Page:Killing of Travis Alexander (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Geebee2 (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[7]

• Page protected. I locked the article for 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk)01:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Repeatedly adding the(bolded) text to the following section:"such an engine might also be called aapark-ignited (S.I.) engine, gaseous-fueled engine or natural gas engine."

This is uncited, it's also an error. For those unfamiliar, we have articles ongas engine,spark-ignition engine andgasoline engine (that's the same as apetrol engine for the Brits). All three of these engines are closely related, but distinct. Gas engines are one form of spark-ignition engine, but they are an uncommon form and the terms are just not used, or usable, interchangeably.

Yes, wemight call a particular engine a spark-ignition engine, we might also call it a Cummins or Ford engine, we might even call it a bright orange engine. Any of these could be true in some circumstances, but that doesn't mean that the terms become general synonyms for each other, such that they're usable as such in an encyclopedia. I don't understand the editor's mindset here: possibly they don't appreciate encyclopedic wording? The fact that not all spark-ignition engines are gas engines (in fact, very few of them) means that a phrase that's casually acceptable one way round is far from usable the other way round, when we're trying to write an encyclopedia. Maybe they're confusing gas engines andgasoline engines, where sloppy wording does regularly label them as spark-ignition engines, as a shorthand distinction fromdiesel engines (and again, that's not a statement that's up to encyclopedic robustness).

There's no real discussion of this. There's a Google dump atTalk:Gas_engine#Spark_ignited, but if you can make sense of that, you're doing better than I am.

I'm at 3R. Can someone else please explain that this is either incorrect (ideally, if there are any engineers around, and I appreciate that content issues are outside AN/EW), or at least that a claim like this needs citation, not a proof-by-edit-summary of "I work in the industry".

Given the poor spelling and unintelligible bulk pastes, I'm also wondering if thismight be the return of the indeffedWdl1961 (talk ·contribs)?

Andy Dingley (talk)15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation The first edit doesn't count as a revert.King of♥♦♣ ♠07:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:WWE Raw (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:AmericanDad86 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[18]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[19]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:[20]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:[21]

Comments: Editor seems determined to add new unsourced/unreliably sourced section devoted to one particular, very recent episode ofWWE Raw, over 1,036 others. This undue weight has been reverted by three other editors, and supported by none. It was also brought uphere He is now on a mission to tag and delete all unsourced material and anything he considers undue weight, though he didn't care about that before his edit was denied. I've tried several things to help better incorporate his work, by Wikipedia standards, but he refuses, prefering to attack my editorial character. He was warned that he would be warned several times, then when he was formally warned, he instantlydeleted them. And almost as quickly edited WWE Raw again.InedibleHulk(talk)05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's what happened. InedibleHulk didn't want my sourced edit here,[22], added into the article. The edit relates to how last week's Raw was critically acclaimed as one of the greatest episodes by a majority of professional wrestling critics and mainstream media sources, such as "The Baltimore Sun" and "The Sun." For that reason, given the mainstream sources in question, naturally I thought it was notable.

Inedible starts out by saying my edits have to go because they aren't using independent sources outside of the "WWE." When he found that he was mistaken and that my material ONLY used independent sources, he revised his complaint to instead fuss that it was an "undue weight" problem (as shown[23] and[24])

Mind you, this material was three short paragraphs long, the first two paragraphs being four lines each and the last being one. To support his arguments, he repeatedly presented me with thisWP:UNDUE. I continually tried to tell him that this policy he presented me with didn't specify what exact length is and is not undue, but this comment seemed to keep going in one ear, right out the other, as he simply repliedWP:UNDUE,WP:UNDUE,WP:UNDUE. And with that simple statement, he took it upon himself to flat-out remove my material repeatedly.

I responded to all this by pointing out to InedibleHulk that the vast majority of the Raw article was both unsourced and filled with sections far in excess of mine that ought to be subject to this "undue weight" policy and removal since my sourced material of only three short paragraphs was being judged by him as undue and swiftly removed. As just a few examples of the enormously long and largely unsourced material, see here:[25] and here[26]. These sections run for eons, are unsourced, and don't even have anything to do with their headings, etc. Given these examples and the slews of additional examples that abound on the article in question, I questioned InedibleHulk as to his single-minded interest in removing my sourced material of three short paragraphs while having no interest in the rest of this loaded,unsourced material taking up nearly all of the Raw article.

In response, he stated that he had no problem whatsoever if I wanted to trim any unsourced info (as shown[27]). But this was all talk as the moment I began trimming away at the article's unsourced material, he took issue and began reverting on me repeatedly (as shown here[28]).

To get me to stop removing unsourced material, he then attempted to campaign to me personally on my talkpage. And he campaigns with me by stating how Wikipedia policies don't need to be followed all the time, telling me that in fact he's used to flouting and disregarding Wikipedia policies as if there's nothing at all wrong with this (all as shown[29]). I was totally thrown off by these remarks because thewhole reason we were having this editing dispute was due to his hounding me about an undue weight Wikipedia policy that heclaimed I was violating. It almost seemed as though the user was trying to force me to accept a double standard in which his desired edits didn't have to follow Wikipedia policies while mine did.

I decided to entertain his campaign and discuss the matter over with him in detail. We had a long drawn-out and relatively civil debate on InedibleHulk's user talk page (as shownHere). As you can see, that long-drawn out debate on his talk page concluded with me having to make the compromise in order to keep the peace, that is: (A.) I agreed to cut down my information and place it in a section of the article of his choosing (B.) I refrained from trimming away at the heavily unsourced material within the article in respect to his wishes (which as you'll note, I left alone yesterday and the day before). So, basically, I agreed to be the bigger man.

I cut my material down to three lines and place it in the section of the article that he has requested. He wasn't done there, however, and continued to make further little irksome demands that I just kept accepting to try and keep the peace. For example, despite cutting it down, he then complained I neededat least five sources in addition (as shown[30] and[31]). Anyways, after I've done all this to appease him, he finally approves with a few more gripes about two of the four sources I provided[32]. I handle those gripes and move forward.

Then there's no communications between us for a few days and all is peaceful at the WWE Raw article. Then all the sudden out of absolutely nowhere just this morning, InedibleHulk returned to the WWE Raw article and: (A.) trimmed the three lines I had shortened my material down to all the way down to one line, complaining that it was still undue weight (B.) that 2 of my 4 sources didn't suit him; and (C.) followed up by telling me on the talk page that I was "misleading" for using the word "consensus" in my edit summary from the other day when I added the version of the edit that he and I had agreed on. Also in his comments to me on the RAW talk page, he fusses about how I used the word "per consensus" as opposed to "as per consensus" in an edit summary, complaining about my grammar; and caps this off by telling me he's "scolding" me. (all as shown[33],[34], and[35].

That's the point at which I realized this user was just looking for trouble and that trying to be the bigger man was futile. I communicated to him that he needs to learn how to talk to me and that he will not "scold" me as he put it. I let him know that I was done with the hypocrite, unreasoned, and nitpicking behaviors and antics as well as his talking down to me. I informed him that the edit was going back to the way of the consensus that was reached when we stopped talking for days. I also have picked back up on my cleanup of the article since trying to be the bigger man with him and leaving it alone didn't work. I placed a tag at the top of the article that said the article has serious issues, lacks citation, and has undue weight issues.

InedibleHulk has responded by referring to me with profanities and incivlity, calling me "bitchy" among other things (as shown here[36] and[37]); he's reverted my user talk page with his warnings, which is against wikipedia policy, as shown here[38]. Also, InedibleHulk has a slew of reversions which I can present you with as well. The user seems to be spoiling for trouble and trying to compromise and be the bigger man with him doesn't even work.AmericanDad86 (talk)07:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Those diffs don't show any obvious violation of 3RR. Indeed, one of them goes back way to April 11. Really, I don't think this belongs on the 3RR noticeboard. There's obviously some issues here that would be better served being discussed at dispute resolution orWP:RFC. A short-term block wouldn't help anything and may only exacerbate the tug-of-war here. --Jtalledo(talk)12:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this place for 3RRand general edit warring? I didn't intend this as a 3RR thing. There are a few noticeboards I could have put this on, this seemed suitable. Maybe not. Not necessarilly asking for a block, but for someone other than me (or my "Wikifriends") to explain what's wrong with this. I don't seem to be getting through to him about a lot of things, and having to constantly address them is getting annoying. A request for comment could be an alright idea, if someone else commented. If it's just me and him, it's going nowhere it hasn't already been.InedibleHulk(talk)13:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Not necessarilly asking for a block, but for someone other than me (or my "Wikifriends") to explain what's wrong with this. I don't seem to be getting through to him about a lot of things, and having to constantly address them is getting annoying." If you're looking for more feedback, then dispute resolution/RFC sounds like the way to go. You both seem to have problems with each other that go beyond edit warring, e.g. arguing over various policies. I doubt that any outcome on this discussion would serve to fix things. --Jtalledo(talk)13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I've warned both editors that if they edit the article at all during the next 7 days, they may be blocked without notice for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk)15:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks.InedibleHulk(talk)16:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:Kurgan hypothesis (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:50.72.177.136 (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. [39]
2. [40] (followed by a weird spate of reverting and self reverting, I think intended to make aWP:POINT
3. [41]
4. [42]

That's 4 within 24 hrs, but there were a few more right before those 24 hrs too:

5.[43]6.[44]7.[45]8.[46]9.[47]10.[48]11.[49]

That's 11 reverts in a little more than 2 days. Against multiple editors.

Also editing as this account[50]

Some choice edit summaries and comments:

• get bent. vandalism undone.
• nope. let's have an edit war.
• Encyclopedia Britannica reference suggests that Marek and AnonMoos are trolling asshats LOL!
• adding the sentence before that quote to add clarity for you teenage assholes. lol. oops sorry. i mean dumb pigs. lol.

Ay, just look at the talk page - lots of gross incivility, immaturity, and ranting. This person is impossible to talk to.[51]

the Kurgan Theory proper is NOT popular among those with brains and a PhD to match. (Sorry if this sounds pompous but to hell with it. This discussion is like arguing with insane fundy Christians who don't grasp basic logic let alone evolution.) And you are ignoring Kohl which I cited just to carry on with your POV about what "POV" means. I got your number: You're a failed linguist bedazzled by an obnoxious neopagan outlook by a pop-culture author to annoy people on Wikipedia with your misunderstandings and to get back at society. ROFL! You can "interpret" consensus however your little heart wishes, but the academic references and legitimate facts I cite have long ago invalidated Gimbutas's relevance in either linguistics or archaeology. She is an overpraised quack in my opinion and her theory, as I said, was *never* possible unless you buy into the one-language-one-culture fallacy of racist quacks. Her revisionism discredits both the sciences and feminism but it sure sold books. So this wiki-POV of yours just shows how Wikipedia can never move beyond 1990 user interface design and a barrage of unreasonable, unbending, policy-obsessed controlfreaks.

Hahaha. Really? You don't know? Come on, you crazy "anon" clown. It's just like when the archaeologist Hawass was anointed Vice Minister of Culture of Egypt by a corrupt ousted president: modern politics, modern politics, modern politics. Did you really think that if someone receives praise that it has to do with historical accuracy? How gullible. That just proves the point that I'm sitting here talking to a teenager. Hahaha, thanks for the fun conversation but you are thick

Lol, there is nothing more sour than a lonely couch potato who CLEARLY devotes his whole life to his AnonMoos profile page bragging to everyone about their would-be academic credentials who pushes neopagan POV like a crackpot.

Wow, bringing up **60 years ago** just to argue that she is "widely accepted" in the **here and now** by your decreasing group of neopagans does nothing for your credibility as a... well what are you exactly? An "anon moo", I guess. Okay, fella. Slow down. Take your antidepressants.

AnonMoos, who assures me he has oodles of degrees and yet who has clearly invested many long jobless hours of work into his Wikipedia image, will have to adopt an increasingly paranoid and infophobic stance to preserve the sanctity of the paganist teachings locked within the windmills of his mind.

Nope, that's you, troll.

Lol, cool story, bro. ... You are a nothing. Please get that right. I will pray for you, Wiccan. :o)

And that's him just getting warmed up. There's plenty more of that on the talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[53]

• Page protected. I semi-protected the article for one week. The IP editor who is edit warring is dynamically assigned an address. Blocking one would serve little purpose, although they are editing other articles (I didn't review them, though).--Bbb23 (talk)15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is edit warring atCommunist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) with respect to numerous embedded external links. Attention of uninvolved administrators is needed for counsel and possible protection.User:Fred BauderTalk17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I semi-protected the article for 5 days. There appears to be possible sock puppetry associated with the two new and warring accounts. I noted it in my protection basis. You might want to follow through at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk)20:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:Campaign for "santorum" neologism (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Collect (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[59]

Comments:
This user has been repeatedly undone edits over a longer period, often bordering on POV pushing and making claims about the nature of the article that have been dispelled in earlier consensus. In other words, ignoring consensus and discussion because he isobviously right?CodeCat (talk)20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The edits have been perWP:BLP and the last one was aclear attempt to reach compromise language. Even zso, I did not violate 3RR even if you count compromising as a "revert." CodeCat did not even notify me of this as required, by the way, and the issue is whether calling Santorum's words "anti-gay" is a fact or is an opinion. I suggest that it is an opinion, and that asking for a cite dfor such is required byWP:BLP in the first place. So -- no bright line violation. No "long term edit war" as that is just a silly aside here (I have all of 5 edits on it on well over a full year -- calling that an "edit war" is asinine). And the issue as to whether a contentious claim requires specific sourcing is still at issue -- noting that Nomo has been vocal is assertions that such do not require strong sourcing atWP:BLP/N most recently wrtShepard Smith. Cheers.Collect (talk)21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)(edit conflict)

Nonsense. This article has become a coatrack to insert BLP against. Collect's removal of uncited text was perfectly acceptable.  littlegreen rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Regardless of the merits of the different positions on the content, the edit warring has to stop. If it doesn't, I'll lock the article. As for the warring, everyone should be on notice that I am not going to accept a BLP exemption for anyone's reverts - it's simply not strong enough to justify the reverts. @Collect, you are the only one at three reverts. So,you must stop or you risk being blocked. If everyone calms down and discusses the issues on the talk page, fine. Otherwise I'll take action.--Bbb23 (talk)21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - and I appreciate you have asked the others to stop as well.Collect (talk)21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that it hasn't even been established that this article falls under BLP policy since it's not about a person but about a campaign. That the campaign is directed against a person is another matter, but there doesn't seem to be much in the article relating to Santorum or Savage as people.CodeCat (talk)22:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note, everything on Wikipedia falls under BLP, try not to forget it.Darkness Shines (talk)22:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I'm uninvolved in this dispute; it only came to my attention because of a post atWP:BLP/N. While I don't condone edit-warring, I think that there is a good chance that this is indeed a BLP violation. Please see my initial thoughts here.[60] Wikipedia tends to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP issues and I would say that WP:BLP is more important thanWP:EDITWAR orWP:3RR.
So, what I am suggesting is that before issuing blocks against editors removing possible BLP violations, we should first consider removing the offending content and locking the page, so that the dispute can be worked out on talk pages. Thanks.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering locking the article, but it's unclear what the "offending content" is. I understand that for some there are BLP issues imbedded in the content dispute, but as I said above, I don't see the BLP issues strong enough to either exempt someone from edit warring or for me to choose a version of the article to lock.--Bbb23 (talk)02:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've locked the article for 3 days so that the content dispute may be worked out without further edits to the article. Expecting that editors would actas if the article was locked was too problematic.--Bbb23 (talk)03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:Greater Cleveland (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:75.118.133.246 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]
5. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Greater_Cleveland#Largest_Metropolitan_Area_in_Ohio

Comments:
The IP has been reverted multiple times by 4 different users.Spencer^T♦C22:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk)22:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:Collapse of the World Trade Center (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:68.13.80.89 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[73]

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

Comments:

Straight-up POV pushing and edit-warring to include Truther agenda. Also warned for 9/11 AE.Acroterion(talk)03:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

5 reverts, no sign of stopping.Acroterion(talk)03:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hoursKing of♥♦♣ ♠03:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:Collapse of the World Trade Center (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:201.211.229.223 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]
4. [78]

• Now working fromUser:200.201.138.122.Shadowjams (talk)05:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[79]

Comments: IP is likely linked to[80]. Any reviewing admin should look at both ranges.Shadowjams (talk)04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked as a proxy by another admin.Heimstern Läufer(talk)14:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:Mehmed the Conqueror (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Contaldo80 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 11 April 08:48
• 12 April 08:28
• 12 April 11:57
• 12 April 16:01 (with spurious accusation of "vandalism")
• 16 April 09:02
• 16 April 14:34
• 17 April 12:14
• 17 April 13:02

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Ongoing ANI discussion; notification[81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing WP:DRN discussion

Comments: This is a long-term POV agenda issue. This user has a long-standing history pushing poorly sourced and tendentious material about the sexual behaviour of historic Muslim ruling figures into their articles.Fut.Perf.☼13:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I categorically dispute the charge of pushing a POV agenda. There is no evidence to support this. Not do I have a history of pushing poorly sourced material. I try diligently to use sources that meet WP standards and criteria. The material I use is not deliberately partisan. I accept that some editors (and administrators) find discussion of issues relating to sexual orientation uncomfortable or controversial, but that does not mean they should not be considered. In addition I would like to make a counter report aboutFut.Perf. whose style I find bullying and who has been personally abusive without provocation, and who has accused me with no cause of not knowing what a harem is "after all these years", being "historically ignorant", and using "weak sources". I confess to expecting somewhat more balanced from someone fulfilling the important task of administrator. I have tried patiently to apply WP rules to discussion of the article [{Mehmed the Conqueror]] about getting a balance between coverage, reliable sources and avoiding bias. I am disappointed that this particular administrator seems to have missed the nuances of that. If the suggestion is that I am delibrately targeting muslim historical figures to pursue a personal agenda then the claim is simply laughable.Contaldo80 (talk)13:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Previous case, demonstrating the persistence of the same issue – incompetent and distorting use of low-quality sources in pursuance of a sexualization agenda – in an extremely similar case, three years ago:Talk:Ali Pasha#Sources.Fut.Perf.☼13:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely terms like "incompetent" and "distorting" are deliberately provocative, aren't they (not to mention insulting)? As an administrator isn't it more prudent to use more balanced language when debating an issue? Wikipedia is, after all, manned by volunteers who give of their time to make it as successful as possible, and who don't generally work well when subject to criticism and abuse. Isn't there guidance about remaing courteous somewhere? That the edits were "incompetent" is surely only your opinion - you have no evidence to support that argument. That Ali Pasha was muslim is neither here nor there - my editing of articles is not motivated by religious bias or hatred if that's what you're implying. And what on earth is a "sexualisation agenda" when it's at home? I make no secret of showing an interest in the history of homosexuality. But I am only interested in covering those issues where I come across robust sources that support such an inclusion. I'm hardly working with fringe material. I note you've also chosen not to pursue a complaint against the other editor involved in theMehmed II discussion, who clearly is interested in ensuring very favourable coverage of the subject, whatever the cost.Contaldo80 (talk)14:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also strongly urge others to look at the talk page forAli Pasha in support of my case. I tried there to be consensual, even handed and conscious of WP rules. In contrast Future Perfect dismissed gay academic journals as not “real history” and used profanities when frustrated in the arguments. There is also the suggestion that Future Perfect is strongly interested in the politics and history of south-east Europe, and I would want to be reassured that as an administrator he/she is being neutral in their approach.— Precedingunsigned comment added byContaldo80 (talk •contribs)

No violation ofWP:3RR. On the other hand,User:DragonTiger23 clearly violated WP:3RR. It's interesting that Future Perfect at Sunrise didn't report him.--В и к и T14:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected, see below.King of♥♦♣ ♠22:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:Mehmed the Conqueror (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:DragonTiger23 (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. [82][83](several consecutive edits) 09:11, 16 April 2013‎
2. [84]10:09, 16 April 2013
3. [85]11:05, 16 April 2013
4. [86]05:51, 17 April 20134th revert in 20 hours

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see[88]

Comments:

Comment: DragonTiger23 is a POV pusher. He is removing every mention of homosexuality from articles about Muslim ruling figures, but at the same time adding unsourced or poorly sourced material and LGBT categories in articles about Christian ruling figures. See[89][90][91][92]. He probably thinks that homosexuality is some sort of "insult", so he wants to "smear" Christian rulers and to "clean" articles about Muslim rulers. He should be indeffed for this.--В и к и T14:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So much false accusations, are these all sockpuppets of each other, I have nothing against LGBT or adding LGBT to Muslim rulers, But I have problem with falsifying history and pushing POV with selective sources. This is not even about LGBT but how a an Ottoman ruler Mehmed II supposedly was raping numerous boys and this is based on a few Byzantine sources. I have explained all my point of view, the sources very long on the talk page, but people just ignore that. So the issue is raping not LGBT, and my contributions to some other royalty was based on sources, they removed this by calling them weak sources and then threatened me because I edited those pages, I only wanted to see their reaction but since they don't allowed to be added to "some" persons but insisted in adding to others, then we can ask the question who is here pushing POV?DragonTiger23 (talk)16:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether to include disputed material or not and I didn't edited the page, so I'm not involved. I reported you because of edit warring and violation ofWP:POINT.--В и к и T17:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The same pattern: adding poor citations or simply no sources at all I'm experiencing in another article from same user. In this edit [[93]] DragonTiger23 performs a revert and gets rid of the recently added 'sources' tag, however the specific section still doesn't a single source (not to mention the battleground mentality in his edit summary).Alexikoua (talk)22:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, why are you trying to cover up Greek massacres against Turks, Wikipedia is neutral where it is allowed that massacres against everybody will be included. So giving information about massacres of Turks by Greeks is not a crime here, maybe in Athens it is, I don't know. If you would be neutral you would see that I have written that article entirely based on sources, most of that article is based on a report written by a neutral western commission who toured the area for investigation. But you just come and (before reading the article?) add POV, why are you trying to cover it up? Nobody denies here massacres against Greeks. And now you are falsely accusing and complaining here against me, who has here the battleground mentality?DragonTiger23 (talk)11:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected I see a lot of edit warring from multiple people, so this seems to be the best option.King of♥♦♣ ♠22:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a problem with this solution. On the face of it, it seems the sensible thing to do. But the difficulty for me is that the page now protected excludes the material on sexual relationships. This is the outcome that DragonTiger23 and Future Perfect at Sunrise want to see. There is no incentive on them to engage in discussion about why they believe the sources to be unsuitable (indeed Future Perfect seems to show no interest in elaborating initial cursory comments; and no-one has given any input into the dispute resolution page). When the page protection expires if the other side has failed to engage in debate then surely I should be able to restore the material in question? My guiding light has been WP guidance - if no rules have been broken when including the material on relationships then surely there can be no grounds for leaving it out? I would also like advice on how to hold Future Perfect to account for the fairly liberal use of personal insults directed towards me please.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC

Seemeta:The Wrong Version. The purpose of the protection is not to preserve their version, but to encourage all participants in the dispute to discuss the issue on the talk page instead of edit warring. --King of♥♦♣ ♠08:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok - thank you. I'll assume good faith then that the others editors will be willing to engage in polite discussion, and support their arguments. My concerns about Future Perfect remain though. I note that they are an experienced editor and know the system much better than I do; but that they also have a track record of using highly discourteous language against other editors. The insults directed at me were not warranted. I want to be reassured that administrators on Wikipedia abide by the same rules they themselves are called upon to enforce.Contaldo80 (talk)08:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am not pushing POV at all, I am against falsifying and distortion of history. I am only removing the addition of Contaldo80, where he uses few non neutral biased accounts to state that Mehmed raped numerous boys and at the end he only adds a weak refutation. So he is pushing his own POV by cherry picking sources to give credibility to this claims. Future Perfect said he was source abusing, which seems to exactly describe his behavior. I have already tried to explained in the Talk page, but Contaldo80 seems to be aggressive against everyone who doesn't agree with him. He tried to discredit me numerous times by accusing me of having pro Ottoman Turkish agenda.DragonTiger23 (talk)10:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:John Le Mesurier (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:JohnClarknew (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [95] - as JohnClarknew
2. [96] - as JohnClarknew
3. [97] - as JohnClarknew
4. [98] - as 65.112.235.2
5. [99] - as JohnClarknew, after this discussion was opened. See also thefollow-up comment on my talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[100] &[101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page:[102]and on my talk page:[103]

Comments:
I have tried to stress the need for using reliable sources in all articles, especially anWP:FA. The user appears to think that as he is adding his own name to the article is does not need it and is prepared to edit war over forcing unsourced additions into an FA. -SchroCat (talk)20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of24 hours JohnClarknew has indeed violated 3RR. However, you yourself have made the following reverts:

• 20:20, 17 April 2013
• 08:29, 18 April 2013
• 20:21, 18 April 2013
• 20:39, 18 April 2013

Managing to avoid 3RR by 19 minutes just reeks ofWP:LETTER. This, along with some incivility (e.g. "THEN PUT IN A FECKING SOURCE!!!" on your talk page), has convinced me to give you a block as well.King of♥♦♣ ♠22:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User being reported:Bluerules (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log): He is at it again. He is still continuing to become adisruptive editor as seen inOlympus Has Fallen on how the cast should be ordered and continue to violated consensus. This guy has a history of blocks in the past, including the most recent one. Here are the diffs on there.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [109]
2. [110]
3. [111]
4. [112]

There is no consensus. You said it yourself that the cast order should follow the ending credits. That's what I'm making them reflect.Bluerules (talk)03:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Both of you are at it, but not at the level required for blocking. I have protected the page for 3 days in the hopes that you two will work out your differences.King of♥♦♣ ♠03:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:Dialog Control Language (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Btadrian2001 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[119]

Comments:

This is my first try to create this report, hope I got it all right.Jimmy Bergmark (talk)05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. The editor has been adding aWP:SPAMLINK to two articles and then edit warring over it. However, they were never warned. They've now been warned.--Bbb23 (talk)01:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:2013 World Snooker Championship (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Spc 21 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:link

Comments:
Two of my reverts were made because you added badly worded English on to the page. If you didn't have to have last word on every snooker tournament article the problem would not have started.Spc 21 (talk)20:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Armbrust has reverted the work of different editors 4 times already. I may also be in the wrong as I have reverted the page. Armbrust was warned a few weeks ago for the same reason as can be seenhere when he revertedthis page a total of nine times.Spc 21 (talk)19:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Links to the reverts?Armbrust^{TheHomunculus}20:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. I blocked both editors for violatingWP:3RR: Armbrust for 2 weeks and Spc 21 for 48 hours. The durations are equal to their last edit-warring blocks.--Bbb23 (talk)01:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, Armbrust only reverted three times and Spc 21 four times, but Armbrust has got the much longer block on the sole basis that he was blocked for two weeks a year ago. The fact that Armbrust brought the case to ANI strongly suggests he probably wasn't going to continue reverting, so I think the extended block is slightly excessive in this case. The snooker world championship starts this weekend and the two most active snooker editors are now blocked, which isn't ideal. May I suggest reducing both blocks to 24 hours, and restricting both of them to 1RR (except in cases of clear vandalism) on this article for the duration of the championship? If either of them violate that then they are both out until the end of the championship?Betty Logan (talk)02:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Armbrust reverted 4x. His filing of the report and his comment asking for diffs of his reverts show very little insight into the policy he's violating. Spc 21, who filed a retaliatory report (I combined the two), shows just as little understanding of what they're doing or how disruptive it is. Nor did I regard Spc 21's personal attacks (vandalism, poor English) against Armbrust favorably. As for the amount of time, Armbrust has a horrible record of edit warring in this area. It's true that the last block was not recent, but it wasn't a year ago but 8 months and there's a string of blocks preceding it. If they want to be unblocked, show some understanding of what they did wrong, and promise (believably) that they will stop editing disruptively, they know how to request an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk)03:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:Qwerty786 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Comments:
This is a sensitive article and deep within the ARBMAC area. Bilateral developments took place today (19th) which this user has taken upon himself to report on several articles information to the effect that Serbia has recognised Kosovo despite no such declaration having been made. Several editors have communicated with Qwerty on his talk page and on the talk page of the article as well as in other places but this hasn't prevented this user from making four changes to the above article all to push the one point he was primed to make with his original contribution.

• Original tendentious contribution
• [120] First restoration
• [121] Second restoration
• [122] Third hint at "independent country" club for Kosovo
• [123] Finally, he interferes with this long-standing piece which he twists to sell the original "Serbia recognises Kosovo" viewpoint.

Conversation to explain the circumstance to this editor has taken placehere andhere, not to mention on histalk. Take notice of the slimy POV-driven remarks this editor produces in his justification posts.Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue)21:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on what was in the agreement I posted a conclusion but not one that was explicit and will wait to edit an article or talk page on this topic until the very soon and near explicit comment of recognition comes which is guaranteed. I will just wait until it is explicit to ever edit another one of this articles. It shouldn't be too long like a few weeks or months but whatever. I ban myself from editing these articles until the inevitable is explicit- totally and completely explicit! I ban myself from all Kosovo related articles.Qwerty786 (talk)21:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

All right don't go bananas, nobody said "ban yourself editing Kosovo related articles". If you say you won't push that point any more I accept that and am happy with it, and can recommend that this discussion is closed immediately. I am not a monster.Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue)21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation Per above.King of♥♦♣ ♠23:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:Cinema of Kosovo (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Evlekis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[124]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]
4. [128]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[129]

Comments:

Speedy close. There has been no violation of 3RR from any editor within a 24-hour frame. I am personally on 1RR sanctions and I did by mistake make an error of reverting within 24 hours[130] because I became confused by the time in Britain where I am and UTC which is being used on the system, it threw me off course. Upon realisation I immediately cancelled my own contribution[131]. My next revert passed the 24-hour deadline and no revision by me since that edit constitutes a revert. The suggestion that I am editing from the anonymous account is unfounded but I believe if further interest in this case be taken, focus should switch to Venus fzy who is very knowledgeable for a new user with this campaign. He was the author of the article he takes objection to and is part of a nexus (one IP and one duff account) pushing for a severe breach of naming conventions within ARBMAC territory. Note that approval byUser:Bliss 1.618here does not constitute a "consensus" for this deliberate violating of WP policy. The editor has made no edits outside of this subject so his agreement cannot be taken with the same authority as something involving more seasoned editors on Kosovo subjects such asUser:WhiteWriter orUser:Antidiskriminator. Take notice that I have attempted to explain procedure to all editors involved, particularly followingWP:AT which is the governing factor here:[132]. The opposition evidently rejects wider consensus, WP:AT and common English as provenhere.Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue)22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation But everyone should stop edit-warring over the names.King of♥♦♣ ♠23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Protecting the page pending further discussion wouldn't be a bad idea.Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue)23:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Right now, people seem to have agreed to stop edit warring, so that is not necessary. However, I may protect it if the edit warring resumes. --King of♥♦♣ ♠23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No fear from me! :) I cannot make a change to that page for some hours so my hands will be clean (except if making copy-edits which don't interfere with the disputed content).Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue)23:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Page:White Horse, New Jersey (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:R. fiend (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[133]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [134]
2. [135] at 20:53, 4 April 2013
3. [136] at 11:18, 7 April 2013
4. [137] at 11:27, 7 April 2013
5. [138] at 11:32, 7 April 2013
6. [139] at 11:05, 8 April 2013
7. [140] at 08:38, 10 April 2013
8. [141] at 16:37, 10 April 2013
9. [142] at 20:58, 10 April 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[144]

Comments:

User:R. fiend has advocated that any material regardingWhite Horse Circle cannot exist in Wikipedia based on the results ofWikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse Circle, a discussion that took place eight years ago. As I have pointed out to R. fiend, Wikipedia policy allows for merging content from deleted articles into other articles and creating redirects. R. fiend has repeatedly deleted content from the article forWhite Horse, New Jersey even after the material was repeatedly expanded and additional sources were provided. He has also marked the redirect atWhite Horse Circle for speedy deletion, even after the deletion was challenged with an appropriate explanation. Other edits made byUser:R. fiend include such pointy edits as"The only notable aspect of White Horse is a rotary" at White Horse Circle and"Flemington is also home to Allen St., which runs north-south, starting at North Main St. and ending at Court St. in the south." atFlemington, New Jersey. I have attempted to explain my position based on the use of sources, butUser:R. fiend has threatened to continue edit warring (see here for "In the meantime, as I pointed out, we have a clear consensus that states, to paraphrase 'fuck that shit'. So don't be surprised if I remove it again.") and followed through on his threat.Alansohn (talk)16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Added additional revert.User:R. fiend has seen this 3RR notice, he just assumes that he'll get away with it by repeating his belief that an AfD from eight years ago of another article has relevance here.Alansohn (talk)14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Added an additional revert, as the edit warring continues in the face of rather clear consensus for retention. The fact thatUser:R. fiend refuses to address his policy violations here doesn't bode well for a solution that doesn't involve administrative action.Alansohn (talk)22:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Added two more reverts.Alansohn (talk)02:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• This is quite clear. An edit war, where one party may well have a good point content-wise but uses inappropriate means to drive the point home. The other party has, unfortunately, allowed themselves to be dragged into it and while it is true that R. fiend has one revert more than Alansohn, both are guilty of edit-warring (seriously, Alansohn--a friggingroundabout? Seriously, R. Fiend, an anxient AfD is to decide a content question here?). Both of you should be blocked, but I'm not about to block two valuable longtime contributors just because they happen to act, in this one article, like complete turds. Next admin, if you block either one of them, or both, per EW or 3R or BOOMERANG or WHATEVER, you are correct. But will that do any good?Drmies (talk)04:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Can I just say that the reason I cite an (I assume you mean "ancient") AfD in this case is because it is literally all we have to go on. A significant consensus of users clearly stated that this is trivial minutiae that is not worthy of an encyclopedia (that and common sense, which states you don't devote 40% of a town's article on an insignificant intersection). If there was any sign of a change in consensus on the topic we'd have a completely different situation. But we don't, and aren't likely to, as I've noticed WP seems to have gotten less tolerant of trivial cruft like this over the years, in that many articles that failed to reach consensus for deletion back then have been renominated and deleted with little opposition more recently. Alansohn seems to think deletion is merely moving content from one article to another until no one notices anymore, rather than actually honoring a consensus about what is or is not encyclopedic. If there is a consensus that the old AfD is not longer appropriate, and this material is a significant part of White Horse, NJ, then I will by all means back down. But right now Alansohn is saying that one other person person on the wiki agrees with him, therefore consensus. That's not how it works. And I'd like to add that we have about 8 reverts over the course of about a week, which isn't a 3RR violation on anyone's part, so blocking either of us seems unjustified. Maybe some good will come of this and we'll get more eyes on this article and we can see if there's a consensus one way or the other. Right now no one seems to be looking at the article at all (which is hardly surprising, as it's basically an article about a rotary). -R. fiend (talk)04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes you can, but it's better placed on the article talk page. Start an RfC if you like. I wouldn't block you for 3RR but for edit-warring.Drmies (talk)17:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • No one looks at that talk page, so it's hardly a great place to try to get a discussion going. (Or if anyone does look at it, it's likely because they're rotary enthusiasts, who don't represent general opinion on Wikipedia.) An RfC is a shitload of red tape for something as banal is this one article, especially when there's already been an established consensus (an old one, yes, but a consensus nonetheless). If an RfC can set the standards for traffic circles and the like on all pages in which they appear (which seems to be not many, and generally confined to NJ, but there are certainly other examples) it could prove useful, but I don't know of that's going to take off. In the meantime, can someone give me some reason why a 8 year old consensus would be void when there's been no visible change in the state of affairs since then? -R. fiend (talk)21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
        • This is not the place for content discussions. You know where the place is; you've been here long enough.Drmies (talk)01:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• To rebut both of R. fiend's contentions:
  • 3RR - This is a 3RR violation. R. fiend made four blind reverts from 11:18, 7 April 2013‎ to 11:05, 8 April 2013‎ (within the bright line of 24 hours) and three more blind reverts on April 10. On several occasions I added sources and additional material to further demonstrate notability, and other editors have opposed R. fiend's actions, while all of R. fiend's reverts all went back to exactly the same point.
  • Consensus - Consensus for eight years has been to keep the material in the article. It was added inthis edit on October 1, 2005, immediately after the close of the AfD forWhite Horse Circle. R. fiend attempted to delete the material twice over the next two days (here andhere), but in each case another editor reverted the blind revert. The material had been in the article for eight years before R. fiend started blindly reverting the content, upsetting a status quo that had been maintained for eight years. He has stuck by his irrational misinterpretation of policy, perpetually edit warring over material that is reliably and verifiable sourced.
• User:R. fiend is an editor who is self-described as devoting his time on Wikipedia to "being an asshole", as he proudly notes on his user page and he has certainly played the part in this one article over this eight-year period, battling with five other editors who have added the sourced material. He stands alone, spitting in the face of consensus and Wikipedia policy. Consensus has consistently supported retention of the content for eight years and R. fiend has no case here in denying the 3RR violation as every one of his dozen edits has been a blind revert in his ongoing edit war.Alansohn (talk)19:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There has never been any consensus to keep the information in the article. Saying that a few people defying the consensus to delete it is a consensus for it to remain is simply false. Basically no one paid attention to the article after the AfD in order to enforce the consensus to delete, except me, and it fell off my radar years ago until I happened upon it again. Anyone can see details about an intersection are beyond trivial and unencyclopedic, as was clearly stated by more than a dozen editors at its AfD. If there is a true consensus on Wikipedia to include detailed information on every rotary in the nation in their cities articles, please show me where it is. Don't say "me and a few others have made some editors over the years and that's a consensus." It isn't, and you should know that. Your argument is that the information has been there long enough to have gained squatters' rights. No such policy exists on Wikipedia. -R. fiend (talk)21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Again, every single time you've removed the content from the article forWhite Horse, New Jersey it's been restored, usually within minutes. You've removed the material a dozen times over eight years and five different editors have immediately restored the content. Not a single editor agrees that it should be removed andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse Circle has absolutely zero relevance here; You are the only editor who believes it does. What is relevant here is the 3RR violation, and you offer no defense. Is there any justification for not imposing the required block?Alansohn (talk)22:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Just to add to the fun, R. fiend also edit warred over the same material atHamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey with four blind reverts in that article before the content was moved toWhite Horse, New Jersey and he started his eight-year long edit war in that article. The topic has been addressed atTalk:Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey where consensus was that the material should be reatined and atTalk:White Horse, New Jersey, with consensus in both discussions that the material should stay.Alansohn (talk)14:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor who bears a grudge for eight years and has blindly reverted the same content in two different articles some 15 times isn't going to walk away and leave the content alone, despite a half-dozen editors disagreeing with his unsupported claims that an ancient AfD irrevocably requires deletion of any related content in any other article. He's violated 3RR here and is entirely unrepentant. Any suggestions on dealing with the R. fiend problem?Alansohn (talk)15:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the best option is discussion (possibly with the RFC imprimatur) on the article talk page. If the two of you find that you can't discuss this without edit warring, the article could be full-protected. My own opinion is that the topic of the traffic circle should not be expunged completely from the article (this traffic circle does seem to be a noteworthy feature of the place), but the amount of "road geek" detail in that section is excessive.

Note: After reading the article and some of the sources, I created a "History" section to tell about the origin of the name "White Horse". That history previously was discussed only in the traffic circle section. --Orlady (talk)17:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, and one that I would be happy to participate in. The problem is thatUser:R. fiend has indicated that he believes that an AfD for another article irrevocably taints any content related to the White Horse Circle no matter where it appears or what material or sources are added. I'd love to work this out, but R. fiend has made it clear that he is not willing to accept any alternative to deletion of the sourced content. If only there were a negotiating partner here, we might have more luck.Alansohn (talk)01:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)