for mediation and upsets a concensus that has been there for five years? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Holy mystics, Batman, that article is terrible as it stands, in the form preferred by Khodabandeh14. The introduction does not get one step out of the gate before it is defending itself from some Turkish scholars, insisting that other scholars are more correct. All of that material is suitable for the article body, with very short summary in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: )
Page: many pages
User being reported: Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
The user is reverting editors across a dozen or more pages in the last few minutes, without edit summaries, mostly restoring edits they made again without edit summaries. A warning on their talk page was ignored and deleted [80].
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81] (not mine)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)