Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive216

Page

Indian Ordnance Factories Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

117.200.157.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

he/she is reverting my edits and then says he will warn me!think it is the same person accusing me of being a sock!

I don't understand why IOFS officers would be sent to National Academy of Direct Taxes. They have nothing to do with taxation. LBSNAA is a general public administration academy set up by the Govt of India to train officers from all India serives and the Central services. It's mentioned in the citaion I've provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.157.144 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: Article fully protected three days. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the disputed points. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Page

Anjem Choudary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

OrangesRyellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[1] reverted 5 times today in total Manofwar0 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Broke 3RR on Anjem Choudary alone Manofwar0 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:Prodego.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Page

Bob's Burgers (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Archcaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2013-06-06T15:52:39Z ""
2. 2013-06-06T14:32:44Z ""
3. 2013-06-05T18:53:26Z "Undid revision 558484557 by Beerest355 (talk) Yea, Hi. No one knows for sure if it's premiering on September. Wikipedia is not a "crystalball". Undo this edit, you'll be reported."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 2013-06-05T21:08:22Z "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob's Burgers (season 4). (TW)"
2. 2013-06-05T17:25:02Z "/* User page */"
3. 2013-06-05T17:24:50Z ""
4. 2013-06-05T17:05:15Z "/* User page */"
5. 2013-06-05T17:05:05Z ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• First of all, I am not doing edit warring, the User:Beerest355 is, I have nothing to do with this. He started the edit war, I didn't. Honestly, I don't know why the User:GSK was dumb enough to report me anyway over some reliable source that the user typed in as a blog and me undoing his edit is a problem. Also, what does the user page situation have to do with this, Nothing! --Archcaster (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• For someone who has been edit warring you have quite a mouth. Skip the uncivil comments. They only make matters worse for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• This doesn't concern you User:Bbb23 and yes I have a mouth because I was born with it, thank you very much. --Archcaster (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• As an admin, this case does in fact concern Bbb23. Archcaster, even if you feel you're right, continous reverts are always edit warring unless they remove outright vandalism. Archcaster and Beerest355 have been blocked for 48 hours. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: List of Rainbow Codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Holothurion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Trivial crap, but 4RR is still a bright-line, last time I looked.

Original

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Wotan is one of the Norse gods, aka Odin. This name also appears as Wōden in some languages. In German though, at least mid-20th century German, it was "Wotan". This led to the military codename for the German WWII X-Gerät radarradio navigation device being "Wotan" (and not "Wōden"). The name is probably the best-known aspect of this radarradio navigation device, at least in the UK, owing to RV Jones' book and TV series The Secret War, where this injudicious choice of codename let slip a significant military secret. I have no idea of the linguistic / historical preference for Odin/Wotan/Wōden and I make no comment on which should be the canonical WP article name, but for WWII German radarelectronic warfare the name was clearly Wotan.

In the article List of Rainbow Codes, itself about military codenames, the piped link "the one-eyed [[Wotan (god)|god of the same name]]" was used, because Wotan already appeared earlier on the line.

‎Holothurion is now changing this piped link [[Wōden |god of the same name]], not from any claimed virtue or for any content reason, but seemingly because "redirects are bad". I'm unaware of this. Are redirects to be switched off shortly? Is our regular call "redirects are cheap" no longer accurate? This is a minor point (as is almost everything at ANEW), but

• This is a change, a change driven by one solitary editor, and in such cases it's our usual practice to want to see some improvement achieved, not merely editing for editing's sake.
• Wotan is correct in this context, Wōden is not correct. The link target is visible from the hover text and as the piped link isn't the most obvious link ever, readers are likely to look at that text.
• 4RR is 4RR

The only comment from Holothurion is on the lines that its redirects that are simply the problem, not text itself (with a side-order of gratuitous vandalism accusation), "Redirectioning must be avoided as much as possible. Stop changing it back, or you will be reported as vandalizing"

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley's arguments would be correct and valid if the link pointed to an article named "Wotan" and I was changing it to the one pertaining to another deity, related or not (p.e. Jupiter and Zeus). But, since the link in the text in fact redirects to the Wōden article, I'm only changing it so it points to said article without any redirection involved which - being that there's not actual "Wotan" article nor is a case of it being renamed/moved - is in this event unnecessary and avoidable; I'm taking into full account the rules and guidelines described in Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. The content, purpose and meaning of the aforementioned text in List of Rainbow Codes remains completely intact.

Regarding the report warning (which I recognize was overdid on my part), it was given to Andy Dingley with the best of interests in mind pertaining both of us and the three-revert rule, and also in the grounds that the user was about to start/started an edit war that could be avoided and resolved through discussion instead of continually resort to changing/reverting the List of Rainbow Codes article. With all that said, I should point out that neither of us violated the 3RR. — Holothurion (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why (per WP:NOTBROKEN) is this redirect "broken", so that you are having to repeatedly "fix" it?

If it is not "broken", so that there is nothing to "fix", then why are you repeatedly changing it?

Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I have left a message on Holothurion's talk page informing him that he has in fact breached 3RR and explaining what he must do to avoid a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Message answered on my talk page. - Holothurion (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Based on Holothurion's self-revert, acknowledgment, and promise, I'm closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unrelated issue, but I've now had yet another abusive and trolling email from "Reisio" (who I'm sure isn't Reisio (talk · contribs)) claiming that because Wotan wasn't a radar then my point is invalid and I should be indef blocked for edit-warring and stupidity. I am getting just a little fed up with these (Four now). I know that WP can't/won't do anything about checkusering, but I have notified your ISP. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: Yazdânism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.239.60.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

UPDATE: 5th revert: [11]

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

This article is only a sample of this IP's massive edit warring all over the place. The IP based in Bosnia (which apparently changes every 24 hours) is contentiously 3RR edit warring (with bias) against all users on multiple articles all over the place. Previously edit warred all the same articles as User:46.239.14.76 yesterday, User:109.165.188.100 the day before... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've started disscusion of Template talk:Yazdânism and i've informed three admins about the issue. Til Eulenspiegel and his fellow IP-POV-pushers didn't leave any constructive comments, just forcing their POV as in other cases. This editor is falsely accusing me of being sock also. --46.239.60.21 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Note this IP is also the subject of an SPI now, for being the sock of User:Shaushka. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by another admin. This is playing out in other forums.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: London School of Business and Finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Ystino19827 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 0987nervewracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]
6. [18]
7. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:

The edit warring is happening over a period of several days, with at least four registered users, as well as an IP involved in the reversions. Several users, including Special:Contributions/80.42.234.237 Special:Contributions/80.42.230.238 and Special:Contributions/139.222.18.162 have been trying to un-revert these users' changes. I am not involved in the edit warring; I have simply reverted it back to the pre-edit war version. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week. The registered accounts are not auto-confirmed. However, the material is too inflammatory to leave in, and I've removed it as unreliably sourced (blogs and other similar websites, plus a YouTube video).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: Female genital mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a 3RR report, but a report for edit warring over two days about terms used for, or comparable with, female genital mutilation (FGM). This is a contentious issue and the editor has been made aware of that here. He is adding terms that are not equivalent to FGM, or are already discussed or linked in the article, and has reverted in whole or in part against three editors who have removed them.

• His 1st edit to the article: 01:24, 6 June, added two terms to See also

• 1st revert: 01:34, 6 June, restored one of the terms (partial revert)

• 2nd edit: 03:22, 6 June, added a hatnote linking to three terms

• 2nd revert: 03:45, 6 June, restored hatnote (wholesale revert)

• 3rd edit: 04:44, 6 June, added alternative terms to infobox

• 3rd revert: 21:11, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
• 4th revert: 22:03, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
• 5th revert: 22:39, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm reporting this because Obiwankenobi has been involved in other serial reverting recently, and seems to feel that he can revert up to 3RR. See his comment in this edit summary when removing a warning: "3 reverts is not 4".

The other reason I'm reporting it is that I believe he followed me to female genital mutilation after I opened an RfC to change the title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). He is strongly opposed to the Sarah Brown RfC, and shortly after I first commented on that talk page at 19:18, 5 June, he appeared at 20:21, 5 June on the FGM talk page to add links to page moves, his first-ever edit to the talk page or article. It's possible that it's a coincidence but it's unlikely; I had made FGM-related edits just before my first comment on the Sarah Brown page, so they were obvious in my contribs.

Obiwankenobi's edits to FGM were accompanied by going to several redirects to FGM, or related articles, and changing them, apparently to match the edits he was making to FGM. Examples: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] It's not that's there necessarily a problem with all these edits, it's just that there was a sudden interest in edits about female genitalia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I do not appreciate the attempt by SV to link these two sets of edits - they are quite different. One set of edits was around linking to existing wikipedia articles for Clitoridectomy and Clitoridotomy, while the other set of edits was around adding terms widely used in the literature "Sunna circumcision" and "Pharaonic circumcision" to the infobox ; both of these terms are already mentioned in the body of the article - my change was to simply add it to the info box. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are not equivalent terms for FGM. This is the problem with editing the article to make a point, and not being familiar what is a complex and sensitive issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the forum to discuss the substantive issues, but the notion that you know and I don't, as well as the assertion that I'm trying to make a point (what point might that be?) is a bit misguided here. I'm emphatically *not* trying to make a point, by any edits, full stop.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Slim Virgin has 4 reverts in the same exact time period.

• Revision as of 21:30, 5 June 2013
• Revision as of 21:47, 5 June 2013
• Revision as of 23:43, 5 June 2013
• Revision as of 17:02, 7 June 2013

So WP:BOOMERANG should be considered here. But I'd rather not impose sanctions against anyone here, if possible. But if you look carefully, every single line of text I've tried to add to the article has been reverted by SV, so there is also an issue of WP:OWN here.

I admit to being frustrated and doing 3 reverts above, which I shouldn't have, and I apologize for that - it's just the edit summaries said the names weren't backed up by sources, but the actual source linked backed up almost every single name, and other sources in the article back up the other names - so I was frustrated that people were reverting without reading any sources while claiming that the edits were not sourced. I was wrong to revert though.

Anyway, I'm sorry about the reverts above, and it won't happen again, I will take it to talk earlier. As to SV's other allegations, I've added "old moves" to a number of articles, and FGM is one I'd been meaning to do for a while; seeing it mentioned on SVs and other people's talk pages reminded me to do so. That's it. I'd also rather SV not insinuate I'm up to something nefarious, when in fact I corrected some long-standing mistaken redirects per the edits above. I'm a gnome, so when I come across an article, I fix what I feel needs fixing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Most of Obiwankenobi's comments are misguided. However, based on their apology, I have left a message on their talk page that they may avoid a block if they agree not to edit the article for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Obiwankenobi has agreed not to edit the article for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Page

Michael Omolewa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AfricaTanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from Jun 7 2013 9:43 PM to Jun 7 2013 9:50 PM
   1. Jun 7 2013 9:50 PM ""
   2. Jun 7 2013 9:43 PM "Undid revision 558849262 by Lord777 (talk) Until this article is fixed, the tags must remain per Wikipedia policy. Removing them is disruptive and can easily get you indefinitely blocked."
2. Jun 7 2013 10:57 PM "restore some well sourced information that impacts the article's notability"
3. Consecutive edits made from Jun 7 2013 11:01 PM to Jun 7 2013 11:02 PM
   1. Jun 7 2013 11:02 PM "adding resume tag"
   2. Jun 7 2013 11:01 PM "Undid revision 558857432 by Taroaldo (talk) the clean-up is not complete, so tag should remain"
4. Consecutive edits made from Jun 7 2013 11:20 PM to Jun 7 2013 11:21 PM
   1. Jun 7 2013 11:21 PM ""
   2. Jun 7 2013 11:20 PM "Take it to the talk page. Two editors believe this is OK. You are edit warring and appropriately warned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 7 2013 11:34 PM "Second Warning Re: Uncivil Behaviour"
2. Jun 7 2013 10:01 PM "Warning: civility"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Jun 7 2013 10:48 PM "/* Puff */ c."
2. Jun 7 2013 10:10 PM "That's a lot of puff!"

Comments:

• Through 'recent changes' I noticed an uncivil edit summary given by AfricaTanz to Lord777 regarding edits he was making to this page. AfricaTanz feels strongly that the page is written like a fan page, and I agree. I attempted to begin making some dramatic changes to bring the article more into line with Wikipedia standards. I achieved a result sufficient enough to remove the "fansite" tag, but AfricaTanz again responded with hostility, this time toward me. So far in this encounter, AfricaTanz has not behaved civilly at all -- to any of the involved parties, and has shown no inclination to assume good faith, despite my attempts to make some of the changes to the article that he seemed to want. Lord777 had also expressed some of his feelings about the encounter on my talk page, if you wish to review it. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Note. A short time after I filed this report, this popped up on my talk page. Taroaldo (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• A previous 3RR report for same user may be relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:70.253.75.84 reported by User:Jenova20 (Result: 1 week) —Psychonaut (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I blocked AfricaTanz for violating WP:3RR. In response to other allegations, @Taroaldo, if you are going to accuse an editor of being uncivil, please include diffs. @Psychonaut, it would take me a fair amount of time to analyze your sock puppet allegations. If you feel the evidence is strong enough, you should file a report at WP:SPI. If no other named accounts are involved, you will have to rely on non-technical evidence as it would be unusual for a CU to be performed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not alleging that AfricaTanz has violated the policy on multiple accounts, nor do I think I ever have. The previous report demonstrates that before creating an account he was active as an anonymous editor with a dynamic IP, though there's nothing wrong with that. The IP range was already blocked for disruptive editing, and that block (combined with semiprotection of some of the affected articles) led him to create an account. (This was more or less the intended effect—we wanted him to register so that we could engage in discussion with him. We had no guarantee that he noticed any of the messages editors were leaving the IP talk pages.) I don't have any reason to believe the he has been editing from anything other than the User:AfricaTanz account since its creation, so there's no reason to take the matter to WP:SPI. I linked to the previous 3RR report here only to provide some further context to the present dispute. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That's fine, and I appreciate the clarification. However, in my view if a person is blocked for disruptive editing and then registers an account without disclosing their history, that is problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: Pathetic fallacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mhazard9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]
5. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:

Mhazard9 is edit warring to add nonstandard capitalization of common nouns, as well as repeatedly re-adding other disputed content. His edits have been undone by four separate editors. Mhazard9 has responded to neither my query on the article's talk page nor my non-template warning on his or her user talk, instead reappearing at the article to reinsert the disputed edits for the fifth time. Rivertorch (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Some action needs to be taken regarding Mhazard9. The editor simply refuses to accept policy and consensus on a broad swath of issues from non-free content use requirements to NPOV to matters of style, and continuously reinserts their preferred text and content, usually with opaque and generic, if not outright deceptive edit summaries. All efforts at discuss prove futile. Blocked just six weeks ago for repeatedly removing copyright issue tags. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. User has been blocked before. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Page

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kmzayeem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 8 2013 5:56 PM "Undid revision 558908618 by Darkness Shines (talk) the sources only says that women were raped, not men, also the info should be only about the rapes as per the title"
2. Jun 8 2013 6:01 PM "Undid revision 558909546 by Faizan (talk) unexplained revert"
3. Jun 8 2013 6:29 PM "re-added disputed tags, see talk page first before reverting"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 8 2013 6:37 PM "General note: Unconstructive editing on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Jun 8 2013 6:42 PM "/* Rape against Biharis */ re"

Comments:

Constant disruptive editing. Reverting users, adding tags without context. Multiple reverts, not sticking to the guidelines. Last option was a report here, and I was compelled to make it. Faizan 14:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Kmzayeem has only 3 reverts that I counted, he has also started a section on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I had made only 3 reverts. Adding tags is not nonconstructive, I had added the tags after posting in the article talk page. In addition, User:Faizan had also reverted my edits without any explanation [38], [39], [40]. As it is related to the context, I would also like to bring the issue of this article where User:Faizan is continuously removing the POV tags without reaching a consensus ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]).--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. I tried my best for it, you did not elucidate your concerns in talk. I provided you the diffs of the improvements of the article is talk, but you don't cooperate. The tags are redundant without explanation. Secondly, you have reverted me several times there. I instead, tolerated it and even self-reverted my self many times. Faizan 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Secondly for the POV tags, an RfC is also under progress. Faizan 15:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23. Faizan 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's only you who is assuming to have reached the consensus. You have also reverted many edits of mine and some other users. You are just putting the  Done mark without actually addressing the issues. I've already stated my concerns. The issues are still not addressed and you went on to remove the tags.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Did not I expand the sections you cited? I even provided you with the diffs of my improvements, now let the people decide in the RfC. Faizan 15:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Consensus has been reached. — Please provide the link! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 15:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. I see no 3RR violations, although both the reporter and the reported are at 3 reverts. I see no consensus. I see no RfC, at least not on the article talk page. I do see a lock coming if you folks can't stop battling in the article. Keep it on the talk page until there actually is a consensus. At this point, no action other than my advice is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Page

San Remo conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Maccabipage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 8 2013 5:35 PM "/* Resolutions */"
2. Jun 8 2013 4:48 PM ""
3. Jun 8 2013 3:32 PM "/* Resolutions */"
4. Jun 8 2013 2:17 PM "/* Resolutions */"
5. Jun 8 2013 1:57 PM "/* Resolutions */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 8 2013 4:09 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on San Remo conference. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Warning by Zero0000[49]

Warning by Nableezy[50]

Warning by EdJohnston[51]

Comments:

Article is subject to 1RR.

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Although Ed generously left the user an opportunity a few hours ago to possibly avoid a block, the user has not responded. In addition, the user has never edited an article talk page, and the last time they edited a user talk page was in 2011. Finally, they were warned more than once about their continuing violation but just kept ignoring the warnings and reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Could someone undo this editor's latest reversion on the article? I have already reverted once, as have several others, and the article is covered by 1RR. RolandR (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Page

List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids Sprout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Digifan23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 9 2013 1:38 AM "Reverted 7 edits by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by 98.200.40.18. (TW)"
2. Jun 9 2013 2:00 AM "Reverted 3 edits by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by Digifan23. (TW)"
3. Jun 9 2013 2:08 AM "Reverted 1 edit by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by Digifan23. (TW)"
4. Jun 9 2013 2:14 AM "Reverted 2 edits by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by Digifan23. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 9 2013 2:24 AM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids Sprout. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Related to FanforClark14 (talk · contribs) reverts, noticed edit war after FanforClark14 was reported to WP:AIV _→AzaToth 00:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Page

Near East University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Orhan-27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 8 2013 12:33 PM "menu added"
2. Jun 8 2013 11:55 AM "faculre"
3. Jun 8 2013 9:37 AM "about change"
4. Jun 8 2013 9:14 AM ""
5. Jun 8 2013 7:56 AM "about change"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 8 2013 12:12 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Near East University. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

(I'm using Twinkle to report this for the first time. I guess I'll see how it works after I've submitted it.) This article has a history of contentious editing by SPAs. Some, like this user, are affiliated with the university (they acknowledge that). I tried to explain to them on their talk page what they should and shouldn't do and why, but it apparently didn't penetrate. I blocked one of the SPAs a few days ago for breaching WP:3RR, but having challenged the content itself with this new editor, I am now WP:INVOLVED. Some of the problem may be incompetence stemming from language difficulties, but these continued edits by partisans cause a lot of disruption to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like the editor has stopped editing since this report and since they only have 7 edits I'm going to close this as I think a block would be bity. Nudge me if you need a semi prot on the page as there appears to be a concerted effort to control this content by the subject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: PRISM (surveillance program) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kulturdenkmal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=558970577
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=558973204
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=559064920
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=559075747

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:
Many people removing and readding the "Known Counter Measures" (later renamed to "Discussed counter measures") section without participating in the discussion on the talk page. --pcworld (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I participated in the discussion and I didn't revert the site four times today as you pretend - you mix up today and yesterday and you misrepresent the discussion progress during my reverts (As you can clearly see here) ...
@admins just read the talk page to see for yourself: Talk:PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Known_Counter_Measures_deleted_.21 Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Many people" != User:Kulturdenkmal. And if it isn't four times, then prove the opposite. --pcworld (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Again: You mix up today and yesterday and you misrepresent the discussion progress during my reverts... so again admin, just read the talk page to verifiy that I am acting according to the discussion. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

All linked reverts were done "within a 24-hour period" (see the top of this project page). --pcworld (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You were acting according your opinion in the discussion, not the discussion itself. Capscap (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@PC-World - Again: You just misrepresent the discussion progress during my reverts. As you can clearly see here
@Capscap you didn't bring up any arguements after your first points of "original reasearch" has been devitalized - as everybody can see by looking at your comments such as "It's neither significant nor a view" - your comment "I think maybe 4-5 different users have removed the section and included valid reasons, " is just not true - stick to the facts. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I trust the admins can see the many comments from me and others. Capscap (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your link proves what User:Capscap said: "You were acting according your opinion in the discussion, not the discussion itself". And please do not randomly indent foreign comments on this talk page. --pcworld (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment:I was one of the people who reverted the additions (though I removed myself from the editing situation short of 3RR). My edit reason even encouraged resolution on the talk page [71], but it was still immediately undone by Kulturdenkmal. I think maybe 4-5 different users have removed the section and included valid reasons, while one user has kept readding it.Capscap (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@Capscap you indeed "commented" but your comment was in favor of violating WP:NPOV without bringing up any argument that would justifiy that kind of violation. So again: Stick to the facts! And please stop using : and comment function at the same time ... its annoying and it visually manipulates the discussion in a way that simulates two different users. Everybody uses : so please do the same!
@Pc-world The NPOV rule is quite relevant and of course users who just want to censor aspects of a debate are simply in violation of that rule such as Capscap was - so your point ""You were acting according your opinion in the discussion, not the discussion itself"" is not true - my "opinion" is sticking to the WP rule of NPOV and so should you! Kulturdenkmal (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that Pc-world and I are two different users, right? And again, you have admitted that you were ignoring the discussion and acting according to your opinion. Capscap (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are ignoring WP:NPOV without bringing up any argument to support this violation. So you are just misrepresenting the situation I am not acting according to my opinion but according to Wikipedia policy! Kulturdenkmal (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked Capscap (talk · contribs) – for a period of 24 hours _→AzaToth 17:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I originally was not going to comment on this before, but Kulturdenkmal seems to believe that WP:NPOV supports the idea that inserting an entire section on countermeasures to PRISM that should fall under Internet privacy is ok. It seems that he fails to understand that the scope of the article does not include information of that sort, and he has been ignoring reasons to the contrary and reverting the article instead of waiting for further consensus, resulting in an edit war. Kulturndenkmal also keeps saying that the users who believe that the information does not belong in the article violates WP:NPOV when the issue is whether that information falls inside the scope of the PRISM article. This should probably be given another look. --RAN1 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. And he only responds with the WP:NPOV argument without addressing others' arguments, contrary to consensus-building. RAN1 (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. So much bickering. Kulturdenkmal has breached WP:3RR. I have left a message on their talk page about agreeing not to edit the article in exchange for not being blocked. I will await their response. On another front, Capscap has been blocked for edit warring on the article. So, consider this a warning to all editors editing that article. Be careful that you adhere to policy. Although not a featured article, it is on the main page. Some leeway may be given to editors' attempts to improve the article ("Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page."), but disruption will not be tolerated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Kulturdenkmal has agreed to the condition, so I am closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: Godhra train burning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76][77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:

• Read below to get the whole picture, it is Content Dispute on my part (most editors opposed his edits), that is typical of DS, he is the one who has been causing disruption with the help of a few socks. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the talk page will know that Darkness Shines hardly tried to resolve any dispute, he just wanted his way or highway. -sarvajna 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you again accusing me of sockpuppetry? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There goes assumption of good faith, DS. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User KWW has engaged in, apparently, long term malicious editing of the article for musician Marc Mysterio. He has now deleted, three times, valid quotes from the artist that were broadcasted on Russian National Radio and reported in both Digital Journal and All Voices, both reliable sources.

Its unclear what KWW motives are. I've just begun editing on this site and it took me 5 minutes to notice he has taken some sort of personal vendetta against this artist. I suggest that action is taken against him should valdalism continue. There is a difference between maintaining reliable information in Wikipedia, and trying to make wikipedia your own personal blog which KWW appears to be doing, at least in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knicksnyc (talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

From what I see here not only did you post your report to the wrong board but you are adding Digital Sources which is also a contribution site which is apparent when you look at the authors bio that made the article you are trying to cite. When I review your contribs I see a Single Purpose Account completely failing to understand the purpose of wikipedia. This is normal when people first start but KWW is doing what an experienced editor should be in this instance. So basically this report is not actionable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "A media business where everyone can contribute and engage. We set out to build a media company where anyone can play an important role, so we can break news faster, tell stories better and take an alternative and fresh view on issues of the day. We recognize the audience offers incredible authority and expertise, and people have important stories to tell." found [[85]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@Hell You fail to note that the company is headquartered in Toronto, Canada and shares advertising revenue with citizen journalists who report for the site[6] and it has control mechanisms to ensure content is accurate and well written.[7] Contributors submit a sample of writing and are asked to demonstrate expertise to Digital Journal's editorial board. The company has an assignment desk where contributing journalists are informed of news items ripe for press coverage. It is not a free for all.

This is not a matter of whom is right and whom is wrong. The purpose of wikipedia is to educate those whom wish to learn so long as to ensure the post is indeed accurate. If you are attempting to assert the writer is in some way biased to the artist, that would only further substantiate that the quotes are authentic. We are dealing with an artist of global repute. Not sure why this is in question. Have you not hackers to chase?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267102 http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/2008/04/24/digital-journal-launches-revenue-sharing-for-its-citizen-journalists/

I can see that you do not understand what we consider reliable here as I mentioned on my talkpage please see WP:RS, and also WP:AGF. You now have two very established editors telling you that there is a problem with what you are adding. You are new here by your own admission, you can continue to insist you know the project better then us and assume bad faith but you will likely see that your time will be short. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I blocked Knicksnyc for violating WP:3RR and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: 2002 Gujarat violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [86]
2. [87]
3. [88]
4. [89]
5. [90]
6. [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92][93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94]

Comments:

OK, are you trying to confuse admins here, 1st and 3rd diff provided are from the article Godhra train burning, the fourth difference that you provided is the one where you tried to add some undicussed material into the lead which was not even present in the body. I can understand why you added a new statement, it is because a similar statement by you were reverted previously by me, you seem to have played some smart trick in trying to bait me. I hope the closing admin takes the cognizance of your tricks.Also you never tried to resolve the dispute, first of all you did not even discuss anything about your edits there.-sarvajna (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: Raspberry Pi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.72.118.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diffs of the user's reverts: 12:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC): Guy Macon removes unsourced claims (1RR)[96]
01:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC): 1st Revert (1RR) by 121.72.118.83[97]
15:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC): Mahjongg reverts (1RR)[98]
00:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC): 2nd Revert (1RR) by 121.72.118.83[99]
07:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC): Rehevkor reverts (1RR)[100]
12:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 warned by Guy Macon[101]
00:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 3rd Revert (1RR) by 121.72.118.83[102]
00:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Mahjongg reverts (1RR)[103]
01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 4th Revert (2RR) by 121.72.118.83[104]
06:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Guy Macon reverts (1RR)[105]
08:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 5th Revert (3RR) by 121.72.118.83[106]
08:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 posts to User talk:Guy Macon (WP:NPA)[107]
08:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Rehevkor reverts (1RR)[108]
08:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 invited to discuss by Rehevkor[109]
09:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 6th Revert (4RR) by 121.72.118.83[110]
09:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Rehevkor reverts (2RR)[111]
11:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 finally posts to Talk:Raspberry Pi -- about a different part of the page than the one he has been edit warring about.[112]
11:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 7th Revert (5RR) by 121.72.118.83[113]
13:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Guy Macon reverts (2RR)[114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:
Previous page protections:[117]
New Zealand IP addresses that have edit warred over same material:
121.72.118.83: [118][119]
121.72.121.67: [120][121]
121.72.221.156: [122][123]
121.74.158.215: [124][125]
121.74.142.75: [126][127]
121.74.137.8: [128][129]
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see much point blocking a dynamic ip if we can shut them off the page for a week. I have semi prot to give you a break. If they don't lose interest after that let me know and we can consider rangeblocks or further semiprot. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The article is now under level 1 pending changes for a year,[130] which nicely refutes the IP vandal's claim that " You can't possibly block every IP address I can use."[131] I took the liberty of updating the result in the header. Please revert if this is a problem. I think we are done here and this can be closed. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ping Spartaz... Now he is edit warring and removing other editor's comments on the article talk page. This is one persistant vandal. Could we please have a short-term anonblock range block (to make it harder for him to start being disruptive on other pages) and short-term semi-protection of Talk:Raspberry Pi (to make it harder for him to run experiments to find unblocked IP addresses)? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I semi'd the talk page for 3 days. I have never done a range block and I'm not entirely sure its safe for me to do one now without breaking the internet but I agree that a rangeblock is now necessary. I'll ask another admin to look at it, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: Edward Snowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.60.33.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]
5. [136]
6. [137]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138] Also: [139], [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] This is an IP editor who has only edited the one article and never edited until 45 minutes before this report. I doubt he even knows there is such a thing as a Talk page.

Comments:
Page protection has already been requested for this brand new, high-profile BLP that seems likely to be a magnet for this kind of disruption. The IP is determined to insert his inappropriate material over the objection of three other editors and shows no interest at all in learning Wikipedia policies, nor is he interested in obtaining consensus.

• Page protected. Clear violation, but now very stale. The page has been semiprotected Slp1 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: The Alex Jones Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RocketLauncher2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [142]
2. [143]
3. [144]
4. [145]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147]

Comments:
Editor still edit warring during the page still semi protected until June 16, after being warned to stop and continues to add an unreliable source since it is currently outdated after Aaron Dykes left the show for good. He also refuses to stop harassing me after his reports were repeatedly rejected on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism based on false accusations.

I don't get why you are reporting reverts from late May and early June. It's been over and my recent revert comes from after leaving a message on the user's talk page where he says it's okay to revert his changes. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, they aren't false accusations. If they don't see a reason to block you then I leave it at that. I reported again because I decided to actually provide evidence that I didn't provide last time, which is probably why no one considered it. I'd say anything against you is far more damning than me trying to add a producer's name in. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) "I'd say anything against you is far more damning" I'll just leave this here for you. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Stale. No evidence of continue disruptive activity. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Page: Olympus Has Fallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Corvoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)