Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive231

Page: Judea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and others)
User being reported: 23.241.10.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] 06:08, 22 December 2013
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5] 11:02, 22 December 2013

I.e., four identical reverts within 5 hours

In addition, I wish to highlight this editors offensive tone:

1. "Reversing censorship by Islamic supremacist idiot"
2. "Reverted vandalism and defamation by Islamic supremacist idiot"
3. "rv Islamic supremacist disruption and censorship of facts due to Islamic anti-Semitic bigotry"
4. "typical idiotic Wikipedia dumbass with Aspergers reverting as vandalism something he does not understand"
5. "fuck off"

The last was its response to a polite request to stop attacking editors.

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

Comments:
This editor seems to have no redeeming features at all. Suggest indef. Zero^talk 14:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. IPs should almost never be indeffed; some believe there are no circumstances in which an IP should be indeffed. This IP is editing from a confirmed proxy server, but not apparently from an open proxy. They have been editing since the beginning of this month, which is why I chose a month as the duration. I agree that the edits are completely disruptive. A longer block would be warranted if they return and edit in the same vein.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Just look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shagrath&curid=2120997&action=history

At least 7-8 reverts, by mine and other users, to Batmansexy's vandalism acts. He also reverted our actions.

I notificated few times Batmansexy to stop doing this, but he continue to do "his job". This is a cross-wiki vandalism. On ro.wiki he was blocked 2 times (for 1 day, and for 1 week). I reported user at metawiki, but they haven't undertook any action, no response. XXN (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Page

Template:Religion in South Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cryx88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 12:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Mormons are not Christians"
3. 12:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Mormons could not be characterised as Christians , mormons can't be named under no circumstances as a Christian denomination, its a mistake to call Mormons as Christians"
4. 14:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Mormons are not Christians"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[7] and 3 months ago at

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Template talk:Religion in South Africa#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:
Gsfelipe94 has been continuously reverting the number of substitutes on 2013 FIFA Club World Cup Final. I did point out to him that he was breaking the 3RR rule though he appeared to be unaware of it. I wasn't going to report him because of his inexperience but the fact he later reverted again which led to me filing this report. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I shared my opinion on the talk page and there were people that agreed at first. I reverted 2 edits before, yes. I wasn't aware of that rule and then I followed the procedure used for international tournaments, without reverting the edit. I added new info and then uploaded like that, while we were still discussing. I don't see an edit war here as it is still a discussion. I believe this report was something 100% rushed. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It is considered a revert even if you dont hit revert-button but keeps inserting the same material and doing this after a warning should result in a block. QED237 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion has some interest behind it. I'm sure it would please you to see me blocked. Therefore, I see that we were still discussing the subject and I was following standard procedures. When I didn't do that in other situations, this guy over here complained like the world was ending and know he does the opposite of what I was doing. It's interesting. Well, I believe that we should keep it as a learning experience and I'm sure every part - and that includes everyone that gets involved later - will try to discuss it completely before moving the page from updates to updates. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Warned.
  WP:3RR, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 17:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

Incivility by Brangifer (profanity; accusations of vandalism): [19]

--Mallexikon (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been no crossing of the 3RR bright line, and no profanity here. This is the second complaint needing WP:Boomerang treatment in the last few days from this user. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, hold on. Since when is "You've got to be f****g kidding!" no profanity? Since when is accusation of vandalism regarding a good faith edit acceptable? Why is Brangifers pattern of trying to intimidate other editors (like User:Herbxue at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine quite recently [20]

) acceptable?

And why is Roxy, who is usually applauding Brangifer (like here), the first to comment on this 3RR report, just as he was the first to comment on my recent AN/I report? And why was he so successful in preventing any feedback on that AN/I report? --Mallexikon (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm the first to comment because of good fortune, and as regards preventing any feedback on that AN/I report, I'm not so vain as to think that I had anything to do with it at all. The reason was probably something to do with the unjustified complaint in the first place, much like this one. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This board only deals with editwarring, and your report should not have been made as the editor had only made 3 reverts before you warned him and then stopped. Note that it isn't warn and report, it's warn, if the editor makes another editor then report, even if the warning was after 4 or more reverts unless of course the editor clearly knows about 3RR. As for the rest of your complaints, ANI is as you should know the venue for them, although you won't get an editor blocked for simple profanity. Roxy has no power to prevent feedback, and you had feedback after Roxy posted from 2 other editors.[21]

talk

) 13:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? I have to leave home for a few hours and come back to find this bogus report. Sheesh! There's some serious deception going on here. Mallexikon stated on the article talk page that they were going to delete a whole list of properly sourced content (even their edit summary noted that when they did it!). I noticed that comment about 8 minutes later and wrote a response, which took a few minutes. In the mean time, only one minute after they made the statement, they actually did it! That takes gall. We know that making any potentially controversial edit, especially deleting large amounts of properly sourced and very old content, should be discussed very thoroughly first.

I immediately reverted them with a BRD warning. They didn't heed the warning and continued to delete. (That's edit warring.) I then restored the status quo version with another warning and also warned them on their talk page. To clearly label the section, I did use the words Edit warring/vandalism in my heading to catch Mallexikon's attention. They asked me: "Are you accusing me of vandalism?" I replied that I was not (yet they then lie above, knowing my answer): "Only if you continue. Then it would be vandalism and edit warring. Anyone who saw such an edit would be justified in thinking it was vandalism, but I know your thinking and had seen your comment, so I knew your intention was not to vandalize, even if the effect was the same. It's also a question of motive , which is why I AGF (see my first comment above)."

We have a clear case of deception, lack of competence, and fringe POV pushing. The lack of competence in this case is fourfold:

1. failure to understand when to report edit warring;
2. gaming the system by doing it;
3. failure to follow BRD after being warned;
4. misuse and failure to understand MEDRS by seeking to apply MEDRS to content which is not covered by MEDRS at Acupuncture, and failing to apply it properly to content that is covered at German acupuncture trials. This is a fringe POV pusher's very selective misuse of MEDRS to seek to delete mainstream, skeptical, opposing POV from Acupuncture, and to include primary scientific research (a violation of MEDRS) which seems to weakly support acupuncture (a fringe POV) in the German acupuncture trials article.

Boomerang does apply here, and with consequences. Mallexikon is no longer new here and knows better. They are obviously here to push a fringe POV, delete or water down properly sourced mainstream POV, and do it deceptively. This editor needs to be sanctioned and topic banned from all alternative medicine topics. They are

BR I think you go way too far here. Mallexikon is a responsible editor.Herbxue (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And this new discussion belongs elsewhere, maybe ANI or AN. Having it here really won't have any effect.

talk

) 18:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• No violation
  talk
  ) 10:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Page

UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587241084 by
   talk
   ) "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is ""
2. 15:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587235312 by
   talk
   )"
3. 14:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587207388 by Emeraude (talk) READ THE REFERENCE; IT SAYS CENTRE-RIGHT."
4. 07:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587167059 by Bondegezou (talk) no reason given."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[22]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 16:48, 15:33, 14:46, 07:38. Warned at 15:48 prior to last revert. Kuru (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User being reported: Pk041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: Rana (title) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:15, December 22, 2013
2. 18:25, December 22, 2013
3. 18:42, December 22, 2013

Page: List of Rajputs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:30, December 22, 2013

Page: Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:13, December 22, 2013
2. 14:29, December 22, 2013

Page: Bhati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Previous version (includes edits by IP 39.55.x.x)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:11, December 22, 2013 (revert by IP 39.55.x.x)
2. 14:28, December 22, 2013
3. 14:33, December 22, 2013

Diff of edit warring warning: 14:42, December 22, 2013

Comments:

Edit warring at multiple articles even after being warned. Pk041 was previously blocked for disruptive edits at caste/social group related articles. This time also he/she is edit warring in the same topic area. This is an edit warring report and I know about 3RR. -- SMS ^Talk 19:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Clear edit warring with multiple editors in articles subject to discretionary sanctions. Kuru (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Pages: Christian Democratic Party (Chile) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Party for Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

And here:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] (warned for blanking: [32])

Endless edit warring against a number of users to include ORish stuff into political party infoboxes and to remove information already sourced (e.g. 3 RR violated also here: [33], [34], [35], [36]).

Comments:

@

Estlandia: His case against me doesn't make much sense... For instance, he wrote "If you really think party programmes are to be preferred to third party sources, you have no idea what WP:NPOV should look like.-".. But clearly, if you look at these examples; this (the Socialist Party) and this (the Party for Democracy) they clearly use official sources.. The former infobox on the Party for Democracy page did not make sense, for instance, how can a party be both social democratic, libertarian and liberalist? A reader who just wants to see which party is a member of the new coalition government of Chile (who won the election), will have no clue what kind of party Party for Democracy is. Secondly, its a member of Socialist International and Progressive Alliance, social democratic internationals.. So to simply it, I removed the rest and let Social democracy stand there alone. Another example, the Socialist Party officially opposes capitalism (and seeks to create a socialist society), but is clearly a social democratic party, so I made two sections;
Claimed:
Social democracy
Official:
Democratic socialism, Marxism and anti-capitalism

(because the party principles and statutes says this).

--TIAYN (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You are very disruptive because you keep removing sources just based on your gut feeling like here [38] (I haven't edited the page).

Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!)

14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

My edits at the

Social Democratic Radical Party is again a simplification, but (I'l admit, I did not add sources).. But a party which proclaims adherence to socialism in its party constitution cannot by definition by centrist, and again, a party is either centre-left or centre-right unless a party explicitly states in the centre of national politics. This party is explicitly socialist, is a member of the centre-left Socialist International and espouses a centre-left ideology, social democracy... But again, the ideologies in the infobox are again directly taken from the party constitution, because the party explicitly states it supports humanism and radicalism , so this is a simplification measure, since its main ideology is Social Democracy and this is why the party has social democratic in its name and supports officially a vision of socialism... This is called common sense. --TIAYN (talk

) 14:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I should note that even AFTER having been reported here, the user continues edit warring, as evident from this revert [39].

Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!)

14:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This will be my last argument (on the Party for Democracy page), what do you think readers most easily understand, version A) or version B)?

A)

Progressivism, left-libertarianism, social liberalism, libertarianism and reformism

B)

Social democracy

• Having only social democracy is best (or Progressivism) for that matter. Libertarianism doesn't make sense, first since you can't be a social democrat, social liberal (who support certain state-ownership in the economy) and libertarianism who wants to abolish the state.. The party constitution clearly states that the party is only libertarian in the sense that it supports and defends democratic rights, but not libertarian in any other sense of the word. Therefore having libertarian there complicates matters more than it simplifies, and since the article doesn't have an ideology section, the article is unable to explain the readers how and why the party views itself as such. Therefore, for simplicity, calling it social democratic is first of all true, its a member of the Socialist International and Progressive Alliance, but also easy enough to understand. The infobox should pertain basic information, and not be too complex. Having five different ideologies complicate things (secondly, not all readers know what all or any of these ideologies mean).. Making it easier for the readers is my key goal. --TIAYN (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User being reported: Jeromesandilanico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Template:Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41] 03:03, 23 December 2013
2. [42] 03:18, 23 December 2013
3. [43] 03:55, 23 December 2013
4. [44] 13:39, 23 December 2013

Page: Template:Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46] 03:53, 23 December 2013
2. [47] 13:38, 23 December 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

Useddenim (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Useddenim failing to seek consensus first via the talk page before proceeding with his edit and instead insisted on his edits and edit warred. He even exhibited an arrogant behavior which should be avoided at all times.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Page: Nicholas Kollerstrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sceptic1954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

User:Sceptic1954 seems very keen to remove RS material -- journal-published material, in fact -- showing that

I'd be removing that crap myself ... not even written in an encyclopedic manner ... and you're edit-warring to put it back in. Are you sure you're planning this move correctly? ES&L 17:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

But would you knowingly and intentionally violate

WP:3RR after a warning to "prove your point" as User:Sceptic1954 did? That's the issue here. Frizzmaz (talk

) 17:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. ES&L is absolutely right. In any event,
  WP:BRD.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Page

Neetzan Zimmerman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• [57]
• [58]
• [59]
• [60]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [61]
• [62]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See talk page.

Comments:

The editor has added inappropriate maintenance tags in violation of

• Note.
  WP:3RR. The first edit was an addition. That was followed by four reverts, but the last revert was well outside of the 24-hour window. This spat between the two of you has spilled over into the Jessica Grose article and its AfD. I don't see how any of this is helping the project. Perhaps you should just seek a consensus about the tags. I realize that two editors favor removal of the tags, and only Morgan wants the tags, but one of the two authors is the creator of the article and might be a smidgen biased.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 14:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Search article Jessica Grose's history for the word "primary" to see where Reddogsix repeatedly adds maintenance tags insisting "There are multiple primary sources in the article" (referring to media interviews), then, despite improvements, nominates the article for deletion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Grose&action=history

Now, see in article Neetzan Zimmerman's history where Reddogsix insists that this subject's media interviews (and subject's own LinkedIn profile!) are acceptable secondary sources, and the article should not have any maintenance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neetzan_Zimmerman&action=history

I used the tags in the precise way--to the letter, including the in-line comments--that this editor did in the

Kathy_Clark_(American_author): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reddogsix#you_could_go_a_little_easier_on_her ) While I appreciate Reddogsix's contribution to Wikipedia, I feel that this experience is closer to harassment than collaboration. Morganmissen (talk

) 14:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that I have not violated

WP:3RR. Like I said, I am new to Wikipedia and this is very confusing, especially because I did not receive a warning, and was not the one to revert edits. I'd really just like Reddogsix to leave me alone. Morganmissen (talk

) 14:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD. You added the tags. Once an editor objected, you should not have reinserted them absent a consensus. None of this so far is blockable, but I think you should pull back a little.--Bbb23 (talk

) 15:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologized above for this waste administrators' time, and I apologize again. Not sure what to make of being accused of being an expert Wikipedia user, but feel free to search my history and IP address if there is any doubt that I'm not new. I'm just trying to be a good editor. I didn't know about

WP:BRD or I'd have surely followed it here. Regarding verbosity, I completely agree with you. I've just had be to extremely specific and cite Wikipedia guidelines in every interaction with Reddogsix for reasons like this; as even in doing so, this editor reported me without warning when no violation had occurred. I'd imagine anyone in my position would do the same. Morganmissen (talk

) 20:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Declined Declining to issue blocks since no edit warring has occurred in past 24 hours. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 23:11, 22 December 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:11, 22 December 2013
2. 18:47, 21 December 2013
3. 22:03, 19 December 2013 reversion by sock 71.139.152.174 Special:Contributions/71.139.152.174

This is the text that is being brought into question:
In the first known usage as slang, WWII German soldiers were known to call the Dutch "cheeseheads".^[1]

The term "cheesehead" was first used in the 1969 book Papillon to describe the jury that sentenced Papillon to life in prison. ^[2][3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Open discussion with Mike
2. Unsatisfactory reply
3. Notice of posting on editboard

Original Dispute: Ignored consensus August 2009 [64]
Current Dispute: Posted to talk page (with an attempt to keep it light and humorous [65]

Date and history of dicussion:
My comment on talk page: Timmccloud (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Revert by Orangemike: 23:11, 22 December 2013 Orangemike (talk | contribs) . . (2,785 bytes) (-1,182) . . (a work of fiction is not a reliable source)
Reply by mike on talk page: 23:14, 22 December 2013
Note: copied discussion from Mike's page to talk page. Talk:Cheesehead

I don't see how a highly respected, well circulated and repeatedly published work of fiction could be considered "non-reliable" as a source for the

• Declined. I see this as a content dispute, and it's incumbent on the editors not to let a content dispute mushroom into an edit war. I'm not convinced there was a consensus in 2009, but, regardless, the most recent addition of the material was by Timmccloud, and per
  WP:BRD, when Orangemike reverted, it should have gone to the talk page intead of being reverted by Tim and then a mini edit war.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 21:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Page: List of people from Hawaii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Master Troll Rocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70] Was blocked for this on 19 December 2013 by user Favonian (talk · contribs)

After block expired:

1. "(I'mmmmmmmmmm back!!!!!!! :3)"
2. "(HE IS THE PINEAPPLE KING)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not warned anymore

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempts anymore

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Page

Dj buddy holly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC) "General note: Removing file deletion tags on
   TW
   )"
2. 03:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User deleting CSD Hoax tag, followed by deleted RfD tag ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Page: Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22 December 13:41
2. 23 December 11:56
3. 24 December 09:15
4. 24 December 11:47
5. 24 December 15:27

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours for Herr Bundespanzer and 2 weeks for Maurice07 (due to his past blocks). only (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Page: Anusha Rahman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Munir hussain1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff (edit by 202.83.166.99)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:14, December 16, 2013 (reveert by 39.41.55.189)
2. 14:34, December 18, 2013 (revert by 182.180.86.10)
3. 16:35, December 18, 2013 (revert by 39.41.147.181)
4. 05:45, December 19, 2013 (revert by Munir hussain1)
5. 18:43, December 23, 2013 (revert by Munir hussain1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Anusha Rahman#Maintenance tags

Comments:
The maintenance tags were persistently removed by IP editors earlier after which the article was semi protected. This time Munir hussain1 (who earlier had edited the article) continued the edit war. All of them were reported at SPI but the case was closed with a warning to Munir hussain1. I have tried to discuss with the editor but he doesn't seem to be interested. -- SMS ^Talk 22:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: It is an edit warring report. -- SMS ^Talk 23:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Page: Merle Allin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 16:18, 16 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586234803 by Dialectric (talk)")
2. 04:43, 17 December 2013 (edit summary: "vandalism thwarted")
3. 18:36, 17 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586446370 by CCS81 (talk)")
4. 15:52, 19 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586681744 by CCS81 (talk)")
5. 02:08, 24 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587398393 by Dialectric (talk) refe")
6. 16:29, 24 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587480495 by CCS81 (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of talk page comment: here

Comments:
User Wissingwm has been inserting the same block of unreferenced content into the BLP article Merle Allin since October, at least 11 times by my count, and did not respond to a warning message on his talk page or to several suggestions to discuss the changes on the article talk page before reverting. As IPs were reverting this same content until I requested semi-protection, there may also be an issue of socking. —Dialectric (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Page

CryptoLocker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "You don't put them in an article unless they're serving some purpose. Only one mentions Dunklin and he is the sentence. They're not and two are already used."
2. 04:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "4 of those IC have nothing to do with the sentence."
3. 01:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Only 1 of the 5 IC mentions Ducklin, the main focus of this sentence. That one is kept, the rest are gone."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Removal of citations */ new section"
2. 04:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Is outright removing valid citations from an article because they don't cite the sentence they are positioned directly after, despite repeated explanations that they cite the entire paragraph. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This editor insists on using 5 IC for one sentence when 4 of them have nothing at all to do with it. See my edit summaries and my comment at his talk page.(If they support something in the paragraph, move them to the correct sentence. BTW this is the first time Viper mentions that. ) In fact his history at this article shows a clear history of WP:OWN.. I haven't violated 3RR. Viper on the other hand comes here when his edits are pointless except as an action to keep exerting his control this page....William 05:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, that was an entire paragraph, not just one sentence. However, I just repositioned the refs so they're not all at the end, implying they're only citing that one statement. Additionally, I am not showing ownership of the article; one who shows ownership usually

WP:3RR. ViperSnake151  Talk 

05:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. William is correct in that he did not violate 3RR as he reverted only three times. Technically, ViperSnake violated 3RR, even though his first revert, a series of consecutive edits between 23:20 and 23:26, was not about the dispute. Apparently, ViperSnake has at least partly complied with William's request in his last edit to the article. If that doesn't satisfy William, I suggest that he or ViperSnake move the citations to the "correct" locations. This was a needless dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Page

AR Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bobby.jennings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 17:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 17:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 04:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""
5. 01:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 17:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 18:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one month I blocked him more for the BLP violation than the edit warring. only (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Page

Katia Elizarova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "the links are listed as official. And regularly sourced online to boot. also. you removed images again. bad editing."
2. 18:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587650445 by Thomas.W (talk) you removed images and links. the links are akin to all other bio pages for living people also. relevant to wiki and valid content"
3. 17:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "please stop removing images. investigate then delete dont do it the other way round. 3RR rule and I shall report for this violation again."
4. 17:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587642381 by Lady Lotus i sent them to that fan page following taking them. i own them and have released to commons. there is no dispute as to ownership, please leave alone."
5. 15:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587634652 by Lady Lotus (talk) the images are owned by me."
6. 13:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587381578 by Lady Lotus (talk) I own the images and added them. They are legit. You have been banned for edited before."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Katia Elizarova"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

As the user in dispute here I would like to hold that the other party is attempting to remove images I own and have supplied to commons for free use. These have been fully offered by me as owner and the other party is attempting continuously to unfoundedLy remove them from the Katia Elizarova page. Also, they are attempting to remove external links to official pages. It is destructive editing and has resulted in an edit war for which U am protecting the undue removal of content. I appreciate your investigation. Carpefemme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Owning the images, as you claim, neither guarantees you a right to add them, nor exludes you from the 3RR-rules. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months for the edit warring and general disruption. only (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]
5. [80]

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

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

Comments:

+Vandalism after final warning. Alex ^{discussion ★} 10:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note The page has been deleted, so no need for further action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Page:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]

This page is under 1 revert rule restrictions.

Diff of 1 revert rule violation: [83] Sopher99 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
It was an act for saving the map from vandalism. "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" (

1 - You weren't reverting vandalism, you reverted content I contributed with sources
2 - I made an intervening edit, so you did in fact make two reverts Sopher99 (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

AOnline, I'm not sure what your quoting of Bbb23 is proving here. There were edits between your two reverts according to the page history. Why do you believe that this comment applies here? Sopher99, can you point me to where the 1RR restriction is named for this template? I don't see it at a quick glance and I'm not familiar with the surrounding situations. only (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a notice right here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=edit Sopher99 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Two clear reverts, not consecutive, and I can find no reason to believe these were "vandalism". Second block for same. Kuru (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Page

Edward Makuka Nkoloso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC) "Removed orphan status; removing self-published status; removing unreliable sources status - reason in Talk."
2. 05:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "Removed vandalism"
3. 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "Removed citation flags (see Talk); moved citations to endnote using full cite template for clarity (see Talk); added "Later life" section; added avocation for witch doctors; added "whiting" source; minor spelling; removed year of death missing category"
4. 21:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "Remove orphan status as per Orphan policy: "It is recommended to only place the {{orphan}} tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles." Article has two links to it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Comments */"
2. 20:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Comments */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

The entire talk page, posting on

Comments:

Full disclosure: I am involved with this user, but this has just crossed the line from disagreement to edit war, and something more than

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider
  WP:RFPP) to have the protection ended early. only (talk
  ) 01:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  3O *was* sought a little while ago, and I don't see this working itself out any time soon. That's partly why I posted here. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Well you were both in violation of edit warring here, so the best solution was protecting rather than just blocking both of you. There really isn't much other remedy that can be done on the administrative end. only (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I've blocked Sumatro, plus the IP and JanHusCz, all of whom seem connected. I also opened a sockpuppet investigation on the users. only (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Lihaas seems to be aggressively edit warring with several users on the page at once. His recent talk page comments are confrontational and uncooperative. I tried my best to approach this in a calm manner and

The dispute involves claims that the entirety of the "international news media" is framing the South Sudanese conflict in the wrong way. I deleted this comment and he has been restoring it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. His second or third revert, but the first within this 24 hour period
2. Here he reverts another user with whom he's edit warring about a seperate issue. And you can see that user's changes being made here and here
3. Here is another revert, simply telling me "it's on the page"
4. This is a revert of what he claims to be vandalism, but that is not "obvious" to me.
5. This is a revert for the infobox, which he is warring over
6. Here he is removing citation needed templates without including any inline citations

Warning - While not a 3RR warning specifically, I did warn him of administrative action. I also tried my best to come to a reasonable solution.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:

All I did was ask for a source, I don't see why someone would behave so aggressively unless they were POV pushing. The one source he did provide after I warned of administrative action was an opinion piece. This is a transparent ethnic dispute spillover, he has ignored reasonable requests for verification, and objectively broken the 3RR. Please help me resolve this dispute. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I told him three times that there are references, he refused to go to discussion and then after he does finally he accuses me instead of asking. Yet I went ahead and answered all his questions and showed the citations and STILL I left in his tag for him to approve and remove. Then he accuses me of being confrontational after his first comment was accusatory. That is not AGF and it wasn't calm when he wars over it despite telling him that there are sources. In fact, he expects me to do ALL the work. The consensus discussion requires him to discuss, he did not do it before and I told him the sources were on the page. Which I then answered his query with showing every point as sourced, and as I said I still did not revert him but left the tag and in fact NOTIFIED him for doing so and waiting for his revert.

As for the other topics, one can note I have made several discussions on the talk page. I have also shown that I did NOT revert the other issue with links as evidence on the page and that I did indeed revert my addition of 66 without intervening edits.

Further to note, he never warned me. He instead threatens me in the very edit he considers to have been discussing and then says I am uncooperative and confrontational. (I think vonversely an attempt to discuss that is threatening is MORE harmful to congenial discussion, confrontational and even condescending) Yet after that I still do NOT revert what he added and instead wrote on his talk page that the tag is there for HIM to remove. And yet im being uncooperative by answering his question AND leaving the content he added. What more should I do on this regard? Not only do I take his threats, I answer them and wait for him to determine consensus and remove the tag.

The vandalism was by an IP who reverted multiple times without any reason whatsoever. That is generally considered vandalism by many others around here.

As said both issues have been in discussion. I reverted my own 66 in accordance with the discussion on the other issue and then made suggested changes on the issue (which that user did too).

Further amongst some edits there aren't intervening edit which is note a war.

In sum, Ive made attempts at discussion. Heck, when consensus was against me I even agree and didn't edit. (See Srebrenica massacre and internal conflict sections) Other times I went to talk first to preempt possible wars. (cathegory ethnic conflict section, for one)Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

update still answering all his queries, and moving nothing on the main page. [His] Tags in place too..

Incidentally the othe reditor mentioned here is warring to in less than 24 hours, while yet the other editor is not even discussing in talk. At least twith the former were working out and with the latter Ive geiven up for now, but he is not discussing (and elsewhere).Lihaas (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note. My inclination is to block Lihaas for violating
  WP:3RR and to some extent for his disruptive attitude. However, I don't feel I've sufficiently explored his conduct or other editors' conduct to do so, and I have to leave wiki. For the benefit of other admins, of the six diffs (reverts) listed in thie report, there are in fact four. Numbers 1 and 2 are consecutive, and numbers 3 and 4 are consecutive. Finally, assuming Lihaas is referring to the filer when he says that they are "warring to in less than 24 hours", I see no evidence of PraetorianFury even coming close to breaching 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 23:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No not referring to the OP, reference to the other editor which he mentioned here.\

Also, btw, what disruption of mine? I need to know for future.

Nevertheless, am on all discussion as I showed above. And not reverting even his on the main page. See that for the latest. But also wheres the procedure in his civility too? Warning? Diff on "warning" and "attempt to resolve" is the same. See hthat. I too responded in attempting to solve and gave him a heads up of it, that I was not obligated to do. The links are conflating several issues without R3RR on a current event with breaking news and many edits on the page. Its not a gross violation.

As of current discussion its established that I don't even know what he opposes specifically. Other than the blanket removal which he did at first, and were since talking, ive at least partly (apparently not fully) shown sources for, Ive just gone and outright asked him which part would he like removed? Were probably now a hair-trigger away from compromise as I just need to know what he wants...and theres only one part of the aspect at the least that I would like to see there. And this is from the discussion page were already discussing.

Even, giving benefit of doubt, i redacted my focus to only the content on issue.

note now also self-reverted to remove the passage altogether to generate consensus. Fair? I was going to just remove the removal of the cn tag but took it all off to negate now the 6th? That was what he originally did. Alternatively, if it is better to just use the cn tag added back, I don't mind that.

Ive done this too, don't know which one is best but don't mind anyone going to the preferred version. Also discussions were taking place before this before filing, as a note

Here...Im clearly not digging in and besting in arguement that "im right, youre wrong". Im accommodating to discussion, even in interim, till consensus if found. Isnt that unusual for AN? Should be encouraged, no?Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Lihaas has also vandalized the page on India–United States relations by redacting SOURCED and CONTEXTUAL info 91.182.232.30 (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I made a single edit there in support of another editor reverting those edits (which the IP popposed) and I went directly to talk to reply there. That is amongst a week of the breaking news edit I had an edit there. I welcome all and sundry oto the history and talk page there.Lihaas (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You're fortunate that I don't have the time to deal with this. I don't understand almost anything you've said. I'm done here. Either another admin will take action or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(←) FYI, he has heavily modified his comments after the fact. This is what I saw which made discussion seem pointless. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week He's been blocked several times in the past for 3RR and warring, so a week is an appropriate length. only (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Page: Israeli settlement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sunny Xmas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Sepsis II brings up the topic for discussion

Comments: The two first diffs linked above is from

• Note. Sunny is a new editor. I've formally warned them of
  WP:3RR, although they came close.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 00:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness_Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [No previous info existed about the movie.]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. A
   The Bastard Child
   directed by Mrityunjay Devvrat on the subject is being released worldwide in December 2013. The tagline of the movie reads, 'Can we in search of power become animals?'
2. A
   The Bastard Child
   directed by Mrityunjay Devvrat on the subject is being released worldwide in December 2013. The tagline of the movie reads, 'Can we in search of power become animals?'
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War

• No violation and failed to notify user (which I've done even though I'm closing this).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, and happy new year, when it gets here. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)