Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive196
User:Nlsanand and User:Kingjeff reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Protected)
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Page: 2012 Toronto FC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nlsanand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nlsanand engaged in an edit war with me over this subject less than 36 hours earlier.
Previous version reverted to: [1]
- 1st revert for Kingjeff: [2]
- 1st revert for Nlsanand: [3]
- 2nd revert for Kingjeff: [4]
- 2nd revert for Nlsanand including the taunt: [5]
- 3rd revert for Nlsanand: [6]
- 3rd revert for Kingjeff: [7]
- 4th revert for Nlsanand: [8]
- 5th revert for Nlsanand: [9]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Both editors are experienced and Nlsanand even uses 3RR as a hammer to stop others from editing. He is well aware of the policy.
Kingjeff: [10]
Nlsanand: [11] and [12]
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page that's not getting very far.
Comments:
I invoked 3 revert rule at 02:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC), Walter then insisted on goading a new entrant to undo my edit without first reading the talk page. If you read the talk page, I always explained my edit clearly, and another poster was shown to see what I said accurate. Nlsanand (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd add that I took steps to neutralize the wording and told the other editors to take it to admin if they wanted. I'll own what I wrote. User:Walter Görlitz tried to disprove me first at various points then backed off. He then just tried to get another user to re-start the edit war. Nlsanand (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. I simply pointed-out the discrepancy on the talk page. No goading required. No goading was required for an editor to make 5 reverts on the article though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't an edit war three days 36 hours before either. It was civil. talk had reverted an edit of mine in good faith. I pointed out that his source was incorrect, by explanation in the talk page. Just to make it clear, it could be disproved in simple words and said that I would invoke the 3 revert rule if he chose not to engage me and simply revert. You can read the talk page and see the sequence. Then, Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who chose not to read the same talk page) made the same mistake. Instead, of making Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aware of the same mistake, talk said (and I paraphrase), "You should go ahead and edit it again" That sounds like goading to me. Nlsanand (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. It was an edit war. I changed it (my first revert). You changed it back (your first revert). I reverted based on the supplied RS (my second revert). You changed it back (your second revert). Seems like an edit war to me.
- From Wikipedia:Edit warring: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."
- My exact comment was "Then you might want to update the lede to reflect that". It was simply an acknowledgement to Kingjeff that the lede and body no longer agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. It was an edit war. I changed it (my first revert). You changed it back (your first revert). I reverted based on the supplied RS (my second revert). You changed it back (your second revert). Seems like an edit war to me.
I added reliable sources that clearly backed-up my point on the talk page. The first source came last night and I added two more sources. Walter Görlitz added a fourth source. All four sources are credible. I have asked Nlsanand to provide a credible source. He has failed to do so up to this point. He has only provided a message board as a source on the talk page. If you take a look at Nlsanand's edits, on both the article and the talk page, you will see that he has provided nothing more than original research. Whereas I have provided credible sources. Kingjeff (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kingjeff stopped at the bright line, but as edit warring goes, sources don't give us leave to edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nlsanand is clearly creating original research. Kingjeff (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I want to make thing clear. I believe I am correct and Nlsanand is wrong. Nlsanand is in violation of WP:OR. He has failed to produce a credible source that backs him up after being asked too. I personally added three sources and Walter Görlitz added a fourth. I don't understand why my name was added here since my edits were in compliance of WP:OR. Kingjeff (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I've protected the article. No comment on the edit warring, but constant reverting can't be tolerated. GedUK 11:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of IDHT, it's a matter of sources, and it seems both have a point. The fact is the edit war is unacceptable and the actions of the editors should now be addressed.
- And when I say now, I mean that this issue is close to 24 hours old and nothing has been done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am citing WP:CALC, as another poster has alerted me to it. Again, the math is self-evident. I have still not seen Walter Görlitz state that he disagrees. He simply keeps deflecting and saying (and I paraphrase) that "There are sources that say they were eliminated on the 12th". Nlsanand (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- @Walter: Agreed, edit warring is unacceptable whether you think your edits are correct or not. However, I'd point out that you yourself made four reverts within 48h ([13], [14], [15], [16]) so you're hardly blameless in this. Yes you stopped short of the bright line of 3RR, but you WP:TAGTEAMed with Kingjeff to insert the date of the 12th into the article in spite of the lack of consensus on the talk page. TDL (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fully agree that I made 4 edits over 48 hours, but the fact that Kingjeff and I have the same opinion at the outset does not explain why I reverted in the end and my edit summary is clear as to why I made mine. If you're counting my 4 over 48 then Nlsanand is at seven. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Look, then I'm going to point out, another editor also noted how it was clear they were eliminated on the 6th (take a look at the talk page. Furthermore, Kingjeff's talk page contributions showed a general misunderstanding of the issue, and a general unwillingness to engage in discussion (or at least an inability to understand the issue at hand). An experienced editor like Walter Görlitz understood that when he encouraged this general misunderstanding. Nlsanand (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fully agree that I made 4 edits over 48 hours, but the fact that Kingjeff and I have the same opinion at the outset does not explain why I reverted in the end and my edit summary is clear as to why I made mine. If you're counting my 4 over 48 then Nlsanand is at seven. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- @Walter: Agreed, edit warring is unacceptable whether you think your edits are correct or not. However, I'd point out that you yourself made four reverts within 48h ([13], [14], [15], [16]) so you're hardly blameless in this. Yes you stopped short of the bright line of 3RR, but you WP:TAGTEAMed with Kingjeff to insert the date of the 12th into the article in spite of the lack of consensus on the talk page. TDL (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am citing WP:CALC, as another poster has alerted me to it. Again, the math is self-evident. I have still not seen Walter Görlitz state that he disagrees. He simply keeps deflecting and saying (and I paraphrase) that "There are sources that say they were eliminated on the 12th". Nlsanand (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Buddy, anyone who looked at the talk page would see a clear pattern of not engaging in consensus building. I feel like you're trying to use my lack of knowledge of Wiki rules (I'll own it, it's clear that I didn't really fully understand the 3-revert rule) to hide the fact that you're trying to claim ownership of the article and not willing to admit that you got it wrong. Kingjeff's edits were just clearly wrong, so my reverts had to be done. Even if his math was accurate, his edits were still wrong; he was using the 13th, not the 12th. Your most recent posts show a clear lack of civility on your part. I will note that you had the decency never to lie, but you have deflected from the fact that my math was clearly correct (which is supported by at least two other users who have opined on the talk page). You seem to be using your knowledge of the rules to attempt to piss people off, and in this case it at least seems like you're not really doing it with any intent of making the article better. If my violation of a bright line rule warrants a block, I'll accept that from the administrators. However, if you review the content, the talk page, and the malicious editing against which I was defending the article, I don't believe it's warranted. Moreso, I think it calls the pair of you a lot more into quesiton. Nlsanand (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
My edits were wrong? I put in a statement and I sourced it. How are my edits are wrong? A contributor's edits are not wrong just because you disagree. Kingjeff (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Page protected - Ten days, by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Terrible precedent. I am marking this decision not to block for going well past 3RR and will point to it as my only reason for doing so myself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly Walter, you two are lucky not to be blocked. Bright line is one thing, but your behavior through this has been reprehnsible. Nlsanand (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:DePiep reported by User:WaitingForConnection (Result: 48 hours)
[edit]Page: Hillsborough Independent Panel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [17]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] [24] [25]
Comments: There was also an attempt to remove a CSD tag despite being the creator, an acknowledgement of what 3RR was after the warning, and the latter two diffs above were reverts of two uninvolved admins, who both concurred with my decision to redirect.
—WFC— FL wishlist 22:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I created the page in good faith (the very need to mention this). WFC accused me of 3RR ("technically"?!) when I only had done 3 edits in toto: [26]. I removed CSD tag? Read my "oops". Here are three edits by WFC, quite early in the process: 1: change page into redirect 2: again 3: adding tag Speedy. How is that for warring? The notion that some edits were reverts of two uninvolved admins does not weigh: I am not to know that it is an admin who edits, nor should it matter. I am to weigh an edit by quality, not by admin's arrogance. Interestingly, and annoyingly, another editor upped that same argument: [27][28]). In general: WFC does one-sided counting & observing. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- My initial redirect was on the basis of Talk:Hillsborough disaster#Hillsborough Independent Panel article. My second redirect was because I strongly believed that it was in the interests of the reader to be directed to the Hillsborough disaster article unless the new page went significantly beyond the information there, and based on my belief (which has subsequently proven correct) that other users would concur. Once reverted a second time, I tagged under CSD A10, to get the attention of an uninvolved administrator, who answered the tag by redirecting. I have made no subsequent edits to the page, and have several times attempted to explain my reasoning. My assertion about a technical breach of 3RR was in relation to the corresponding edits DePiep made to the hatnote at Hillsborough disaster – in hindsight this was incorrect, as it goes without saying that if a specific article exists, a hatnote should point to it. Nonetheless, 3RR has been breached – a status quo achieved through a breach of 3RR and editing regardless of the talk page comments made by myself, Struway, Peridon and others cannot be right. —WFC— FL wishlist 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- DePiep, you are just coming off a block for a 1RR violation of ARBPIA restriction. I've seen you around to think you are intentionally being obtuse here. You're often quick to note how every admin is arrogant and abusive, yet you claim you don't know one when you see one. My points on your talk page and the article talk page speak for themselves, and the history at the article is clear. I've tried to just end the problem, but I will leave this up to the neutral 3RR specialists to do the counting, since I've warned you about 3RR in other cases, and had to decline an unblock request from you just the other day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Also for multiple removals of the speedy deletion tag as the article's author (you don't have to "remember" the rule - it says so on the tag in bold). Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I did not do multiple removals of the speedy tag. Bbb23 knows by now. [29] -DePiep (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Afgtnk and User:144.132.28.156 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24 hours for both)
[edit]Page: Sport in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Afgtnk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 144.132.28.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 10:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
User:Afgtnk contributions
|
|---|
|
- Diff of warning: here
User:144.132.28.156 contributions
|
|---|
|
- Diff of warning: here
The whole thing is a mess. —Bidgee (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Bandwidth47 reported by User:KnowledgeisGood88 (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Page: High Point University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bandwidth47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]
Comments:User Bandwidth47 has deleted a passage of text six times without comment, four times within 24 hours, and four times marking the changes a minor. I have added comments when replacing the deleted text, and on the talk pages above explaining that the text contains factual references to a reputable national publication and is pertinent to the article. User has not responded other than by repeated reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeisGood88 (talk • contribs) 15 September 2012—
- Comment by non-admin user: A quick check of the article showed that User:Bandwidth47 has introduced large tracts of text copied verbatim from copyrighted sources, hence massive WP:COPYVIO violations. I rolled the article back to the last stable version (see diff here) and suggested that the policy be read carefully before attempting to re-introduce the material. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. AzureCitizen, thanks for catching the copyright violations. I have posted a warning about the violations on the editor's talk page to make sure they know about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Sayerslle reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Both blocked 72h)
[edit]Page: Hafez al-Assad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I told user that he should take the problem to the talk page, but insted he continued edit-warring. He adds this source that can't be verified and the claim is not at all generally accepted by the reliable sources. I don't know who stated this in this documentary, it can be someone's personall oppinion or an interview.
In his edit summary, the User called me "a dictator" ("its hard to talk to dictators") and accused me of censoring.
--Wüstenfuchs 20:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. 3RR violation on both sides, both editors have a block history including edit warring. --Chris (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:CristofolR reported by User:Ravave (Result: Protected)
[edit]Page: Salvador Puig Antich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CristofolR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ravave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In the last days i had a little edition war with CristofolR about the nationality of Puig Antich, when i'd be wrote is a "Spanish anarchist", he was born in Catalonia (region), Spain (country), but the user seems to be dislike and undoing me. A few days another user we warned if we continue with this, we will blocked. 7 september i contact with him in his user tak page with the hope to reach an agreement, but days later he answer me without reach and acord and turns to edit. I just say he was an Spanish anarchist cause Barcelona is Spain, you see the history page for its last editions
- 1st revert: [40] 16-sept
- 2nd revert: [41] 28- aug
- 3rd revert: [42] 22-aug
- 4th revert: [43] 17-aug
- 5th revert: [44] 16-aug
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
In the talk page, for reach an agree, i ask days ago to Christofol to reach an agree, but he hasn't Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45].Ravave (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
Revision history
6 reverts in one day, user in constant edit war, was warned by other user he would break the rule but still continued.
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. (There were not six reverts in one day.) Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User: 116.71.16.36 reported by User:Electriccatfish2 (Result: 72 hours)
[edit]Page: Mouse (computing) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 116.71.16.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- Note: The edit war is still ongoing, so please check the article's history for more diffs.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Kinu. Electric Catfish 16:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Dr. Blofeld reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Declined)
[edit]Page: Phallic architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [51]
This is a dispute about an {{{{expert-subject-multiple}}}} template I added to the newly-created Phallic architecture article. As I've explained on the talk page, I think the article needs expert attention, but Dr. Blofeld seems intent on edit-warring over the template without ant discussion beyond an assertion that "it is... ridiculous to suggest that phallic architecture has an 'expert' who is likely to edit wikipedia" (edit summary to this revert [56]) As I've pointed out in the ongoing discussion on my talk page "The subject clearly isn't just 'architecture' anyway - it is as much about sociology and anthropology for a start." (see User talk:AndyTheGrump#Phallic_architecture). Essentially, as I see it, Blofeld is asserting that there are no 'experts', so nobody can improve the article, in spite of the obvious flaws I've indicated on the talk page, and he seems to want to edit-war over it. He is only at three reverts so far, but clearly refuses to address the issue properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
Does any admin here seriously think that an article on architecture which resembles a penis will have an army of experts swarming to come to wikipedia and improve it. The tag is about as pointless as you can get. I'm not an expert on most of the subjects I edit, I'm a good researcher though and work well if I'm allowed to happily edit without obstruction. I am keen to constructively address the article providing you back off and stop being a grump basically. I've requested the article from JSTOR you wanted from Bgwhite. If you spent more of your time trying to solve what you think is the problem yourself instead of removing a lot of material, fussing about it on the article talk page and then wondering why other editors think your slopping an "Expert tag" on the top of a highly obscure article is highly inappropriate you'd get on a lot better with your fellow editors. You've gatecrashed this article from the moment I started it and you've put me off working on for fear of you reverting me and me wasting my time. Just back off.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Declined. As Andy acknowledges, only 3 reverts by Dr. B. I'm not going to block Dr. B. for edit-warring alone, particularly on a tag issue. Rather than lock the article, how about seeking dispute resolution on the tag.Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm open to constructive comments or valid actions. I'm not in the habit of challenging others. Somebody placed a tag on Osiandrian controversy which I agree with. But I think placing an expert tag in an article on buildings which look like a penis looks more of a joke than the article itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a constructive comment - how about reading WP:OWN? I have as much right to comment on the article as you. Probably more so, since I seem to be approaching it as a serious subject, not a 'joke article' thrown together for a DYK. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- No more. Dispute resolution doesn't take place here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a constructive comment - how about reading WP:OWN? I have as much right to comment on the article as you. Probably more so, since I seem to be approaching it as a serious subject, not a 'joke article' thrown together for a DYK. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm open to constructive comments or valid actions. I'm not in the habit of challenging others. Somebody placed a tag on Osiandrian controversy which I agree with. But I think placing an expert tag in an article on buildings which look like a penis looks more of a joke than the article itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria reported by Rreagan007 (talk) (Result: Declined)
[edit]Page: Ray Farquharson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 04:07, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "image placement")
- 12:46, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")
- 15:37, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")
- 01:49, 16 September 2012 (edit summary: "tw")
Comments: Upon viewing today’s featured article, I was surprised to discover that there was no image in the infobox, as is standard formatting on Wikipedia when a free use image is available per WP:Images. I then added the available free use image to the infobox along with a couple other parameters to the infobox. Upon viewing the article again a few hours later, I discovered the image had been removed. I assumed it was just a routine case of vandalism of today’s featured article as often happens, so I added the image back.
I just now looked at the article again, and I discovered the image had disappeared yet again. I then took a look at the article history, and discovered that Nikkimaria had been reverting any additions to the infobox by me and at least 4 other good faith editors within the last 24 hours. This activity clearly violated the 3 revert rule. I then took a look at her user page and was shocked to discover she is actually an administrator.
Not only that, but it also appears from her edit summaries that she was using Twinkle rollback privileges to do these reverts, which is a clear violation of the Twinkle abuse policy and would be, on its own, grounds for a block.
There is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior by an admin, as an admin is expected to know and follow Wikipedia policies, and should be setting an example for other editors to follow. Per Administrator conduct policy, “Administrators are expected to lead by example… Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies”.
An admin blatantly violating Wikipedia policies in this manner is totally unacceptable conduct by an admin and must be dealt with accordingly.
—Rreagan007 (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, wasn't using Twinkle, all these edits were manual. I was, however, maintaining the quality of a featured article that was then on the main page, which does allow for some leeway under the edit-warring policy. If, in the process of monitoring changes and vandal edits to that article, I stepped over the line, I apologize for that. I invite Rreagan007 to discuss his/her views on image placement on the talk page, where this discussion belongs, and entreat him/her not to engage in such disputes while an article is mainpaged. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Declined. Not the appropriate forum to request review of an administrator's actions or request sanctions. Best would be to work it out in light of Nikkimaria's apology.Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the 3 revert rule doesn't apply to admins. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the 3 revert rule doesn't apply to admins. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
User:StillStanding-247 reported by User:Little green rosetta (Result: No action)
[edit]Page: Parents Action League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Only 2 reverts to restore recently disputed content
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]
Comments:
I really did not want to bring this here. I would hope that the editor in question would self-revert and this can be put to bed without admin intervention.
A user added some content which I reverted due to (IMO) being a POV and coatrack edit. User "Still Standing" undid my reversion (thus reinserting the disputed content) insisting we discuss the issue on the talk page. I once again removed the content and joined the talk page so that we could get to the "D" in BRD. I reiterated my concerns about POV and coatrack issues (which from a quick view of the article should be readily apparent) and I'm getting a "I DIDNT HEAR THAT" response. At least one other editor on the TP at least understands my concerns about the coatrack.
This user is (or should be) well familiar with WP:BRD and that its not WP:BRRD. I suggest that he is being intetionally disruptive. I request that he self-revert and he not do this again. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Using a left-wing source (not inappropriate for opinion, but not inherently notable to declare fact or make neutral claims) to make a partisan coatrack assertation is bad enough, but not inherently disruptive - but edit warring over including it instead of discussing it? Still knows better than to edit war, so there is no real excuse for it here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here are the recent edits by SillStanding24-7, as formatted by the 3rr.php script:
- 06:47, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "removing redundant reference; same exact article as the previous ref")
- 08:58, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "there is no "gay influence"; that's their conspiracy theory and we can't use Wikipedia's voice for it")
- 09:00, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "cited")
- 09:00, 15 September 2012 (edit summary: "also supported by rolling stone cite")
- 02:36, 16 September 2012 (edit summary: ""In Michele Bachmann's home district, evangelicals have created an extreme anti-gay climate." - See talk.")
- 22:59, 16 September 2012 (edit summary: "Talk this over; this is what our sources are commenting on.")
- 00:10, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted unexplained removal")
- In this list, edits 1-4 by StillStanding-247 are consecutive. The above does not show four reverts in 24 hours, though admins will need to decide whether this is a pattern of edit warring. The submitter of this report is complaining about edits #6 and #7 as 'restoring recently disputed content.' The question is whether Michele Bachmann should be named as part of the story of the Parents Action League. I assume that people who don't think well of Bachmann want to add the material. Apparently StillStanding-247 feels that the connection should be asserted in the article. If Mother Jones is the source of the connection, then the opinion comes from a journal unlikely to be neutral in the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ed, thank you for cleaning up my (poor) submission. I think you have the overall gist of the complaint. I would like to point out that I'm not necesarily against linking Bachman to this article, but I objected to the (in my view) POV presentation of the material amongst other things. Per BRD the edit in question should be discussed, not included and then discussed. 3RR has not been crossed, but I feel ISS is demonstrating WP:IDHT to a tee. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ed, thank you for cleaning up my (poor) submission. I think you have the overall gist of the complaint. I would like to point out that I'm not necesarily against linking Bachman to this article, but I objected to the (in my view) POV presentation of the material amongst other things. Per BRD the edit in question should be discussed, not included and then discussed. 3RR has not been crossed, but I feel ISS is demonstrating WP:IDHT to a tee. little green rosetta(talk)
- Many of these aren't even reverts or are contiguous, or both. 3RR has not been violated.
- All of my changes are explained in edit comments and on the talk page.
- LGR shows many reverts in that time scope, and his talk page posts are evasive.
- I support protecting the page to force him to state his reasons instead of ducking my questions or edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Still, don't play the ignorance card - you know full well that you don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring. You also know what bold, revert, discuss is, so why not follow it? If you have the superior argument and are following process and policy, you shouldn't have to revert because your idea would be policy-compliant and neutral. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- First, let's not pretend that you're in any way neutral. You side against me consistently, and now you're piling on because this is a false report against me.
- Second, I'm going to suggest that any admin reading this ignore us both and see for themselves whether LGR is being evasive. It's all in the talk page that I linked to (including the section at the bottom). I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't side for or against anyone because this isn't a warzone. If I wanted to pretend like I'm in a warzone I'd be playing Call of Duty, not arguing with people I don't know on the internet. Politics isn't my main topic area for that reason - it simply isn't much fun to edit there. When I do comment or edit, I support additions I think are supported by vital policy and it just so happens that many of the additions you support are ones I feel are incorrect. I'm not 'piling on because this is a false nomination' - I noticed the notice on your talk page, examined the evidence, and commented. I haven't endorsed any proposals or anything, I've noted that you know the policy on edit warring and there is no real reason for you to be doing it.
- bold, revert, delete does not mean 'revert back to my edit while we discuss', it means 'discuss controversial changes if there are objections through reverts and establish consensus before re-adding it'. Still knows our policies, he isn't ignorant. I urge all admins or reviewing editors to examine the material added and the reverts and compare them to applicable policy, and see the clear disconnect. As long as the solution deals with the issue, I'll support it. Toa Nidhiki05 03:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're a member of WikiProject Conservatism. Consider that before you pretend to be neutral. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not pretending to be anything. Toa Nidhiki05 03:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just to chime in. So out of curiosity, why are you deploying red herrings to distract from the point of this report against you? What does his being a member of a Wikiproject have to do with this report? Perhaps you can enlighten me? Is it that you are currently planning a RFC against the Wikiproject therefore you are claiming these members have an axe to grind against you? Is that what you're accusing him of? ViriiK (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're a member of WikiProject Conservatism. Consider that before you pretend to be neutral. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Still, don't play the ignorance card - you know full well that you don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring. You also know what bold, revert, discuss is, so why not follow it? If you have the superior argument and are following process and policy, you shouldn't have to revert because your idea would be policy-compliant and neutral. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Note This is not an isolated incident. This editor is also violating BRD at a different article [61] little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- BRD is essay, not a policy. As it happens, I like BRD and I generally follow it. I do make exceptions, which is allowed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyhow, I have things to do. I very clearly haven't edit-warred. This is a false report and should be closed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Result: No action. At most three reverts by StillStanding-247 within 24 hours (#5, #6 and #7). StillStanding has been notified under Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log but this is not one of the affected articles. If some editors continue to believe that Michele Bachmann's name should be included in this article I hope they will find better sources to justify the connection. The addition of her name seems to raise WP:BLP issues. EdJohnston (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
User:203.35.135.174 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 48 hours)
[edit]Page: List of social networking websites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 203.35.135.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 07:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 03:54, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "Added new website")
- 06:25, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "New site")
- 07:18, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "Not a spam")
- 07:43, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "It's notable")
- 07:53, 17 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
- Diff of warning: here
—Tgeairn (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment -- Additionally, editor has repeated recreated articles W3leaf and W3leaf.com after speedy deletion as A7 and G11. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W3leaf.com. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- See also:
- Abhi1028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 123 Connect Safely (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 123 Connect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Safe Social Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- --Tgeairn (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I would have made it longer except there was no discussion with the IP about their edits. Abhi1028 was already blocked as the creator of the non-W3leaf articles listed above.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Fabyan17 reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: Declined)
[edit]Page: South China Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fabyan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [62]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]
Comments:
User has been making controversial POV edits without engaging in proper discussion with other editors, and has been mindlessly reverting edits without looking at them, even if they are maintenance edits (such as removing links from the "See Also" section that are already present within the article body per WP:MOS). -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Any admin reviewing this should also look at WP:ANI#User complaint: Benlisquare - Re: Using derogatory words against editors. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Declined. Please continue any discussion at ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Mike18xx reported by User:Ronz (Result: 1 month)
[edit]Page: Weston A. Price Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mike18xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sockpuppet ip used by user: 66.41.95.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: 01:51, 14 September 2012
- 2nd revert: 19:46, 14 September 2012
- 3rd revert: 21:28, 14 September 2012
- 4th revert: 08:58, 15 September 2012
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mike18xx (after he threatened to continue edit-warring [69] Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Weston_A._Price_Foundation#Recent_attempts_at_rewriting_and_changing_pov_of_article As to the sockpuppetry, 92.4.165.211 (talk · contribs) pointed it out twice [70] [71], providing this May 2011 diff. The ip is still being used by Mike18xx as seen here followed by this.
Comments:
Note. The accusation that Mike18xx and 66.41.95.121 are the same person seems pretty well-founded to me. My recommendation would be to file a report at WP:SPI to get a determination. The edit-warring is fairly stale. However, another admin may feel more comfortable taking action than I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Defense: Oh my goodness gracious! Four reverts in 31 hours...where does the time go? Book him, Dano. Stretch his ass on the rack, then send him to the guillotine.
- In other news from planets in nearby parallel universes otherwise astonishingly similar to the one Ronz is in, Wikipedia editors often do not log in to their named accounts because they dislike (a) logging in every hour, or (b) being logged in for 180hours -- and being logged in is actually unnecessary save for article-creation or when dealing with protected articles.
- ....which reminds me, Ronz' attempt to protect the article was declined.
- In three days of this nonsense, Ronz hasn't found anyone to stick around and help him defend his "critics-soapbox" version of the article; and is now resorting to this more elevated level of "tattling to teacher" after his request for protection was declined.
- He is stubbornly insistent that critics' soapbox sound-bites remain in the second paragraph of the lede of the article, and is unwilling to listen to any reasoning as to why that's a terrible way to write an encyclopedia.
- I though it was very generous of me to retain more critical references than supportive ones, and to not blot out all his references sourced to non-notable militant vegetarian blogs -- which a real hard-ass editor would have nuked. (Hint, hint.)--Mike18xx (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment And in the actual Wikipedia universe where a very dim view is taken of using an IP to tag-team edit-war using your registered account against more than one editor (despite your claims), especially when using incivil edit-summaries, why exactly shouldn't a block be the result? Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Now that Mike has admitted that he and the IP are the same, I would say that the only question is how long the block should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- 7 previous blocks? Blocked for 1 month (same time as last major block). Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Acoma Magic reported by User:MrX (Result: 31 hours)
[edit]Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [72]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]
Comments:
I hate to report users, but in this case the user has continued edit warring after being warned and after removing the warning template from his/her talk page. There also seems to be a refusal to accept consensus, as documented on the article talk page.
(I apologize if I made any mistakes in this report as I have never filed one before.)
20:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that you don't know that the first and fifth revert you listed aren't reverts. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Some admins would count the first diff as a revert. Even so, you made four after that. User:TParis warned you on your talk page after the fourth diff, telling you that the only reason he didn't block you was because you hadn't reverted again. Then, you went ahead and made a change to the article after that, even though you should well know that undoing other editors' material (which is what you did), even if it is different material, constitutes a revert. I blocked you for 31 hours because of your recent 24-hour block for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Shipofcool reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Not done)
[edit]Page: 1960 in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shipofcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [80]
- 1st revert: [81]
- 2nd revert: [82]
- 3rd revert: [83] (bundled with some other edits)
- 4th revert: [84]
- 5th revert: [85]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]
Comments:
This dispute spreads beyond this article. The bottom line is that User:Shipofcool has been replacing the historic charts on the "XXXX in film" articles with his own revisionist rankings. The problem though was that these revisionist charts aren't complete, since the box-office data is unavailable for many older films. Impartial comments at [88] were obtained where User:Grapple X commented that If it could be uniformly, and reliably, switched to gross, then I guess that would be alright. After Shipofcool dismissed my concerns (see [89]) I took the dispute to the Film project [90] where User:Gothicfilm commented Clearly the same figures - box-office grosses and theatrical rentals - should be used consistently. Shipofcool does not seem to have listed what his source for grosses on the pre-1990 films would be. If only rental figures are available on the older films, that's what you go with, right?. Shipofcool has continued with his disruptive editing despite the fact no editor has voiced support for his edits, and the two impartial editors only advocated replacing the lists if the data could be uniformly transformed. This has not been the case, with Shipofcool simply removing the films from the chart where he could not source a replacement figure. He clearly isn't acting in accordance with the approach as advocated by the two independent editors. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- This has gone to an RFC now and Ship has started toeing the line. I don't particularly want him blocked during discussions, so I think we can wrap this up and if it starts up again I'll re-file. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- As you wish. Not blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- As you wish.
User:Jeremy112233 reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: stale)
[edit]Page: Frank Vandersloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [91]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]
Comments:
Jeremy112233 is currently engaging in disruptive/contentious editing on the lead in Frank Vandersloot. The article was revised a few days ago (prior to Jermey's first appearance) to indicate that Vandesloot's company Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing (MLM) company. The change was supported by numerous references (more than 20[98]) and by loose editorial consensus after some weak objections had been raised -- the objections were addressed in 3 different forums including the Talk page,[99] and RSN.[100] After that, the article was stable until Jeremy started reverting today (obfuscating the designation as an MLM) and edit warring over the issue. He has removed the basic MLM description of Melaleuca and instead inserted the following statement in the lead -- "Melaleuca is described by some as being a multi-level marketing company[1][2] and described by others as being a direct marketing company.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]" This is problematic on many levels.
First and foremost, the edit is misleading and makes no sense because it describes the company using the vague top-level term "direct marketing company", when in reality, MLM is a sub-type of direct marketing (see multi-level marketing), so Jermey's edit is akin to nonsensically arguing that Bugs Bunny isn't a rabbit because he is a mammal. Obviously, MLM is a more specific and more appropriate term.
Second, Jeremy bypased the Talk page and did not attempt to gain consensus for the reversion, despite the fact that the issue had previously been under active discussion by many editors and a rough consensus in support of the MLM designation had been reached.
Third, the body text of the article doesn't refer to any such nomenclature controversy about "direct marketing" vs "MLM" (the notion has been manufactured by Jeremy and it smacks of WP:OR), nor do any of the sources added, so it has no place being in the lead (see WP:LEAD).
Lastly, the user appeared on the Vandersloot article shortly after having wikistalked me from another article (Protandim) on which we had a brief and minor locking of horns recently after he was blanking text in the article.[101][102]. I am requesting that the editor be blocked and the article reverted to the last stable version prior to Jeremy's edits.[103] Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:OWN - and noting that RIR has clearly been more than a "willing participant" in any edit war at this point, including adding clear violations per WP:BLP (using opinion articles as sources to make charges of criminal wrongdoing, of "buying judges" etc.). WP:BOOMERANG obviously applies here. Collect (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Collect, you've been forum shopping hoping to get the answer you wanted but it didn't happen. Every un-involved editor that weighed in on this question after you posted it to Talk[104] and RSN[105] disagreed with you. You have no grounds for that WP:OWN red herring. Your comment above has no bearing on this particular case of 3RR. I've been following protocol. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- The edit history of that article is exceedingly clear. Your personal attack is, moreover, a tad unlikely to impress anyone. The noticeboard here is to try to prevent edit war, not to work in favour of one edit warrior who reports another - the goal is to have no such battleground mentality about articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, I might ask to clarify what you meant by personal attack ("forum shopping" was a simple statement of fact), but that question, like your comment above, would have no place in a 3RR report. Since you are an involved party,[106] your comment does not appear to be at all constructive but rather is carrying over warrior behavior onto the very page that is designed to prevent it. If you have nothing salient to add, saying nothing is never a bad idea. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- The edit history of that article is exceedingly clear. Your personal attack is, moreover, a tad unlikely to impress anyone. The noticeboard here is to try to prevent edit war, not to work in favour of one edit warrior who reports another - the goal is to have no such battleground mentality about articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Collect, you've been forum shopping hoping to get the answer you wanted but it didn't happen. Every un-involved editor that weighed in on this question after you posted it to Talk[104] and RSN[105] disagreed with you. You have no grounds for that WP:OWN red herring. Your comment above has no bearing on this particular case of 3RR. I've been following protocol. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
This article has popped up on my radar several times recently, so I finally took a look at it. In addition to the very obvious 3RR violation, Jeremy's text is also WP:NPOV; it uses the word “accused” in reference to the MLM claim, which is very obviously not neutral—and as such, RIR is correct to remove it per WP:BLP. But in any case, Jeremy crossed what is widely said to be the bright line. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 22:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Stale. It's been more than a day since either party made any edits to this article. Had I seen this report earlier I would have blocked both, or protected the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Final3211 reported by User:Semitransgenic (Result: 72h)
[edit]Page: Terence McKenna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Final3211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 5th revert: [111]
- 6th revert: [112]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]
Comments:
User in question added content that was not properly sourced or formatted, which I reverted [115], said user persisted in reverting, so I then attempted to appease the editor by wikifying the material - keeping some of the barely usable cites. Unfortunately the editor again reverted, preferring instead to ignore my advice concerning the consultation of WP:MOS & WP:RS guidelines. Semitransgenic talk. 12:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Rules are to be observed not blindly but with a sense of purpose, which you sadly lack. All of your attempts to edit or format the article render it illegible.—Final3211 (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – 72 hours. Final3211 seems to be an account that was created on 15 September to edit war on this article. I've also blocked God the Son one week as a probable sock and have put semiprotection on the article to slow the success rate of any new socks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Old-timer0 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Warned)
[edit]Page: Cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Old-timer0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [116] - clearly establishing his anti-science POV-pushing
- 2nd revert: [117] - dishonestly trying to hide the edit as a minor edit
- 3rd revert: [118] - his claims that the use of the word "evolutionary" is OR is bunkum
- 4th revert: [119] - Not even discussing things.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120] - To which Old-timer0 responded by threatening to continue the edit war until he has his way.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121] and [122], with an attempt at discussion on his talk page.
Comments:
I am aware that the 4th revert is not within the same 24 hour period, but edit warring is not simply 3rr but continually making an edit against consensus without discussion. He is repeating an edit against consensus with a WP:FRINGE agenda, and refuses to discuss the matter except threatening to continue the edit war until he has his way. He is edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Result: Warned. Report again if he continues to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This is old-timer0 the claim by ian.thompson who is claiming I am edit warring is without basis as there is absolutely positively no proof that evolution is happening or has ever happened I dare ian.thompson to show the wikipedia community as well as the world a single undisputed fossil that evolved from another life form.In fact I will save him the trouble do not bother looking as you will not find a single undisputed evolving life form in the fossil record also numerous experiments with fruit flies further proves evolution does not happen and has never happened. Mathamatical calculations vaporize the whole idea of life evolving in any way shape or form so ian.thompson would do well to look in the mirror and ask who is the one who is pushing wp:fringe, wp:or and is violating wp:rs by insisting that evolution is a fact when neither he nor anyone else has ever been able to point to a reliable and verifiable source that shows evolution has happened or is happening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old-timer0 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please stay out of my mirrors, and keep your anti-science bias away from our articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Badud reported by User:Piotrus (Result: Indef)
[edit]Page: Battle of Klushino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Badud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [123]
Update: Also, 5th and 6th: [128], [129]
- 7th revert: [130]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this new editor has not been warned yet. A warning will be a sufficient outcome this time, no need for a block (it's a first time violation anyway).
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle_of_Klushino#reverted_GD_edits_by_Badud, I used informative edit summaries and also tried engaging him on his talk (User talk:Badud)
Comments:
This new editor is adding unreferenced information, and refuses to discuss his additions. In the past 24h he has readded the information four times at the Klushino page, he is also doing the same at the battle of Jordanow. I tried engaging him in conversation with no result. Others are just reverting him, he needs to stop and realize this is a collaborative project. I hope that a warning from an admin will make him realize that. PS. See also the report immediately below mine (same topic). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- He has just created his user page, not a good sign really. Welcome everybody , except Russians and their fanboys. I do not talk with commies,bolsheviks and leftists, sorry. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked - Indef by User:Floquenbeam, per the ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Badud reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: duplicate)
[edit]Page: Battle of Klushino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Badud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User ignores notices in article and user talk pages, just reverts non-stop. See article history. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Note – user is already reported and being discussed in another section here. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Joekiddlouischama reported by User:Malley10 (Result: No action)
[edit]Page: Clint Eastwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joekiddlouischama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [131]
Warning posted on talk page: [136]
Attempted to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]
Comments:
User has removed entire paragraphs of sourced content and replaced them with rubbish. This has happened five times. User has ignored request to stop.
Malley10 (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't see any further disruption since Joekiddlouischama received the 3RR warning. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:122.163.195.135 reported by User:Titodutta (Result: Range blocked)
[edit]Page: Paoli Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.163.195.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user (his IP address changes every now and then) is adding this portion in the article Paoli Dam and Mushrooms (film) continuously, which is badly sourced, contains camel case, wrong formatting and most importantly this portion is written in hysterical tone and cheap gossip. Firstly I did not make any changes and posted in help desk and article's talk page for help. In article's talk page it was decided to summarize the portion with reliable sources and without hysterical tone. In between an admin User:Lectonar stepped in and protected the article twice. I tried to get help from the admin here and also here. In the second help request the admin has mentioned he (i/wa)s busy at that time so can not spend time here. I have talked with few more users like User:Maproom (who saw my request in help desk), User:Dwaipayanc (who is the creator of the article Mushrooms (film) and few more users. That's the situation for now. --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked the range 122.163.192.0/21 (2048 addresses) for 24 hours. If the problem persists after the block expires, you may want to request semi-protection of the affected articles at WP:RFPP instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Angkorangel reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: indeffed)
[edit]Page: Maitreya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Angkorangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [138]
- 1st revert: [139]
- 2nd revert: [140]
- 3rd revert: [141]
- Plus seven more reverts, essentially their entire editing history
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [143]
Comments:
This is not a 3RR report, but a general edit-warring report. Angkorangel is a single-purpose account that has been continuously inserting an individual on the Maitreya article, even though there are no sources that would warrant a mention of this person in the article. Their only edits to Wikipedia have been to edit war in this way. - SudoGhost 06:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- No sources, link spam, and the only substantial mention of him is various Buddhist sites mocking him as a poser. Though, to be fair, everyone on that particular list is a poser. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 07:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of indefinite as a promotion-only account. De728631 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
IP:88.253.207.68 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24h)
[edit]Page: Mesut Özil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP:88.253.207.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [144]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [150]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Long talk there. Left comments and talk pointing editor to the talk page.
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:SSZvH7N5n8 reported by User:Bilby (Result: 24h)
[edit]Page: Animal rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SSZvH7N5n8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [151]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]
Comments: The problem is edit warring to insert a copyright violation, even though this has been explained to the user ([158], [159] and talk page discussion). The editor is aware of the problems with 3RR, having warned me about it. - Bilby (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and copyright infringements. I have suggested to quote the whole original sentence from the source which would resolve the issue. De728631 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:SajjadF reported by User:AlexJFox (Result: No block)
[edit]Page: Al-Aqsa Mosque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SajjadF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notification for 1RR violation
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Contacted editor on his talk page.
Comments:
Breach of 1RR rule under 2008 Arbitration case regarding Arab-Israeli conflict.
Contacted editor but on his page rather than article page, this is my mistake I apologise. Alex J Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 23:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Just want to say, I made a mistake by reverting the edit twice. But, It was done to resolve the biased view brought by User:AlexJFox. Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexJFox#Al-Aqsa_Mosque_edit Thanks. SajjadF (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- How was it biased to restore the more widely used English name "Temple Mount"? Your edit also broke several Wikilinks—in your haste to undo AlexJFox's edit, you never looked to see what effect your edit was having. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry about the other edits, but "temple mount" is what the jews call it as they believe Solomon's temple was there. Calling a mosque a temple is simply wrong. Just like calling a church a synagogue. Two different faiths. And the term "Al-Aqsa" refers to the whole area and since this article is about "Al - Aqsa" mosque, let us stick to that. Besides, There is an article about the temple mount. And an article about the excavations under the temple mount also mention that they were under Al-Aqsa. SajjadF (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is English-language Wikipedia and we use the common English names for things. That's why the article refers to "Al-Aqsa Mosque" and not "Masjid Al-Aqsa". The English name for the elevation on which Al-Aqsa is located is "Temple Mount", not "the Al-Aqsa". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- SajjadF has violated the WP:1RR restriction on this article with his two reverts on 19 September. The first was at 14:55 and the second at 22:37. He might be able to avoid sanctions if he will agree to stop reverting until he can get consensus. The existence of a 1RR is clearly marked on the article's talk page. It's true that nobody notified him on his own talk page before the second revert. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed to the above terms, will not revert until i get a consensus on the talk page. SajjadF (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Result: Closed with no block since SajjadF has agreed to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Strike2216 reported by User:Zepppep (Result: 48h)
[edit]Page: List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Strike2216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [165]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [166]
Comments: The editor has been warned multiple times about their refusal to adhere to the edit notice. As recently as last month, they were also encouraged and warned about their edit warring behavior. In fact, an editor went as far to report them to this page. Unfortunately, the submitted last month was rejected as the admin thought a block to the editor (who does not visit WP daily) might not do much good. Unfortunately, however, the editor continues to a) not engage in conversation or ask questions pertaining to the edit notice (as instructed by the edit notice in big, red letters), 3RR policy, edit warring, etc., b) not adhere to warnings put on their talk page, and c) their behavior continues to be an issue because this is the type of editor who will only perhaps learn if more serious measures are taken. (Update: the user has attempted to remove mention of their behavior to this page with this edit, which was later reverted.)
Zepppep (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Strike2216 blocked for 48 hours for continued disruptive editing and refusal to discuss, etc.. – Connormah (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
193.233.212.18 reported by User:Chetvorno (Result: page protected)
[edit]Page: Pendulum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 193.233.212.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [167]
- 1st revert: [168]
- 2nd revert: [169]
- 3rd revert: [170]
- 4th revert: [171]
- 5th revert: [172]
- 6th revert: [173]
- 7th revert: [174]
- 8th revert: [175]
- 9th revert: [176]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178] Complete discussion is here.
Comments:
193.233.212.18 doesn't seem very familiar with WP, he says edit warring is OK as long as the issue is important. There's been consensus on the Talk page, with 4 editors opposed to his addition and trying to talk to him; complete discussion at Talk:Pendulum#Which formula for the true period should be used?. He doesn't engage in detailed debate of the issue, just says his version is the best so it must stay. --ChetvornoTALK 15:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
193.233.212.18 has violated the WP:3RR with [179]
- and has been warned accordingly. Velella Velella Talk 15:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - repeatedly on his talk page and the pendulum talk page. As explained to him many times, his formula gives the incorrect interpretation that the pendulum time period can be calculated using a closed formula when it can't, and is far less easy to physically interpret than a power series (the point of expanding in the first place). Everyone has been very reasonable with the IP. The formula is already included in WP in the appropriate place (pendulum (mathematics)), and is adding it unnecessarily to a section where readers will gain very little (if any) understanding. Maschen (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Page protected The report is now somewhat stale so I've semi-protected the page. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks - that's a big help. Maschen (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for your help. --ChetvornoTALK 13:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Snowded reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: Protected, both editors warned)
[edit]Page: Psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
There is currently a dispute resolution about whether or not to include the image. Snowded has asserted that the dispute resolution for removing the image has been solved in the previous one (diff) when it hasn't been.
I asked him to self-revert to which he refused (diff). As well he has accused me of "trapping" Widescreen who was blocked twice for the same thing (diff).
As far as I can tell this is a clear breach of WP:BRD since he is reverting when the issue is being discussed in DRN. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Page protected. Both editors warned and I will block for repetition. --John (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- You need to check a bit further John. CartoonDiablo has attempted to insert this table/image on three articles and its been to dispute resolution several times. The clear consensus there was that it was not an appropriate edition in that it gave a false impression and/or was original research. I've summarised that on his talk page. In effect he is insisting on inserting the material against that consensus. The DRN discussion was over, he has added a comment recently and got the same result. Now none of this is obvious as the discussion has been around the Family Therapy and CBT articles. The Psychoanalysis article is the third but there is no trace to the other discussions. So what we have here is a case of an editor refusing to accept the communities decision and insisting on inserting a table/image of his own creation; and edit warring on the grounds that he is still discussing the issue at DRP.
- Now I was an uninvolved editor until a few days ago, I saw a dispute on ANI and as this as area in which I have expertise I looked into it. It took me some hours to track through the history to the DRP discussions and I don't expect an admin patrolling this page to have to do that. But you might want to check this link which shows that discussion. ----Snowded TALK 19:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the DR link. Everybody who edit wars thinks they are right; it isn't an excuse. I am happy to look at the content issue in more detail, but the is always a better solution than edit-warring. --John (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Of course they do and there are alternatives. The matter goes to an RfC for something like DR and its resolved. That had happened. If you check the history you will see my first reaction was to put a PoV tag on the paragraph, while I checked into the facts. Then I found the DR material so I removed it per that community consensus. Over several days (check his talk page and my edit summaries) I tried to explain he had no consensus for insertion of the material. I even warning him that I would raise his behaviour here or at ANI which is what triggered the report. ----Snowded TALK 05:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the DR link. Everybody who edit wars thinks they are right; it isn't an excuse. I am happy to look at the content issue in more detail, but the is always a better solution than edit-warring. --John (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
CartoonDiablo has edit warred with multiple editors over time on the same issue and ignored practically any feedback except for switching from a table to a picture of the same table, which is an extremely lame form of wikilawyering. The numerous discussions on this issue linked in the ANI thread show that he drove away at least half-dozen editors who expressed their objection. Voluminous repetition and tiring out the opposition with umpteen DR threads is how one editor with plenty of time on his hands wins on Wikipedia: defeat in detail. The collective failure of admins to put a stop to the WP:TRUTH campaign of one editor is rather worrisome, but their time is limited too. A RfC/U on CartoonDiablo should be started by those involved who tried and failed to resolve the matter, but I suspect they're just sick and tired of this. [180] Tijfo098 (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am surprised that neither John or Ed have responded having checked the references given. ----Snowded TALK 04:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- And we have another example of a misleading edit summary here. There is a clear consensus at the moment to remove the image/table, but CartoonDiablo insists on retaining it where he can, arguing that because he is discussing it the question is still open. ----Snowded TALK 05:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Dsomeone reported by User:Eldamorie (Result: 24 hours for Dsomeone, Bkonrad warned)
[edit]Page: Deism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dsomeone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [181]
- 1st revert: [182]
- 2nd revert: [183]
- 3rd revert: [184]
- 4th revert: [185]
- 5th revert: [186]
- 6th revert: [187]
- 7th revert: [188]
- 8th revert: [189]
- 9th revert: [190]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [191]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:This user is insisting on adding repeated extended quotations from a self-published book, claiming that the fairly well-cited article is not the Truth and is refusing to engage in productive discussion - see Here. eldamorie (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I have also warned Bkonrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was involved in this edit war not to continue edit warring in this matter. De728631 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
User:31.47.12.40 reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Blocked)
[edit]Page: Farouk al-Sharaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.47.12.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I requested the semi-protection of the Farouk al-Sharaa article and I was advised to report the IP's edit warring by User:Drmies if any removal of the information occures for the second time, and it did. At first, user (the IP) removed the info which was unreferenced (the references only showed that he originates from the Sunni Muslim family, not himself bening a Sunni Muslim), but later I added the source and the IP's reverts continue anyway. It is the same IP that reverts this infromation for days. Drmies warned him not to make any edit-warring a day ago, but he continued to do so anyway. --Wüstenfuchs 20:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
Note. There are two IP addresses involved in the slow edit war, the reported one and User:31.47.12.228.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- The one is blocked. I'll have a look at the other one. BTW, I've rolled back a couple more of their unexplained edits. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's more. That IP hasn't edited in a couple of days, but there isn't so much hopping that we can't make an effort to keep track of these two, which I will. I left the other one a 4im warning (after reverting a troublesome edit, in the Balkans of all places), just in case they do return to it. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I appriciate the effort. --Wüstenfuchs 21:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Senor Cuete reported by User:Giggette (Result: nothing)
[edit]Page: Lords of the Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Senor Cuete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_the_Night
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [196]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User in question remove content that was properly sourced or formatted with books and refuses to discuss without removing referenced information. --Giggette (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this makes no sense. The editor did not revert three times (you linked yourself as well in the diffs above). You should work this out on the talk page. The more courteous you both are the more chance you'll have of success. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Fabyan17 reported by User:Quigley (Result: No violation)
[edit]Page: Talk:South China Sea (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fabyan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [197]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [203]
Comments:
Fabyan17 was here before on a straightforward violation of 3RR on the same article. The request was declined because there was a parallel thread on ANI, which became inactive and archived before any resolution. His nationalist edit-warring continues all over Wikipedia (ex. [204][205][206]), wasting the time and patience of the many editors who have tried to teach him the virtues of discussing controversial edits.
Fabyan17 replies:
It's not about edit warring, I am only deleting a direct harassment to me by Benlisquare, instead of writing a relevant 'SECTION NAME', he instead used my user name as the topic/section name w/c is already a personal attack to the user/editor. Let us pls. stop tolerating harassment/irrelevant naming of the sections in the South China Sea talk page. We know very clear that based on wikipedia guidelines, the Article's Talk Page (SECTION names) is reserved for ISSUES RELATED to the article, and NOT names of editors/users. The section name made by Benlisquare (entitled @fabyan17) is already a personal attack to the user and not the issue being debated. The proper venue should be in the user's talk page. There should be no double-standards here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that you are not allowed to edit this user's talk page comments was pointed out to you one (1) two (2) three (3) four (4) times in edit summaries, which the software displays before and after you undo the edits. In case you missed that, it was mentioned to you for a fifth (5) time on the article talk page. Or, if you weren't looking at that, you got the message hand-delivered to your own talk page for the sixth (6) time. Somehow missed that? You got told a seventh (7) time on someone else's talk page that what you did was not permissible. We're at an administrator's noticeboard where I just reported you for wrongdoing (8), and you're still defending your actions. This is a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Shrigley (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This seems to mainly be an edit war between Fabyan17 and Benlisquare about what the body of water is called in the Phillipines. It seems to me there are more productive routes (e.g. WP:DRN) for solving this problem than making long winded personal attacks against another editor on the article talk page. This discussion should be directed elsewhere. —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 22:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- More like an edit war between Fabyan17 and half a dozen editors on multiple articles. The content issue shouldn't matter on this board, but it's worthwhile to note that the body of water is international, borders seven countries, and has had only one English name before last year.
- Benlisquare's message was not a "long winded personal attack". The tone was addressed towards the origin of the disruptive recent edits, but this personalization could be changed with a simple copyedit. The bulk of the message focused on content, specifically Fabyan17's abuse of disambiguation pages, flouting of the Manual of Style, suppression of non-Filipino nationalist viewpoints, and refusal to discuss his edits.
- The point is, the users who disagree with Fabyan are willing to use the talk page, but Fabyan not only won't use the talk page but he repeatedly removes all attempts at dialogue not only from his own talk page but also from the article's talk page. If he won't use talk pages, DRN is not going to help. Shrigley (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
No violation. This is unseemly to say the least. Fabyan's removal of the material from the talk page was appropriate. The material was an attack and inappropriate for an article talk page. Benlisquare copied warnings from Fabyan's talk page and pasted them into the article talk page. Nothing short of outrageous, in my view, regardless of what anyone thinks of Fabyan's conduct otherwise. I have removed the section from the talk page, and I wouldn't like to see anyone restoring it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I pointed out above, the meat of the message related to content issues, but when dealing with an unrepentant edit-warrior, the message also necessarily covers conduct issues, like Fabyan17's refusal to use the talk page. A plea to use the talk page is not a personal attack. Many Wikipedia pages encourage and assume that important discussions take place on the relatively open article talk space, rather than on personal user space, including ANEW. For an ANEW judgment to discourage article talk dialogue... well, that's beyond the pale.
- The true outrage here is that the same administrator who found a frivolous reason to excuse Fabyan17's flat-out 3RR violation four days ago, is doing the same exact thing of ignoring his 3RR violation again by saying, "But the other guy was bad too!" So here's my bold prediction: we'll be back on this board again in a few days, because Fabyan17's past two experiences here tell him that he can get away with blatant, distributed edit-warring as long as he has some scapegoat editor from which to claim "Harassment!" Shrigley (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Quite frankly I am astonished by Bbb23's decision to what was a blatant violation of WP:TPO and WP:3RR. Bazonka (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Bbb23. What belongs to a user page and to one user's conduct has to remain there; in fact the only frivolous thing was Benlisquare's posting of user-related warnings at a public forum like an article talk page. If you feel that one user's conduct is problematic, feel free to report them at ANI but don't move personal matters to the article talk. De728631 (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not entirely condoning Benlisquare, but it should be noted that whilst his post on the talk page was directed towards Fabyan17, it was specifically related to the content of the article. (Also note that a user talk page is still a public forum.) But however well or badly Benlisquare behaved, it does not remove the fact that Fabyan17's actions were still a gross violation of WP:TPO and WP:3RR. Bazonka (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- @De728631: I've replied to this "allegation" on Bbb23's talk page. This is not a "personal matter", it is definitely related to the article. Furthermore, now it has been twice that this user has "gotten away" with disruptive editing, edit warring and 3RR violation, for no reasonable justification at all. I hope everyone feels fulfilled since we're essentially promoting more problematic things occuring in the future. "Look, the sysops are fine with me trashing the place around, I'll do it again!" -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 17:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Bbb23. What belongs to a user page and to one user's conduct has to remain there; in fact the only frivolous thing was Benlisquare's posting of user-related warnings at a public forum like an article talk page. If you feel that one user's conduct is problematic, feel free to report them at ANI but don't move personal matters to the article talk. De728631 (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Quite frankly I am astonished by Bbb23's decision to what was a blatant violation of WP:TPO and WP:3RR. Bazonka (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- The true outrage here is that the same administrator who found a frivolous reason to excuse Fabyan17's flat-out 3RR violation four days ago, is doing the same exact thing of ignoring his 3RR violation again by saying, "But the other guy was bad too!" So here's my bold prediction: we'll be back on this board again in a few days, because Fabyan17's past two experiences here tell him that he can get away with blatant, distributed edit-warring as long as he has some scapegoat editor from which to claim "Harassment!" Shrigley (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Camoka5 reported by User:Amadscientist (Result: Indef)
[edit]Page: Innocence of Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Camoka5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]
Comments:
The editor seems reluctant to accept consensus to not include his personal drawing for inclusion on the article. He appears to misunderstand consensus and has accused this editor of vandalism by removing the map that goes against the current discussion. He appears to be attempting to claim a majority that does not exist and is not consensus and refuses stop edit warring. Attempts to respectfuly ask them to review policy has been ignored and edit warring to push his visual opinion has not ceased.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Is "camoka" a common word in some other language or something? Because this account was created one day after Camoka4 (talk · contribs) had their block extended due to "attempted block evasion". - SudoGhost 05:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Really?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually Camoka5 began editing 34 minutes after Camoka4 last edited their unblock request, which was denied. I've added it to an already open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camoka4. Camoka4 also has a thing for edit-warring over maps. - SudoGhost 05:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Christ, at least Technoquat is clever! *facepalm* —Kerfuffler howl
prowl 05:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Christ, at least Technoquat is clever! *facepalm* —Kerfuffler howl
- Actually Camoka5 began editing 34 minutes after Camoka4 last edited their unblock request, which was denied. I've added it to an already open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camoka4. Camoka4 also has a thing for edit-warring over maps. - SudoGhost 05:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked - Camoka5 was indefinitely blocked by Kudpung for block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Really?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Unnamed101 reported by User:Torchiest (Result: 24 hours)
[edit]Page: Diablo III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unnamed101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: diff
- 2nd revert: diff
- 3rd revert: diff
- 4th revert: diff
- 5th revert: diff
- 6th revert: diff
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Large conversation before edit warring
Comments:
This draconian attempt at blocking legitimate edits is laughable, the edit was made to specifically reference what "reviews" the author was talking about to leave this out is tantamount to context fraud, the sources cited are reliable as they are first hand account of the authors opinion, even if they as themselves would not server as critical reception they deserve mention and sourcing.
Furthermore the talk itself shows a consensus of users requesting this information be added, and the same few who keep reverting it defending their position against including it, including the user torchiest who started this request.Unnamed101 (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is a classic example of misunderstanding the problem and point of contention caused by your insistence on not reading the links to policies and guidelines that other editors continue to provide you. There is no "draconian" blocking of edits. It has been explained over and over that non-professional user reviews are not reliable sources. But rather than try discuss it and reach an understanding of the issue, you just keep adding them back. —Torchiest talkedits 10:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's crock, the edits and links are vital to the information being presented, without it is the literary equivalent of saying "the ____ is orange" what is orange, how do we know it is orange? the information being cited was not being cited as a review but as an important aspect to complete the information, regardless of whether or not they merit as actual reviews which you insist I am presenting them as.Unnamed101 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Trekphiler reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No violation)
[edit]Page: Ford Model T (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trekphiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WP:POINT issue. Trekphiler appears to be edit-warring with himself.
Some time around 2009, the article Ford Model T had the extraordinary claim added that the Model T ran at Le Mans, by adding the category Category:24 Hours of Le Mans race cars This was queried back then at Talk:Ford_Model_T#Racing_history_-_new_section.3F, but Trekphiler argued (uncited, and on a weak claim) that it should be left this way.
Today he seems to have forgotten that, questioned and removed the categorization, with a rather sarcastic edit summary aimed at other unspecified editors. At User_talk:Trekphiler#Model_T_at_Le_Mans I reminded him that it was only his comments that had kept it the first time round. After which he then restored the category he'd only just removed. I deleted it, as it's still uncited and with no credible evidence to support it. Trekphiler than removed it a second time. This just seems to be WP:POINT.
This category is wrong. It's at the bizarre end of believable at best and needs robust sourcing and explanation if it's to stay. We have none of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- No violation. The background is interesting, but where is the edit-warring? Trekphiler has made only one revert. The first doesn't count because they self-reverted. Not that it's terribly important given the context, but you also didn't warn the user you thought they were edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy to agree that it's not EW and certainly not 3RR, but it's clearly POINTy and WQA is no longer available. Someone needs to wield the cluebat and I'm unwilling to, lest I be accused of edit-warring in turn. This is just not an appropriate cat to add to the article. Where's the sourcing? What happened to WP:V? I've just removed it again. After all, it's not edit warring, is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- The second rv was only after being accused of trying to make a point, after self-rv to be consistent with the view I originally accepted, which Andy Dingley claims I "insisted" on. So he comes here, with a false claim of edit war, because he doesn't like the edit summary? Somebody's being a troll. And I am getting damn sick & tired of being the butt of false accusations. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Come on, Andy, you have a content dispute, you take it to the talk page and go through dispute resolution. You don't come to this board just because you believe you have nowhere else to go. And being smart-alecky ("After all, it's not edit warring, is it?") isn't helpful. And, Trekphiler, you could pay some attention to the substance of Andy's comments. Frankly, I haven't looked at the content, but if the cat isn't supported in the body, it doesn't belong.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Sean.hoyland reported by User:24.177.121.137 (Result: Both editors blocked)
[edit]Page: Israeli settler violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [213]
- 1st revert: [214]
- 2nd revert: [215]
- 3rd revert: [216]
- 4th revert: [217]
- 5th revert: [218] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned in edit summary, see article history
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [219]
Comments:
Article is subject to 1RR rule, but that apparently doesn't apply to reverting edits from IPs. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- This IP has been edit-warring over an image caption, violating the 1RR several times. nableezy - 18:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't about me. If you can find diffs supporting that contention, they go in a different section. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, so people can edit-war and if they are quick enough to report somebody first they get off? When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. As far as diffs, your reverts on that article, just from today, are: [220], [221], [222], [223]. Whereas Sean's reverts are exempt from the 1RR, your are not. nableezy - 18:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I already pointed out that 1RR doesn't apply when reverting edits from IPs. But Sean is not exempt from 3RR, and the rest of your comment isn't on-topic. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, so people can edit-war and if they are quick enough to report somebody first they get off? When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. As far as diffs, your reverts on that article, just from today, are: [220], [221], [222], [223]. Whereas Sean's reverts are exempt from the 1RR, your are not. nableezy - 18:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't about me. If you can find diffs supporting that contention, they go in a different section. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
And also, of note, Sean's first "revert" was reverting the CommonsDelinkerBot as the image in question had been restored on commons. As much as our relentless IP friend would like to find fault in others' reverts (but not his own of course), I dont think the first one counts as a revert. nableezy - 19:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- You appear to be confused on what a revert is. Please stop trying to engage me in an argument that's not appropriate for this page/section. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Giggle. If you want me to post what your reverts reverted I would be happy. But again, as written at the top of this page, When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. Your actions here are in fact on-topic. nableezy - 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, I'll do it: Your first diff isn't a revert. Your second diff isn't a revert. Your third diff isn't a revert. Only the fourth is. Here's a hint for you: not every edit you dislike is a revert. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- The first diff is you blanking a section, which is always a revert. That revert, an obvious one, undid another editor's action. The third and fourth diff show you removing text added to the caption by another user, which are, once again, reverts. The second diff is you moving the picture to another section, as you did earlier here, which is again a revert. You reverted another editor reverting your disruptive edit, claiming that a well known instance of settlers using such charming phrases as gas the Arabs as being an example of staged vandalism. Try this with somebody who doesnt know what they are talking about, youll have much better results. nableezy - 19:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, I'll do it: Your first diff isn't a revert. Your second diff isn't a revert. Your third diff isn't a revert. Only the fourth is. Here's a hint for you: not every edit you dislike is a revert. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Giggle. If you want me to post what your reverts reverted I would be happy. But again, as written at the top of this page, When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. Your actions here are in fact on-topic. nableezy - 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
<- It's an SPA advocating for their cause and disrupting Wikipedia in the process. The guy is on a dynamic IP (Special:Contributions/24.177.125.104, Special:Contributions/24.177.122.56, Special:Contributions/24.177.121.137). The discretionary sanctions are meant to keep people like this away from the topic area so that editors don't need to deal with this kind of disruptive nonsense. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not an SPA. The discretionary sanctions don't allow you to revert 5 times (and counting) within 24-hours. Please cut out the ad-hominem attacks. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- The discretionary sanctions are there to prevent disruption. I am not aware that they are designed to keep IP hoppers out. You're both edit warring, you should both be blocked. IP, don't claim that 1R doesn't apply to you--that's the lowest way out, and of course this is about you also. I don't know if there's anyone right in this unseemly war or not, but I do know that this should have been avoided by Sean, who, it seems to me, was successfully baited and let it happen. I'm awaiting input from another admin (nice to get consensus on something like this), but block both and keep an eye on the POV warrior without an account is my suggestion. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Look, I kept one foot inside the line. Sean's at, like, seven reverts or something. He's repeatedly removed tags challenging the reliability of sources and the accuracy of citations without discussion. The only thing I can get out of him and that other dude on the talk page are personal attacks. In reverting, he's re-broken the citation markup in his own sources (which I fixed!) repeatedly. It's nonsense to say we're equally culpable.
- You want to block me for baiting him, go ahead. But someone's got to reign in the demonstrable article ownership going on over there.24.177.121.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I agreed with Drmies even before he commented.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- It would be useful if Admins logged this at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans. Sean has been in the topic area for awhile so it might be necessary to have the log clear if admins are still using escalating blocks to address misbehavior. Clarity is also important if there is going to be an ARBPIA3. More importantly, the IP should be notated as notified since there will more than likely be a sockpuppet case and/or further discussion from them in the topic area. Cptnono (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cptnono, I almost didn't notice your comment. I've logged the block of the IP and formally warned the IP on their talk page. Sean was previously notified of the restriction according to the log.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- It would be useful if Admins logged this at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans. Sean has been in the topic area for awhile so it might be necessary to have the log clear if admins are still using escalating blocks to address misbehavior. Clarity is also important if there is going to be an ARBPIA3. More importantly, the IP should be notated as notified since there will more than likely be a sockpuppet case and/or further discussion from them in the topic area. Cptnono (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
<- I've removed the article from my watchlist. I provided the requested reliable sourcing, stopped the editor's disruptive commons deletion nomination and started the talk page section. Clearly the IP plans to continue with their important work. Editors willing to converse with this kind of person can take it from here. They are entitled to support from admins able to recognize an "editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" and willing to implement the "We avoid advocacy" part of the 5 pillars. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Reisio reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Stale)
[edit]Page: User talk:SudoGhost (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reisio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [224]
Page: GNU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [230]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [236] and [237]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:GNU#Primary sources tag
Comments:
The editor violated WP:3RR on my talk page, the GNU's diffs is for a general edit warring report. Despite discussion on the GNU talk page the editor is removing any mention of a maintenance template on the article and despite the fact that there is a previous consensus for the template and the issue the template highlights is still there, reverting the edits of three different editors in order to remove the template just because he doesn't see the point of the template. Despite requests to stop restoring conversations that I have removed from my talk page, they continue to edit-war to restore the discussions. - SudoGhost 00:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- All pretty self explanatory if you look at the histories, but to sum up: the GNU situation is still under discussion, and SudoGhost seems to think his talk page is not a place for people to respond to him at (he seems to think my own talk page is the only suitable medium with which to communicate with SudoGhost). ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- And you ignore the discussion to continue to edit war against multiple editors without actually discussing the issue on the talk page, but I do appreciate that you think it's fine to edit war and ignore WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO as long as someone else is using the discussion on the talk page. As for my talk page, WP:TPO is pretty clear on that, and if you continue to restore conversations I remove, that is edit warring. If I respond at another location, that does not mean that you repeatedly copy the entire discussion to my talk page over and over, especially when I ask you not to multiple times. Not only does that fragment the discussion, but there's no reason to have the same discussion in two locations. - SudoGhost 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Result: Stale. The dispute about the primary source tag is now at WP:DRN#GNU. SudoGhost is obviously correct that an editor can remove threads from their own talk page. Such removals are not counted as reverts (per WP:3RRNO item 2). In the time it took to have this dispute somebody could probably have fixed the sourcing of the article, making the discussion unnecessary. If tag warring continues after the DRN is over the admins are unlikely to show much patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- How is this stale? Them edit-warring on my talk page is stale as well? I have no interest in discussing anything because I know they're going to copy the entire discussion to my talk page every time I do; the talk page issue is far from stale. - SudoGhost 21:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Reisio has not posted to your talk since 00:45 on 23 September. Also, we assume that he will correct his behavior now that the DRN is running. The DRN should be given a chance to work. If you see more evidence of edit warring you could resubmit. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Raisio has not posted to my talk because I haven't responded to him anywhere since then. The DRN has nothing to do with that behavior on my talk page, and there is no reason to assume that this behavior will cease. 3RR is a bright-line rule, let alone 5 reverts and the issue of edit warring on my talk page is not "stale". The GNU page is a separate issue where the editor was edit warring, the issue of edit warring on my talk page has not gone away; the editor has continuously edit warred on my talk page despite multiple requests to stop, to the point that I have no interest in any discussion this editor is in any way involved in because I do not wish to be harassed in this manner. If this manner of edit warring and harassment is acceptable just because some other editor opened a DRN discussion on a completely separate issue, then what is the point of 3RR? - SudoGhost 22:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Reisio has not posted to your talk since 00:45 on 23 September. Also, we assume that he will correct his behavior now that the DRN is running. The DRN should be given a chance to work. If you see more evidence of edit warring you could resubmit. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- How is this stale? Them edit-warring on my talk page is stale as well? I have no interest in discussing anything because I know they're going to copy the entire discussion to my talk page every time I do; the talk page issue is far from stale. - SudoGhost 21:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
User:AurgelmirCro reported by User:Taivo (Result: 24h, final warning)
[edit]Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Subject to 1RR: [238])
User being reported: AurgelmirCro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [239]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [244]
User:AurgelmirCro is pushing a nationalist agenda on the page without resort to consensus-building or scientific literature on the subject. --Taivo (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours as enforcement of WP:ARBMAC. The article is subject to 1 revert per day. I've also warned AurgelmirCro with regards to a possible topic ban if he continues edit warring when the block has expired. On that note, Taivo should not have reverted for a second time either. De728631 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
User:83.131.246.196 reported by User:Taivo (Result: page protected, AurgelmirCro's block extended to 1 month )
[edit]Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.131.246.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a block evasion of User:AurgelmirCro (blocked right above this)
Previous version reverted to: [245]
Croatian language is subject to WP:1RR
24 hour block for User:AurgelmirCro for edit warring: [248]
Comments:
This anon IP showed up immediately following User:AurgelmirCro's block, made this edit warring threat on the Talk Page, and proceeded to continue the edit war. --Taivo (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the page and extended the blocking period for AurgelmirCro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to one month for obvious block evasion. De728631 (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Bali ultimate reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: article placed under restrictions)
[edit]Page: Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The article is under WP:ARBPIA restrictions and 1rr applies.
Bali ultimate has removed the content added in these recent edits.
- 1st revert: 13:13, 21 September 2012
- 2nd revert: 15:15, 22 September 2012
- 3rd revert: 11:58, 23 September 2012
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:Bali ultimate has reverted three different editors in quick succession in violation of 1rr restrictions delineated on the talk page
Comment I note that no attempt to discuss this on the talk page has been attempted - and frankly, AnkhMorpork's citing of WP:ARBPIA restrictions here can only be seen as monumental chutzpah. The supposed 'conspiracy theory' is sourced to an article [249] which mentions in passing a 'myth' amongst Lebanese fishermen regarding a well-documented invasive species: nowhere does the article describe this 'myth' as a 'conspiracy theory', and nowhere does it claim (per our article lede) that the fish were released "by Israel to attack civilians or to conduct espionage". Then again the article also seems to be suggesting that the idea that puffer fish are poisonous is a myth. Not only ridiculous POV-pushing, but ignorant as well. If anyone deserves sanctions over this it is the editors who are filling this ridiculous article with even more ludicrous bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- The material that a group of dedicated partisans is tag-teaming to insert into the article, in order to make Muslims/Arabs look as stupid as possible, is not supported by the alleged sources. This is the problem.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yup. As per usual. I'd venture to suggest that anyone adding further 'conspiracies' to that heap of shit of an article is in automatic violation of WP:ARBPIA restrictions by definition. It is nothing but WP:OR, propaganda, and outright fantasy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
In lieu of any actions here, the article is placed under a set of restrictions, per WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Reymysteriorocks reported by User:Djjazzyb (Result: Semi)
[edit]Page: Hell in a Cell (2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reymysteriorocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: The article before edit war.
- 2nd revert: [250]
- 3rd revert: [251]
- 4th revert: [252]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Result: Article semiprotected one week. Reymysteriorocks seems to be working in good faith but is rapidly adding unsourced material with no discussion. (Some links that are provided don't verify the given information). The wrestling event is scheduled for Oct. 28 and there will still be time to add sourced details as soon as they are known. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
User:WilliamJE reported by User:Activism1234 (Result: 24h)
[edit]Page: 2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: [253] - a revert of this.
- 2nd revert: [254] - removal of 5 external links.
- 3rd revert: [255] - removal of an entire section and messes up the formatting of the page (changes the subsection formatting, now it's not visible in TOC and there's an odd "b" in front of it). Edit summary also doesn't fit the edit. Edit summary claims that this is a removal of a blog, while edit also removes a media outlet. As such, I reverted it, considering the above, and hoping that if there was still an issue, it'd be taken on the talk page.
- 4th revert: [256] - in an edit summary of capital letters, removes the entire section again, messes up the page formatting, and removes a media outlet reference as well. Didn't use the preview button to look at it first time, and not now either.
Last section on his talk page is a warning from another editor regarding 3RR, so he certainly knows what it is.
WilliamJE is well familiar with Wikipedia policy, and is not afraid to accuse others of not knowing Wikipedia policies on talk pages. It's unfortunate he's so committed to getting this article speedily deleted and removing content that can prevent that, but now it's gone and violated 3RR (or at the very least, edit warring) and the page formatting. --Activism1234 23:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
This editor should make himself aware of another WP:BOOMERANG. He accuses me of edit warring and gives 4 proofs.
2nd proof- The removal of 4 EL that were being used already as IC. That's removing repetition not edit warring.
3rd and 4th proofs- The source for something taking place in Feb 2012 was from August 2011. A source being used was from a blog, which WP:RS covers. Instead of fixing his edits and coming up with a better source, he put it back up again. Note I said here I'm stepping away and that came before any warnings or this discussion.
1st edit- I put the speedy deletion tag back up. This administrator told me on his talk page[257] that a CSD can be taken down by someone other than the creator. So I admitted my error.
On the other hand this editor bringing this complaint against me accused me of lying. He's repeatedly cited an AFD discussion but at the same time insists they don't know anything WP:DRV which is mentioned right at the top of the page.
Bottom line this editor has shown repeated bad faith. He called me a liar and didn't apologize. He didn't go to deletion review even though he can still do that now. Consensus can be changed, but the article has only been changed cosmetically in addition to being padded, and nothing has occurred between the AFD and now to change the consensus. An article that the helicopters were put back into service. Routine....William 00:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I never called you a liar, you wrote a very confusing statement and I called that a lie, and after you made it clearer, I asked you to forgive me for the confusion here. I don't see how that's bad-faith. On the other hand, on the talk page you have assumed that I don't know any Wikipedia policies, you have assumed that I definitely knew that I should've gone to DRV for an article I didn't create (which wasn't part of the closing admin's comments either, and isn't mentioned in any comments there... Yes, I now see it's written in small text at the top of the page, small text that most people probably don't read... Looking at some other AfDs, that appears on every AfD, but also says to comment on the talk page... Article in question was deleted once and was put back up again a second time, without DRV), and after asking to apologize for a comment I made in response to a confusing edit, you gave me hardly any time and simply went and said that I was refusing to do so. I'd say that's bad-faith, and certainly doesn't assume good faith. Note I have never asked for such an apology in regards to your claims that I "clearly" don't know Wikipedia policies or that I certainly knew to go to DRV for an article I didn't create.
- Two of your edits (3 and 4) messed up the formatting of a page and were not consistent with your edit summary. Because of that, not becuase of WP:RS, I felt it easiest to simply insert it again, and if there were any issues, you could explain such on the talk page. Be aware that what you wrote too, saying it was a blog, is a content dispute as well - while the URL has the word "blog," it does function as a website for the IDF Spokesperson as well, so I can definitely see a question whether it's legitimate or not - something that should be for the talk page, rather than simply revert again. It wasn't clear what your intention was with the edit, as your edit summary ran counter to your edit, and messed up the page formatting (which was repeated the 4th time as well, after I specifically pointed out that error). You could just as easily have clarified what you meant, or perhaps made the edit run along the lines of your edit summary if that's what you intended and not delete the media outlet... Instead, you did a simple revert, without taking into account what I wrote, and all in capital letters. --Activism1234 00:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- You said something I wrote was a lie and can't apologize, you make bogus edit warring and 3rr violation claims. See Proof #2 of yours for the former and all four of your proofs for the latter. You accuse me of messing up the page. That's dead wrong too. I restored it to what it was before you made incorrect edits. You haven't gone to DRV and just further proof of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
- There's nothing for me to apologize for you for. The talk page or article shows plentiful proof of your not knowing WP:RS, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:GHITS, WP:AIRCRASH and the guidelines for military accidents. Not to mention DRV, Boomerang, and maybe something else I'm forgetting.
- I am saying nothing more before an administrator arrives. Note it is a few minutes after 9 p.m. my time. I will be out of here around 10 p.m., as is customary for me, till tomorrow....William 01:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- ??? Did you miss what I wrote above, namely this diff, where after you clarified a confusing comment by striking out the word "2010" and making it "2011," I said to forgive me for the initial confusion??
- I am saying nothing more before an administrator arrives. Note it is a few minutes after 9 p.m. my time. I will be out of here around 10 p.m., as is customary for me, till tomorrow....William 01:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is a good-faith edit-warring request, if it doesn't apply to you then an admin will reject it. But see, claiming that I "make bogus edit warring and 3rr violation claims" is bad-faith as well. Assume good faith - because in reality, your assumptions about me aren't correct. If I thought they were bogus, I wouldn't waste my time...
- As for saying that you didn't mess up the page, as far as I can tell, that's not true. Here is a diff right before edit #3 above. Notice the section "investigation" in the toc, and notice the lack of a "b" next to it. Here is your edit. Notice the lack of the section "investigation" in the toc, and the odd inclusion of the letter "b" next to it. So it seems to me, and I'm sure an admin can check this over, that you didn't restore the page to how it previously was, as the previous diff included a section in the toc and did not have the letter "b" next to it. If that's the case, then I think that gives a lot more credence to what I said above regarding a misleading comment of his which I said was not true. --Activism1234 02:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Summary:
- I've made a good-faith edit-warring request, which I believe shows that WilliamJE has violated 3RR, and at the very least, has edit-warred. His last diff is a simple blanket revert, the same as edit #3, without bothering to read what I wrote, and with an edit summary all in capitals that pays no attention to my previous edit. If he did, he wouldn't have messed up the page formatting again (section "investigation" not in TOC, random "b" next to it) as he did in edit #3, and shouldn't have removed media outlets as well if his only edit summary was against "blogs," which I pointed out.
- WilliamJE has written on the talk page that I "clearly" do not understand Wikipedia policies, without assuming good faith and attempting to understand what I've written regarding content-dispute. Notice in that last diff that they play around with my signature, although that may be accidental (good-faith assumed).
- WilliamJE accuses me of somehow knowing what DRV was before today, and accuses me of not knowing to go there, even though I'm not the article creator.
- WilliamJE has accused me of calling him a liar, and has accused me of not taking that back. In reality, I wrote that a claim he made was a lie, not he himself. Namely, his statement wrote "All inline citations and articles added to the article with one exception(That one being Sept 2010) are from 2010." As you can see, it doesn't make much sense, and contradicts itself, hence my confusion with it and different interpretation. Once he corrected the statement to say "being Sept 2011," I accepted that and complied, and asked to forgive me. Even when I pointed out this diff above, WilliamJE continued saying I never retracted this.
Whatever decisions the admins make, I am sure that they will understand that this request has certainly been made in good-faith, and I would not waste my time otherwise. --Activism1234 02:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note - The speedy deletion nomination that was submitted twice by WilliamJE has been declined. The admin said that the article has significantly changed, which I also mentioned to WilliamJE on the talk page, with him responding that it's not true and that I "clearly" don't know Wikipedia policy... Yet, the request has been declined. --Activism1234 04:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Tanneryvillage reported by User:MTLskyline (Result: 31h )
[edit]Page: Mount Royal, Quebec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tanneryvillage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 04:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Previous version reverted to: [258]
- 23:57, 23 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by UnQuébécois (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by 76.10.142.183. (TW)")
- 23:58, 23 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
- 00:40, 24 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 514237039 by Tanneryvillage: Pointless change from "town" to "city". The article should reflect the linguistic reality, and common usage of English Canadian speakers in Montreal, as well as the unique case of 'Town of' being part o...")
- 02:34, 24 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 514243027 by MTLskyline: Linguistic troublemaker. Larousse[ville - nom féminin; 1. [moyenne] town; [plus grande] city. les gens de la ville - city-dwellers, townspeople]. (TW)")
- 02:40, 24 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by UnQuébécois (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Tanneryvillage. (TW)")
- 03:13, 24 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by UnQuébécois (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Tanneryvillage. (TW)")
- 04:13, 24 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 514258587 by Tanneryvillage: unquebecois is displaying rabid Quebec nationalistic anti-English tendencies without really understanding the subtleties of either the English or French languages. His changes seem to be politically mot...")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [259]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mount_Royal,_Quebec#Requested_move
Comments:
Tanneryvillage is engaged in an edit war with User:UnQuébécois. Both of them have violated the 3RR. I believe this requires attention. Neither is purposefully malicious from what I can tell, but they are bickering and reverting each other's edits.--MTLskyline (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
User:UnQuébécois reported by User:MTLskyline (Result: 31h )
[edit]Page: Mount Royal, Quebec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UnQuébécois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [260]
- 1st revert: [261]
- 2nd revert: [262]
- 3rd revert: [263]
- 4th revert: [264]
- 5th revert: [265]
- 6th revert: [266]
- 7th revert: [267]
- 8th revert: [268]
- 9th revert: [269]
- 10th revert: [270]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mount_Royal,_Quebec#Requested_move
Comments:
UnQuébécois is engaged in an edit war with User:Tanneryvillage. Both of them have violated the 3RR. I believe this requires attention. Neither is purposefully malicious from what I can tell, but they are bickering and reverting each other's edits.--MTLskyline (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Wikiwatcher1 reported by User:Mystichumwipe (Result: 48h)
[edit]Page: Denis Avey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiwatcher1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [272]
- 2nd revert: [273]
- 3rd revert: [274]
- 4th revert: [275]
- 5th revert: [276]
- 6th revert: [277]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [278]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [279] [280] [281]
Talk:Denis Avey/Archives/2011#Sunday Times article
Comments: Wikiwatcher1 has been deleting all material from the lead that mentions the problems with the authenticity of this biography page. He also is reverting all material that refers in any detail to the controversial aspects of the 'swap' story of the WW2 veteran and ex-POW, Denis Avey. His reasons for removing material do not appear to me to be valid, viz, he regards the New Statesman, The Daily Mail and The Sunday Times as not suitable sources as they somehow to his mind are original research. E.g. he argues that material detailing the controversy using citations from a source already cited is original research yet he refuses to explain this partiality for removing only some material in the article which uses the same source (The Daily Mail). Etc. (see following diffs on the talk page[282] [283] [284] [285] ) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
He has argued for acceptance of his reverting based merely on what he personally "believes", without providing any verfiable source for this belief. And he appears to think the article should rely only on what he personally believes is true or "fictional" and not on verfiability. E.g. He argued finally with this: *I believe key facts were verified by the person he exchanged clothes with and by that man's wife. The fact that some sceptics (in the U.K. only apparently) don't believe what he did or why, and point out some factual inconsistencies in his account, does not make it fictional[286]. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
*Result: No action, since a reasonable discussion on the article talk page is now in progress. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- New result: Blocked 48 hours. After the above closure Wikiwatcher1 continued reverting to his preferred material again, after being invited to wait for consensus on the talk page. It seems he will not allow any mention in the *article lead* of the fact that Avey's claim of breaking into Auschwitz is controversial. Although a reasonable discussion is taking place on the talk page, it does not seem he has any interest in seeking consensus there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Rishu.jaggotta reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 48 hours)
[edit]Page: Local store marketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rishu.jaggotta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [287]
- 1st revert: 15:30, 22 September 2012
- 2nd revert: 18:50, 22 September 2012
- 3rd revert: 09:26, 23 September 2012
- 4th revert: 11:03, 23 September 2012
- 5th revert: 19:21, 23 September 2012
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [288]
Comments:
- Blocked – 48 hours. The editor is now up to seven reverts in one day. There is also an IP adding the same stuff. I wonder if this is part of a spam campaign. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Worse, it appears to be part of a school assignment involving widespread plagiarism/copyvio on part of most or all of the students. There does not appear to be a project page for the class, but see recent edits to Spin (public relations), Brand ambassador, Brand equity, Multichannel marketing, Catalog marketing, Socially responsible marketing and numerous similar pages. Hairhorn (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
User:24.177.121.137 reported by User:RolandR (Result:72 hours)
[edit]Page: Israeli settler violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.177.121.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [289]
Article is under 1RR. User has just returned from a 24-hour block for edit-warring over the same issue on the same article.
Repeaterdly; eg Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [292]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]Repeated unsuccessful attempts
Comments:
- 72 hours for a second offence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Unnamed101 reported by User:Torchiest (Result: Declined )
[edit]Page: Diablo III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unnamed101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User was just reported a couple days ago on this page, and immediately started reverting again when block expired.
Comments:
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period.
I have only performed 3 reverts, and have therefore not broken any rules, furthermore it was not immediately after my block expired.Unnamed101 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Breaking WP:3RR is only a bright line rule for determining edit warring. You can still be considered to edit war even if you do not go over 3RR. —Torchiest talkedits 16:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe you should take a look at what bright line rule is, regardless I put this up for conflict resolution to be sorted by a neutral party, before being reported for edit warring.Unnamed101 (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Since the editor has stopped reverting and seems willing to discuss at WP:DRN and accept the results of the discussion, I'll consider this settled. —Torchiest talkedits 16:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe you should take a look at what bright line rule is, regardless I put this up for conflict resolution to be sorted by a neutral party, before being reported for edit warring.Unnamed101 (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Declined Reverts have ceased and request initiated at DRN by the editor in question.—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Sopher99 reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Expert opinion or reliable sources being sought )
[edit]Page: Battle of Aleppo (2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I already tried to tell him not to make edit-warring and I left a message on his talk page trying to resolve the situation there. He refused to respond. Same thing happened five days ago ([298]), I left him a message to resolve the situation and again he didn't respond. Every time I left him a message he continues to revert edits and leave explanations in the edit summary. --Wüstenfuchs 13:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
I would like to contest this. I had only reverted it three times. Please see the history of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)&action=history Sopher99 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Further more I did not receive an edit warning on my talk page. What i did receive was "I would like to stop edit warring" Acknowledged - but I only reverted 3 times, and the reason being was because Wustenfuchs edits were a breach of the WP:RS policy. Sopher99 (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sopher, your fifth revert... the Voice of Russia is not neutral to you, the Guardian is not neutral to you... --Wüstenfuchs 14:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- The guardian is neutral, its just that you broke the agreement on the talk page not to make POV pushing statements. Specifically anaylsying a source and quoting single witnesses in an attempt to discredit the rebels. Sopher99 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- What agreement? I was citing the Guardian. And please, not accuse me for an attempt to discredit the rebels. I'm nobody's agent here. --Wüstenfuchs 14:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I quote the Edit warring page saying "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. " Sopher99 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I left a message on your talk page, then you saw this report and soon after you made another revert. You think I'm a psychologist to know what edits you're gonna revert and which you won't. I'm simply editing Wikipedia. --Wüstenfuchs 14:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I did not receive an edit warning on my talk page. What i did receive was "I would like to stop edit warring" Acknowledged - but I did not engage in edit warring, I engaged in preserving WP:RS. Sopher99 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- You enaged in edit warring. You made 5 reverts in less then 24 hours. And it is not your first time you refuse to respond my messages on talk pages and insted you go for reverting explaining me the situation in edit summary. And waht is RS to you? You revert everything you dislike, the Voice of Russia, the Guardian... --Wüstenfuchs 14:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said you did not give me any official edit warning, nor did you make any attempts to resolve the "dispute on the talk page. VOR is not RS, and to uphold the WP:RS policy, I removed it. I also reverted a POV statement which you attempted to back up using the guardian. Sopher99 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- You enaged in edit warring. You made 5 reverts in less then 24 hours. And it is not your first time you refuse to respond my messages on talk pages and insted you go for reverting explaining me the situation in edit summary. And waht is RS to you? You revert everything you dislike, the Voice of Russia, the Guardian... --Wüstenfuchs 14:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- VOR acctualy meets the WP:RS policy. And I didn't tried to backup anything I was citing the Guardian about the situation of the battle and yet you reverted this because you don't like it. Also I think that my message "to try stop the edit warring" was clear enough why am I sending it. --Wüstenfuchs 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- VOR does not meet WP:RS as it classifies one side as "terrorists" , and talk about how the Syrian army "liberates" areas. It is state own, and state controlled, and the mouthpiece of an actual party in the conflict. You did not give me any official edit warning either, nor did you make any attempt to resolve the issue. Sopher99 (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- VOR acctualy meets the WP:RS policy. And I didn't tried to backup anything I was citing the Guardian about the situation of the battle and yet you reverted this because you don't like it. Also I think that my message "to try stop the edit warring" was clear enough why am I sending it. --Wüstenfuchs 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll repeat What I said before because the style of the format makes it look like we are bickering. The only problem I am seeing is that you are using a tic--tac report to try to ban me. I have yet to edit war - I reverted three times the attempts to add a source which breaks the WP:RS policy, and 1 revert against an edit which break the WP:NPOV. Wustenfuchs has not properly warned me of anything, nor has any attempt been made on the talk page to clarify things (Despite of a long history of using that article's talk page to resolve conflicts). Quite frankly Wustenfuchs has a histroy of trying to get people banned, to gain an editing advantage. Sopher99 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't made an attempt to resolve the issue? It's the message I sent to you to which you refused to respond. About the Guardian, you acctualy reverted a satement from a rebel commenting the rebels and you said it's POV and it's discrediting the rebels... It's clear enough you removed the text as you don't like it. And about the VoR, it's your personall oppinin that the source is not reliable. You haven't provided any statement which could prove that VoR is unreliable neither any source said that. And VoR named nobody a "terrorist". --Wüstenfuchs 15:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest you ask for help from WP:RSN? Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC).
- I have done so. --Wüstenfuchs 17:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just ten minutes ago. Sopher99 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for reminding me. --Wüstenfuchs 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just ten minutes ago. Sopher99 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Nickidewbear reported by User:Activism1234 (Result: 72h)
[edit]Page: Talmud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nickidewbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The editor has been inserting edits whose edit summary suggests the edits are based on personal opinions ("Undoing Anti-Christian and Pro-Talmudist" etc) and the edits weren't referenced. The editor was reverted 4 separate times by two different editors (Evan, me, then Evan twice) and warned repeatedly about edit-warring, and recommended repeatedly to go to the talk page, yet has persisted in edit-warring, and has reverted 5 times.
- 1st revert: [299]
- Evan reverts: [300]
- 2nd revert: [301]
- I revert: [302]
- 3rd revert: [303]
- Evan reverts: [304]
- 4th revert: [305]
- Evan reverts: [306]
- 5th revert: [307]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [308] - this is among edit summaries warning. Also notice Evan warned prior to this about personal attacks - I don't know whether Nicki got upset and followed Evan to this article or what, but it clearly shows some issues going on here.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Niki's refused, I've gone to his/her talk page.
Post-submission - after I submitted this, Niki went onto the article Candice Cohen-Ahnine, an article I created and got on DYK, and added a category that isn't mentioned at all in the article. It's possible Niki was WP:HOUNDING me... --Activism1234 06:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
- Comment - User also forged a source with this edit. I have made a third revert to undo this and will not be reverting again anytime soon. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- And a fifth revert, reinstating the falsified material. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Bump", as it were. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – 72 hours. This is already a plain 3RR, and the editor seems to be adding unsourced personal reflections to the article. Is the editor paying any attention at all to what he's doing? As noted by Evanh2008, here he changes the wording of a direct quote from adl.org to falsely claim it said something different. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
User:94.11.147.97 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result:protected)
[edit]Page: Optical Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.11.147.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Multiple previous versions and successive reverts by same editor makes it difficult to find previous versions of individual reverts listed below.
- 1st revert: [309]
- 2nd revert: [310]
- 3rd revert: [311]
- 4th revert: [312]
- 5th revert: [313]
- 6th revert: [314]
- 7th revert: [315]
- 8th revert: [316]
- 9th revert: [317]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [318]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Optical Express#PM to Golfbravoecho
Comments:
The other user (User:Golfbravoecho) involved in this edit war continues to revert even after being warned. Reviewing admin might like to look into reverts done by Hardlygone (talk · contribs) who also displayed edit warring behavior on this article today. --SMS Talk 17:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: The page is now fully protected by User:Elockid after a request at WP:RFP. --SMS Talk 03:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
User:184.58.11.202 reported by User:Jprg1966 (Result: 72h)
[edit]Page: Begin Again (Taylor Swift song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.58.11.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [319]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [325]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, reporting other users
Comments:
Co-warrior with Afireinside27 (talk · contribs), who did stop reverting when warned of being at 3RR.
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours I have blocked both editors and protected the page for five days to allow for discussion. I count four reverts for Afireinside27 and so blocked him as well but would be open to an unblock at any time so long as he assures he won't edit war again. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Done Blocked by User:Ks0stm