Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive252
User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Bloodofox (Result: Pointless squabble; stale)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page: Kelpie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- ([2][3][4][5]—reversion of edits [6] by @Kiyoweap:, which were not "vandalism" as Eric states, but rather tags primarily for poor sourcing issues raised on the talk page })
- [7]
- [8]
- [9]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10] (here's the mandatory template: [11])
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] (discussion here; note also that edit summaries above repeatedly request user to continue using the talk page rather than simply remove article issue tags)
Comments:
This is part of an ongoing issue involving problematic sourcing on the Kelpie article, which was recently a featured article. However, when the article became featured, it was clear that it didn't receive the scrutiny it needed; references to the pseudoscience of cryptozoology were employed and numerous issues relating to sourcing have been raised since. Eric appears to have been a major contributor to the state of the article at that time, and these reversions seem to be related to that fact. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your supposed to link to the 3rr warning you issued, and then where they reverted after you issued it. You still haven't issued a 3rr warning, and Eric hasn't edited the article subsequent to your notice of the discussion here. Furthermore, the 3rr rule is not an entitlement to edit war until you hit it, so you are just as guilty of edit warring as Eric is. Monty845 18:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- What, beyond text in an edit summary warning about revert amounts, qualifies as a "3RR warning"? As you can see, Eric edited after that. This doesn't count as a 3RR "warning"? I certainly didn't violate 3RR, and my edits repeatedly ask him to discuss it on the talk page—where I was discussing the issue—rather than simply reverting page issue templates. I'm also unclear about what has happened in the policy; in the past it's been pretty cut and dry—over 3 reverts and it's a block—but apparently that has changed? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- ...how embarrassing. I suggest you read up on it a bit more before coming here and throwing accusations around. Cassiantotalk 18:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- (WP:DTR), or at least a {{uw-ew}} followed by the editor continuing to edit war. The idea is to make sure that there is no question they were aware that continuing was a violation of policy, and that they then proceeded to do so. Intentionally edit warring up to 3rr, is still edit warring, and that you reported it here shows you knew you were participating in an edit war. Monty84518:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- What, beyond text in an edit summary warning about revert amounts, qualifies as a "3RR warning"? As you can see, Eric edited after that. This doesn't count as a 3RR "warning"? I certainly didn't violate 3RR, and my edits repeatedly ask him to discuss it on the talk page—where I was discussing the issue—rather than simply reverting page issue templates. I'm also unclear about what has happened in the policy; in the past it's been pretty cut and dry—over 3 reverts and it's a block—but apparently that has changed? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was discussing it on the talk page page with your tag-team colleague Kiyoweap, who had yet to respond, which is why I consider your repeated insertion of these defacing tags to be vandalism. Added to which neither you nor Kiyoweap have even the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Eric Corbett 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Eric, as we apparently don't need to go this route, let's just keep the sand in the sand box (Kelpie talk page) so we can all play together like nice kids. We can discuss your choice of sourcing there. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was discussing it on the talk page page with your tag-team colleague Kiyoweap, who had yet to respond, which is why I consider your repeated insertion of these defacing tags to be vandalism. Added to which neither you nor Kiyoweap have even the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Eric Corbett 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- So let me be clear about this (I've been editing on and off for around for several years, and there certainly have been changes to this situation since I was last pretty active on Wikipedia). So, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours" no longer applies? It's still at the top of the page, and this doesn't seem to fall under the "exceptions". And there is "preferred" means of warning another user before they hit that cap that, without use, invalidates 3RR? And, to be clear, since I'm reporting this in the first place, I'm guilty of edit warring, despite repeatedly asking the other user to take it to the talk page? Given Cassianto (talk · contribs)'s response, I'm guessing we don't have a civility policy anymore either... :bloodofox: (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- The point of the policy is not to block as many people as possible, but to stop the edit warring. That said, its also important not to let 3rr be used by one editor to "win" an edit war by getting the other editor blocked. Eric may well end up getting blocked for his violation of 3rr, but its also clear from the page history that you have a history of edit warring with Eric on this topic before today. You come here with unclean hands. Monty845 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been an amount of discussion over changing the wording that I quote above? It seems like this policy doesn't really reflect how it's worded on this page anymore, which does indeed seem as cut and dry as I recall it being in the past. If this was all spelled out above, I wouldn't be wasting anyone's time with it (above it says, for example, "consider warning them by placing [specific template] on their user talk page"—note consider). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Some admins are just more eager to block for 3rr violations than others. Personally, I like to make sure an editor has been given ample chances (such as the warning) to cut it out before resorting to a block. In the past I've warned editors with 7+ reverts, and only blocked them if they continued after the warning. My goal is to not block a good faith editor if there is any way to avoid it. That said, because there are admins who do more aggressively enforce 3rr, its best for editors to know that they are always at risk of being blocked when they violate it. If an admin chooses to block Eric in this instance, it would be within their discretion under the 3rr rule. Monty845 19:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Bloodofox: - Seriously? Read the rest of the policy:
- The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by report edit warringwith or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.
- The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by
- The bolding is in the original, not mine, but it's exactly what I would have emphasized to explain this to you. Just because you're discussing it and reverting doesn't mean you're not edit warring.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 19:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been an amount of discussion over changing the wording that I quote above? It seems like this policy doesn't really reflect how it's worded on this page anymore, which does indeed seem as cut and dry as I recall it being in the past. If this was all spelled out above, I wouldn't be wasting anyone's time with it (above it says, for example, "consider warning them by placing [specific template] on their user talk page"—note consider). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- The point of the policy is not to block as many people as possible, but to stop the edit warring. That said, its also important not to let 3rr be used by one editor to "win" an edit war by getting the other editor blocked. Eric may well end up getting blocked for his violation of 3rr, but its also clear from the page history that you have a history of edit warring with Eric on this topic before today. You come here with unclean hands. Monty845 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- So let me be clear about this (I've been editing on and off for around for several years, and there certainly have been changes to this situation since I was last pretty active on Wikipedia). So, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours" no longer applies? It's still at the top of the page, and this doesn't seem to fall under the "exceptions". And there is "preferred" means of warning another user before they hit that cap that, without use, invalidates 3RR? And, to be clear, since I'm reporting this in the first place, I'm guilty of edit warring, despite repeatedly asking the other user to take it to the talk page? Given Cassianto (talk · contribs)'s response, I'm guessing we don't have a civility policy anymore either... :bloodofox: (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bloodofox, did I see you say that you consider something you said in an edit summary to have been an appropriate 3RR notification to another editor? No way. Edit summaries are to give a summary of your edit - not to make direct communication with another editor, especially for the purposes of providing a formal warning the panda ₯’ 19:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BRD applies here too. After Eric reverted the addition of the tags, the next step is to discuss whether they're appropriate, not to simply replace them. This is especially the case on a featured article. Black Kite (talk)20:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think they qualify as vandalism as defined by WP:POINTy, as it obvious that more than one person disagrees with you, even before you put the tag up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- As the warring has stopped, the tags have been reverted off and it is being discussed (via WP:BRD) by both parties, I don't see a need to start blocking people just for the sake of blocking people, as there isn't anything to prevent. I think this just needs to go back to the article talk page and be closed, with everyone learning a bit of a lesson what is and isn't warring for the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think we can all assume that Eric has been around long enough to know about 3RR; complaining that he didn't get a formal warning is quite tenuous. Also, this is clearly not even remotely close to vandalism (per WP's definition of the word). Finally, there have been some (brief) talk page discussions about the tagging. Two editors agree that the tags are valid, and Eric disagrees. Seems to me that Eric is edit warring against consensus, even if it is a rather small, local consensus. Not every article has hundreds of contributors watching it, ready to participate in a discussion, so sometimes 2-3 editors is all you get to determine consensus. Since Eric clearly violated 3RR, I believe he should receive a 24-hour block, like any other normal editor would. Of course, we all know that won't happen, because of Eric's privileged status on this site. And therefore, we will perpetuate Eric's belief that he is exempt from most rules (even the ones that are clear-cut and strictly defined). ‑Scottywong| converse _ 20:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- No surprise to see you here campaigning for a block, but three points:
- Where have you see me complaining about the lack of a formal warning?
- Where have you got the idea from that I'm the only one in dispute with Bloodofox?
- What exactly do you think a 24-hour block would be likely to achieve? Eric Corbett 20:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I never claimed that either of your first two points were true. I never said that you complained about the lack of a formal warning, and I never claimed that you are the only person engaged in a dispute with Bloodofox. As for your last point, a 24-hour block would reinforce the fact that we actually have rules here, and when those rules are broken, the appropriate consequences are handed out as a result. This would achieve an outcome where editors are less likely to break the rules in the future, since they would know that the strictly defined rules of WP are actually enforced. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Only in your dreams Scottywong. Eric Corbett 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Consistently enforcing the strictly defined rules of WP is a very lofty and unrealistic goal. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Only in your dreams Scottywong. Eric Corbett 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I never claimed that either of your first two points were true. I never said that you complained about the lack of a formal warning, and I never claimed that you are the only person engaged in a dispute with Bloodofox. As for your last point, a 24-hour block would reinforce the fact that we actually have rules here, and when those rules are broken, the appropriate consequences are handed out as a result. This would achieve an outcome where editors are less likely to break the rules in the future, since they would know that the strictly defined rules of WP are actually enforced. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's not particularly helpful Scotty, and frankly it's soapboxing and drama mongering. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. I disagree that enforcing the strictly defined rules of Wikipedia is soapboxing and drama mongering. Perhaps we just need to adapt the wording of 3RR to reflect the reality of when it is and isn't followed. I would suggest adding something to effect of: "Brand new editors are typically blocked immediately upon crossing the bright line of 3RR. Established editors (especially ones that have been blocked dozens of times in the past) are generally given the benefit of the doubt, even if they cross the bright line, especially if they are politically connected with administrators, or if they have become WP:INVOLVED with the majority of active administrators." ‑Scottywong| converse _21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- If we were policemen or judges, then maybe that would make sense, but we aren't here to dispense 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Do you agree that if rules were consistently enforced, it would prevent editors from breaking them? In other words, if violating 3RR always resulted in a minimum 24-hour block, regardless of the situation or who the editor is, would that result in a reduction in edit warring among established editors? Would that reduction in edit warring be beneficial to the project? Do you believe that blocking Eric would not be preventive, because Eric has shown that blocks have no effect on his behavior? ‑Scottywong| express _ 21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- No Scotty, I don't. If that were the case, we could replace admin with bots. Plus bots never have axes to grind. We use humans because every situation is different and requires judgement. We pick humans to find the best solution to a problem. When you take a hardass approach to problems, you just reinforce the idea that they don't matter, they are nothing but little text generators, and if they punch up the wrong column too many times, we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your
spankblock log. No thanks. I think we treat them like we want to be treated, as fallible human beings that will screw up from time to time. Once put on notice, as long as they don't screw up again, then no harm is done. If you do it again, oh well, you give us no choice but to block. Block is the last resort, not the first. Your lack of empathy is alarming sometimes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)- The only human analysis that is required in the case of 3RR is to determine whether the editor was reverting vandalism. Beyond that analysis, the decision could be carried out by a bot. There is a reason that we describe 3RR using the phrase "bright line". The problem with adopting a more "human" approach to the application of strict rules is that if the humans are impartial. And, if the editor violating 3RR happens to be friends with the human admin analyzing the situation, then that editor enjoys increased flexibility in breaking the rules. The most laughable part of your comments above is how we need to put Eric "on notice" before blocking him. Which of the previous dozens of blocks would you consider not putting Eric "on notice"? How many "notices" does an editor get before we can reasonably assume that he is aware of the rules and is consciously breaking them anyway, because he knows he can get away with it because people like you consciously allow it? The corruption of your character is alarming sometimes, as is your lack of impartiality and sense of fairness. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 22:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- No Scotty, I don't. If that were the case, we could replace admin with bots. Plus bots never have axes to grind. We use humans because every situation is different and requires judgement. We pick humans to find the best solution to a problem. When you take a hardass approach to problems, you just reinforce the idea that they don't matter, they are nothing but little text generators, and if they punch up the wrong column too many times, we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your
- Do you agree that if rules were consistently enforced, it would prevent editors from breaking them? In other words, if violating 3RR always resulted in a minimum 24-hour block, regardless of the situation or who the editor is, would that result in a reduction in edit warring among established editors? Would that reduction in edit warring be beneficial to the project? Do you believe that blocking Eric would not be preventive, because Eric has shown that blocks have no effect on his behavior? ‑Scottywong| express _ 21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- If we were policemen or judges, then maybe that would make sense, but we aren't here to dispense 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. I disagree that enforcing the strictly defined rules of Wikipedia is soapboxing and drama mongering. Perhaps we just need to adapt the wording of 3RR to reflect the reality of when it is and isn't followed. I would suggest adding something to effect of: "Brand new editors are typically blocked immediately upon crossing the bright line of 3RR. Established editors (especially ones that have been blocked dozens of times in the past) are generally given the benefit of the doubt, even if they cross the bright line, especially if they are politically connected with administrators, or if they have become
- No surprise to see you here campaigning for a block, but three points:
- (SagaciousPhil - Chat20:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think this discussion should be speedily closed, or is it being deliberately kept open because Eric is the subject? Cassiantotalk 21:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think Scottywong is making that abundantly clear. Eric Corbett 22:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I see you've acquired a new pawn. Congrats. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 22:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think Scottywong is making that abundantly clear. Eric Corbett 22:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- If that remark is directed at me, Scottywong - think again - I am no bodies 'pawn', never have been and never will be. Your remark is offensive, un-necessary and certainly un-becoming of an Administrator. SagaciousPhil - Chat22:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear, my remark was directed at Cassianto. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 23:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- If that remark is directed at me, Scottywong - think again - I am no bodies 'pawn', never have been and never will be. Your remark is offensive, un-necessary and certainly un-becoming of an Administrator.
- Scotty, you need to stop, now. That is over the line badgering. Your behavior here is more disruptive than the little tit-for-tat on the article. You need to find something more productive to do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sagaciousphil (I took you to be referring to Cassianto, but your arrow was too wobbly for me to be sure) Eric's "pawn". Would you like a formal warning? Please note that I for my part don't normally post on Eric's page nor do I take take his side or anybody's side in the civility wars (in fact, fuck the civility wars), so if you're going to call me part of his entourage or whatever, we'll need diffs. Bishonen | talk22:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
- Bishonen, I honestly have no idea who you are, so I couldn't possibly make a judgment as to whether or not you take anyone's side over and over again, finding a way to bend the rules for them every time their name comes up in a dispute. If you believe I deserve or require a formal warning or a block or some other consequence for my transgressions, then you don't need to seek my permission. But, I must admit that I'm rather confused by your admonishment for a perceived personal attack while in the next breath exclaiming, "fuck the civility wars". ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I"ve left a notice on your talk page Scotty. Calling my character corrupt, I consider that a personal attack, so you need to either back it up, or strike it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- In reality, I don't actually need to do anything. Nor do I intend to. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- So that's personal attacks on two separate editors in this discussion because they disagree with you? Do you think that's even slightly becoming of an administrator? Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- In reality, I don't actually need to do anything. Nor do I intend to. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I"ve left a notice on your talk page Scotty. Calling my character corrupt, I consider that a personal attack, so you need to either back it up, or strike it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bishonen, I honestly have no idea who you are, so I couldn't possibly make a judgment as to whether or not you take anyone's side over and over again, finding a way to bend the rules for them every time their name comes up in a dispute. If you believe I deserve or require a formal warning or a block or some other consequence for my transgressions, then you don't need to seek my permission. But, I must admit that I'm rather confused by your admonishment for a perceived personal attack while in the next breath exclaiming, "fuck the civility wars". ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Is it time for the semi-annual pointless "Eric" squabble??? Surely ya'll have heard "insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."? Can't we just skip to the end where everyone gets tired and disgusted (of the stupid squabble, not Eric per-se) and gives it up? Or do we have exchange barbs for hours to days and then give it up? NE Ent 23:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Its already been going for days. Started at 23:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please note that I have taken this issue to 23:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Let's close this as discussion is ongoing at the talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- No. All other discussions have been closed and this is all that is left. Eric did truly violate 3RR so:
- Support block for 3RR violation and that alone.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Let's close this as discussion is ongoing at the talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Gamaliel reported by User:Msnicki (Result: No action)
Page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see edit comment here: [21]
Comments: I am an uninvolved observer and reporter. I don't believe I've ever crossed paths with either editor in this dispute. Gamaliel has been edit warring to change another editor's comments on
) 23:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)While "change" is accurate, strictly speaking, I feel that description is misleading. I was attempting to remove, and then when that did not work, strike comments that I felt were uncivil, unproductive, and disruptive, directed towards a third party, User:Cwobeel. I feel this is well within my administrative purview and I've done so numerous times in the past. In the past when editors have persistently restored such incivility, I have locked the page or blocked them. In this case, I felt that the incivility was too mild for blocking (though still inappropriate, obviously) and that I was getting too heated. I was unfortunately negatively influenced by the recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the feeling among many editors and even administrators that one of our four pillars should not be enforced. So I decided to disengage, while noting to Cwobeel that I would take up the matter again if s/he wished. It's clear I handled this poorly, but given the loud opposition among a vocal minority to even mild enforcement of what is supposedly one of our core values, there are few options open to administrators who do not want to leave editors like Cwobeel at the mercy of negative behavior. Barring a complaint from Cwobeel, I considered this matter dropped before this report was even made. Gamaliel (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I have no desire to see this pursued. I don't think the comments needed removed and I don't think Gamaliel should have removed them over and over. That said, he did disengage and there is no harm done. I, like Gamaliel, could have probably handled it better but, as far as I'm concerned, it is a closed issue at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that prior to this, the other involved editor, User:Niteshift36, bypassed 3RR on Curt Clawson per BLP [22], though I contested Niteshift36's use of BLP for these reverts on the talk page. [23] I didn't think it was a big deal (since consensus has changed from when the 4th revert was made, so the current version is fine), and I think that editor was clearly acting in good faith, but seemed relevant to this incident. 9kat (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment – Is this the right board? Edit warring is discouraged because it disrupts the process of reaching consensus for edited articles. But consensus is not an issue for talk page content. The EW guidelines do not make this explicit, but IMO they do not apply. Rather, ) 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- The initial two editors have calmly backed off, so I doubt any action over minor editwarring is required. (I have no further issue with the BLP reverts, given that.) User:Cwobeel is welcome to weigh in on the original redacted comments, of course. 9kat (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, they can't accomplish it in the Middle East, but it looks like we have a ceasefire here. I would suggest a close. Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Declined. Although there are many things that bother me about the edit war, rather than go into specifics, given the disengagement, I'm just going to close this with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
User:111.68.38.116 reported by User:K6ka (Result: Semi-protected)
- Page
- Philippine Arena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 111.68.38.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619157975 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
- 16:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619156752 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
- 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619146811 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
- 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619145992 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
- 14:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619141777 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on TW)"
- 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
49.144.202.50 is also involved in this. Both have received two edit warring notices, issued by me, on their user talk page. Both have ignored and continued to revert. User:ForwardGWR is also involved, though from what I see they have not violated 3RR. I'm remaining mostly uninvolved, and have not edited the article at all. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Page protected for 72 hours. This is a long-running edit war that may involve more than these two IPs. Semi-protection appears the best fix. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
User:SimMoonXP reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Palomar College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SimMoonXP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]
Comments:
Also, SimMoonXP deleted 3RR warning from their Talk page [31], deleted the Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion from their Talk page [32], and additionally deleted the discussion of the subject on the article talk page [33].
Contributor321 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Mrm7171 reported by User:Bilby (Result: Blocked)
Page: Occupational health psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrm7171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [34]; [35]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupational health psychology#Nature of the re-writing
Comments:
Slow moving edit war over the last few days, mostly over tagging, that has come to a more dramatic head in the past 24 hours. It is a continuation of pervious edit warring over the article that dates back some months - a voluntary topic ban for the last four months kept things quiet, but that recently ended. Both participants are well aware of 3RR. - Bilby (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- This heated discussion very much involves editor Bilby long term also who appears very much onside with iss246 & psyc12. Recently discussion has involved Bilby, psyc12, and recently a new independent editor inediblehulk. My reverts have been in response to iss246 reverting independent editor's good faith contributions and everyone else's contributions for the past couple of days back to HIS version against all consensus!Mrm7171 (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Note. @Bilby: you mentioned both participants, but you reported only one. When I look at the recent history of the article, what stands out is that two editors are edit-warring. Why did you not report the other user?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I did - the second editor was reported separately just below. - Bilby (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Must apologize today for losing my cool with iss246 deleting every other editor's work back to HIS version. But I was standing up for another good faith editor, inediblehulk, that Iss246 kept deleting for no apparent reason. I guess it was my protective nature and the fact that editor Bilby also an administrator did not stop iss246 from deleting this editor's good faith additions. In fact, again Bilby has completely ignore iss246 deleting this editor's work.
Editor inediblehulk also tried reverting back the changes he made, only to have iss246 delete them again, for no reason. In past disputes Bilby has been very much on the side of psyc12 & iss246 in this extremely controversial article. Please also see my discussion here with inediblehulk on his talk page.
I admit I also 'stand up to' bullies in real life too! Again, today's reverts were a combination of administrator Bilby taking no steps toward cooling things down and me standing up for editor inediblehulk's and other editors being continually deleted by iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The other day, for instance, Bilby was part of the discussion, and clearly saw iss246 breach the 3revert rule. Bilby chose to completely ignore it? I had thought perhaps, as an administrator, Bily may have reported iss246 here at that that point? I will collate the diffs and add these to support my claims.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please see this diff relating to the multiple reverts iss246 made the other day. [47] Bilby was involved then and again, did nothing.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- When first occurred, comments on the talk page led me to believe that you were each stepping back, so I chose not to report it then. When the issue reoccured over the last day or so I felt that it needed to be raised, as it was clear that it was (once more) an ongoing problem. Hence my decision to bring both editors here for independent review. - Bilby (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bilby, why did you not take steps earlier and stopped iss246 from deleting editor inediblehulk's good faith contributions? It would have helped. Why did you also not inform me of this post here, as required, but sat their collecting all the diffs and then reporting here, without notifying me?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just my opinion, but given you have always been involved in this controversial article Bilby, you too appear very much involved in edit warring, like everyone else. Bit rich, to be standing back and pointing the finger? My only crime was standing up for inediblehulk's contributions. Which, as i said, if you were in fact neutral, in any way, and as an admin you should have stopped. I thought, wow, Bilby the admin, sits here and sees iss246 delete/blank everyone else's work and does nothing. But behind the scenes is cxollecting diffs and then pointing fingers! Wow. No, you seem heavily involved, as much involved if not more than everyone else. Espoecially given your rights and responsibilities as an admin!Mrm7171 (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bilby, why did you not take steps earlier and stopped iss246 from deleting editor inediblehulk's good faith contributions? It would have helped. Why did you also not inform me of this post here, as required, but sat their collecting all the diffs and then reporting here, without notifying me?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Iss246 reported by User:Bilby (Result: Blocked)
Page: Occupational health psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iss246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [48]; [49]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupational health psychology#Nature of the re-writing
Comments:
Slow moving edit war over the last few days, mostly over tagging, that has come to a more dramatic head in the past 24 hours. It is a continuation of pervious edit warring over the article that dates back some months - a voluntary topic ban for the last four months kept things quiet, but that recently ended. Both participants are well aware of 3RR. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- On this noticeboard on March 25, in the aftermath of his inserting of a long series of disruptive edits, an administrator asked Mrm7171 to desist from editing the occupational health psychology (OHP) entry in lieu of being banned from participating in Wikipedia. He agreed not to edit the OHP entry. He recently returned to again launch a series of off-beat edits (e.g., claiming that the OHP article is US-centric). His editing of the OHP entry should stop. Iss246 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Refugez1 reported by User:Oosh (Result: Blocked)
Page: Destiny (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Refugez1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [58]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]
Comments:
User even reverted my attempts to engage them in discussion! [66] [67] [68]
Blocked – for a period of one week. The new user's edit pattern was borderline vandalism, and that's pretty much all they did.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks but a new user account, User:Whyhate1, has now popped up continuing the behaviour... -Oosh (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Soffredo reported by User:RGloucester (Result: 1 week)
- Page
- )
- User being reported
- Soffredo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618741031 by RGloucester (talk) Why not use short names? For the "War of Transnistria" infobox, we list it as Transnistria despite not controlling all claimed territory."
- 23:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "But he's not representing Russia, which is also involved."
- 23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ""
- 21:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Flags in the Campaignbox Post-Soviet conflicts */ notice"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- This user doesn't seem to "hear" what other people are saying. He repeatedly reinserts edits that multiple people revert, without ever trying to engage in a frank discussion. This is not the first time he has done this. I warned him of discretionary sanctions related to Eastern Europe-related articles, and yet he kept on reverting. I don't know that he needs a block, but I do know that someone needs to explain to him that it doesn't accomplish anything to revert without discussion, especially when multiple editors are saying that one's edit isn't appropriate. RGloucester — ☎01:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- If I may ask, is there a particular reason this "case" hasn't been either responded to or dealt with? RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Continued edit warring today, definite problems with edit warring and collegiality in the past. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Damián80 (Result: bb)
Page: )
User being reported: Zaca4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
The user Zaca4, appears to be a puppet
Let me talk too. I haven't done more than 3 edits there, but he is. I asked from him information , what I do wrong and how I go against rules. He didn't even answer me. Understand, please my edits are necessary, and he hasn't explained me, what I do wrong. I'm very sorry. Zaca4 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I notice that ] 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- @(talk)16:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- The mention of the previous incident shows that you're aware of the policies on edit warring, and have a tendency to ignore ] 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I say you , too Damian, what that Sky0000 user thing has to do with this problem. I don't know that person. Also if watcher didn't see a few episodes, and he doesn't have chance to watch episodes again, person comes to Wikipedia. Also Damian has deleted united states broadcast from many articles without no reason. Why it disturbed you now? Before it you took all information from cast and then broadcast disturbed you. Please, understand, that person thinks that Wikipedia's for him, but it's for everyone. I just want to help other people. Also I viewed his talk page archive too, he's been in a lot of edit-wars before also. Also I did also my own article about cast in Corazon Valiente, and he even does not let me refer to it, he says it is poorly written, but maybe for other people it is not. Understand, that person just wants to have fun in wikipedia and wants to look articles like he wants and when someone is trying to hinder him, he comes here and says bad about others. Also I looked to internet, I didn't find such a good programming guides as they were in wikipedia. Please I'm not trying to slander him but I tell how things really look like. Also I'm very sorry for my behavior but with that person is impossible to talk. I hope you understand me. Zaca4 (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- No need to add this type of information, this user a month ago did the same article, and I'm sorry, but I will not be trying all the time to reach a conseso so unnecessary to add information to each art.
A month ago this person did this:
- La impostora June 24, 2014
- June 25, 2014
- Sky0000 (talk | contribs) . . (28,506 bytes) (+1,125) . . (Adding necessary section)
Is it that these edits are correct? and should discuss this in all pages of discussion?.--
- Second Comment: As of this point, Damian is at 5 reverts (1 2 3 4 5) and Zaca4 is now at 3 (1 2 3). Damian is in clear violation of 3RR. Zaca4 is probably guilty of edit warring as well, given the notice. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's like you two want, and leave the article as it was before, and mine are not 5 reversals learn to look good. I'm tired of this and this user, all here everyone does what he wants..--(talk)17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Already Placed the article "(talk)17:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Already Placed the article "
- It's like you two want, and leave the article as it was before, and mine are not 5 reversals learn to look good. I'm tired of this and this user, all here everyone does what he wants..--
- Note: After Damian self-reverted and decided to "give up", I, explaining my reasoning, restored the page to the version before Zaca4's version, as that was the stable version and didn't have the style and grammar issues, and requested that Zaca4 please justify any further edits in the talk page. Zaca4 then performed his 4th revert on the page, with the "explanation" on the talk page given being: "Can you let me keep that information, here okay?". I do suspect he may be doing some editing as IP, but it doesn't seem to be to create a false consensus or avoid 3RR. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- The user Zaca4 has not reached a consensus on the article where the edit war began, and started again.
Has not yet reached an agreement to add this type of irrelevant information. And the user wants to start more wars editions.--
- I add this other article that has already started another edit war Part of Me (telenovela): Revision history.--(talk)07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I add this other article that has already started another edit war Part of Me (telenovela): Revision history.--
I didn't start a war, I just made some changes. I am a victim of Damian. Look at all pages, when someone wants to change something always Damian undoes it without no reason. That person harms Wikipedia and makes false accusations. I am sorry for all, I maybe will not continue, but I'm not only one, who is guilty, Damian is too. He thinks some pathetic justifications to explain his reverts. Please do something with him, I am really sorry for all but this person thinks that I am again a user, who doesn't let him have fun in Wikipedia and who he has to remove with some false accusations. I don't want to start a war but that is not fair that one person does here what he wants and nobody stops him. Also he said me do what you want and now he comes here and says that I am here to start a war. I hope that you understand me. Zaca4 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Verification of accounts that have asked tell the truth, you are a puppet Sky0000, edited in the same way. A month ago I explained on your issues and you do not seem to mind. Also on July 25 just blocking.--(talk)09:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I may admit yes Sky0000 and Zaca4 have same IP, but I don't confirm, that behind them is same person. I am sorry for my behaviour, I promise, I will not touch telenovelas again and please I don't want another month or more, forgive me. That's your decision you punish Damian or me or no. But I say I am not and I won't be first or last person , who has problems with Damian. I hope you understand and you let other better people make changes in telenobela pages. I refuse to do it, I do not want any more problems. Really sorry. Zaca4 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- ) 12:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Whyhate1 reported by User:Oosh (Result: semi)
User:Whyhate1 appears to be continuing the fight resolved above, i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Refugez1_reported_by_User:Oosh_.28Result:_Blocked.29, under a new account. Apologies if this isn't how you report an incident like this but going thru the 3RR stuff again seemed superfluous. -Oosh (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked as an obvious sock puppet and semi-protected the article. For such a simple case, this is fine, though generally the full report makes reviewing a case easier. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Abu reiss reported by User:Rameshnta909 (Result: prot)
- Page
- Mawlid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Abu reiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverting Vandalism Undid revision 619194889 by Rameshnta909 (talk)"
- 18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Stop pushing a term thats not even in the source Undid revision 619171409 by Rameshnta909 (talk)"
- 18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619136226 by Rameshnta909 (talk)"
- 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Practice */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on TW)"
- 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on TW)"
- 21:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on TW)"
- 10:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Mawlid */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The user id is just created to push the term wahabbi. No efforts to improve the article. I think he feels that it is a derogatory term for salafists and just want to put it there. Not trying to engage in any discussion. Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected Edit-protected for one week. You are both edit warring. Neither term seems to this outside observer to be derogatory, but I could easily be missing some nuance. ) 13:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Wtshymanski reported by User:DieSwartzPunkt (Result: prot)
Page: Headlamp (outdoor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [69]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- First revert re adding Original research[71]. He claims a 'Swart' reference, but nothing added is referenced.
- Second revert adding OR [72]. Again he claims it is referenced but once again nothing he has added is referenced.
- Third revert adding OR [73]. Now asking anyone to see the cite which has not been provided.
He then belatedly adds two references but only for two minor points that were already in the article before he added the original research. [74].
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]. This receives the standard Wtshymanski response [76].
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]. This is replied by an invitation to review the references that have not be provided [78].
Comments:
This has not made 4RR. but this page is about Edit Warring and 3RR violations. An editor continually attempting to add original research is by definition edit warring
DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected ) 13:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Elizium23 reported by User:129.133.125.225 (Result: Malformed)
Page: Eastern Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [79]
Diffs of the user's reverts: See history page.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]
Comments:
There is a clear problem with the Eastern Orthodox Church article. One or a handful of editors thinks that the Eastern Orthodox Church has an official name of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Since there is no sole head of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is impossible that there could be an official anything. This small group of editors haunts this page and revert edits anyone who dares change the article. There is a long record of them edit warring over this. One editor Not only revert edited me, he also went and revert edited another edit I made to an unrelated article out of hostility. And he apparently also immediately summoned a friend admin to threaten me as well. Jim1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This gang mentality on Wikipedia has to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.125.225 (talk • contribs)
- I have made four reverts in four days. The dispute has been hashed and rehashed and re-re-rehashed on the Talk page and many pixels spilled can be found in the archive regarding this exact point of contention in the article. The accuser here is unwilling to abide by overwhelming consensus. Now the question remains whether he is a new editor here or if the previous reverts belong to him as well. At any rate, at this point in time, there is really no edit warring to address here and this is ) 04:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
- In case this dispute comes back again, I fixed some of the problems so the report is less malformed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:JHUbal27 reported by User:Carnildo (Result: Blocked)
Page: Frankie Grande (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JHUbal27 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnildo (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:ANI#Inappropriate tagging; edit warring; uncivil behavior. Since it's a classic violation of 3RR we might as well take action here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Gibson Flying V reported by User:Bagumba (Result: semi)
- Page
- Rugby league (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by TW)"
- 03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by TW)"
- 03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618910916 by 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk)"
- 11:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618663075 by 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Longtime editor of over 7 years is expected to know better. Has been blocked three times before for edit warring/disruptive editing, and has an active topic ban for disruptive editing in another sport area, association football. Editor is also attempting to bully the other editor by giving inappropriate vandalism warnings when IP's edit summary provided an explanation. This is a content dispute and not vandalism. —Bagumba (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Similar edits from 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F being reverted by two other users previously: 1 2 The most cursory look at the edits in question reveals that they are inappropriate. They had also been discussed on my talk page. Therefore consistently undoing their reversion is quite clearly disruptive. User:Bagumba has a habit of involving him/herself with my edits. Not sure why. Probably due to previous content disputes between us. Stalking?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- "habit of involving him/herself with my edits": I consider it an occupational hazard of keeping this a civil place. The revert you showed by the other editor gave the reason "No reason to delete a referenced entry". The IP subsequently provided a reason, and nobody but yourself has reverted since, nor edit warred with the IP except for yourself. WP:VANDNOT policy is quite clear: "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, "the most cursory look at the edits in question reveals that they are inappropriate." Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, since being warned I have stopped editing the article, whereas the intended target of this report has not, and their disruption has now been reverted by a 3rd editor.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- And now a 4th.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- No violation. Note #4 on the list is two days before the other three. Gibson appears to be within the bright line.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And this from last month.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- The user of that obviously throw-away account is still asking for a block and has been for quite some time now. Would someone (perhaps User:Bagumba as a sign of maturity and good faith) kindly oblige them and then close this hastily opened report?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected independently by ) 12:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keith D protected the page (after becoming the 5th editor to revert 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F's disruption), citing "persistent vandalism" (and I have to say I agree with him). How this should not result in an apology from User:Bagumba, whose main concern is supposedly civility, is the real question here.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- We generally decline to try to force an apology out of any editor as it tends to end poorly. Gibson Flying V, issuing several blocks was definitely on the table as a potential solution to ongoing disruption, though the more conservative approach seems to be working for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Of course a forced apology is worthless, and I was by no means implying otherwise. It is up to each individual editor what impression they choose to give of their good faith/civility (or lack thereof).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- We generally decline to try to force an apology out of any editor as it tends to end poorly. Gibson Flying V, issuing several blocks was definitely on the table as a potential solution to ongoing disruption, though the more conservative approach seems to be working for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keith D protected the page (after becoming the 5th editor to revert 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F's disruption), citing "persistent vandalism" (and I have to say I agree with him). How this should not result in an apology from User:Bagumba, whose main concern is supposedly civility, is the real question here.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:FelixRosch reported by User:Moxy (Result: No action)
Page: Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FelixRosch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- [87] - July 24, 2014 - (about Chronological sequence)
- [88] - July 24, 2014
- [89] - July 24, 2014
- [90] - July 25, 2014
- [91] - July 25, 2014
- [92] - July 26, 2014
- [93] - July 26, 2014
- [94] - July 28, 2014
- Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95] was warned months ago that this behavior is not the norm here. As seen on the users talk page - many concerns have been raised over a period of time.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: FelixRosch has been involved in some talk page discussions but seem not to be willing to listen to others or perhaps simply does not understand. -- Moxy (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
- The editor is also involved in other edit wars on multiple pages as seen by the Ukraine: Revision history and Romeo and Juliet: Revision history. We have unacceptable, disruptive, tendentious and dishonest behavior..that could all just be a competence problem as recently pointed out here. Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Criticize the play before it was written again? and Talk:Ukraine#Declarations of War and Casualty/Death toll statistics are not censored by Wikipedia policy demonstrates his lack of understand of whats going on pretty well. -- Moxy (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Since I made the competence remark I want to add it did not come out of the blue, but rather was the result of seeing many head-scratching remarks from this editor. He finally seemed to get BRD (perhaps) but adds this. I didn't know Andrew Lih (who has no connection to the discussions whatsoever) holds such an exalted position here. --NeilN talk to me 23:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Only involved on re}} 02:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Like EvergreenFir, my only interaction with the editor has been through the Ukraine article and the Russia article (see WP:BALASPS despite lengthy discussions on the talk page demonstrating consensus that these policies and guidelines were of primary concern, particularly in the context of the articles. Once forced into discussions, judging by the lack of comprehension of policies and thrust of the discussions, as already noted by Moxy and NeilN, I've also found myself wondering as to the competence of this user. It's difficult to ascertain whether this is a case of IDHT or truly IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. Either way, it amounts to ongoing disruptive editing. As an addendum, further to the question of competence, I've yet to work out where) 05:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
"... the normal time frame of 48-72 hours should be allowed for the discussion comments to be collected of all editors involved."
Where did the user find this timeframe for BRD processes? --Iryna Harpy (talk
- Result: No action. There might be a problem with the edits of WP:RFC/U if you have a concern about this editor that can't be expressed briefly. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting was not aware that the editor in-question filed the report linked above. Perhaps if I was notified we could have had this resolved then..O-well ...if there is still a problem in the near future will fill at WP:RFC/U as per EdJohnston suggestion. Its a bit concerning 4 editors see a problem and there is no action taken at all - a warning by an admin would have been a good idea I think. -- Moxy (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting was not aware that the editor in-question filed the report linked above. Perhaps if I was notified we could have had this resolved then..O-well ...if there is still a problem in the near future will fill at
- Result: No action. There might be a problem with the edits of
User:178.79.138.190 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 31 hours )
- Page
- )
- User being reported
- 178.79.138.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619382205 by Edward321 (talk) In this case wiki is at www.royalfamily.ba, which means the wiki is a most reliable source for the claim having been made."
- 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619407290 by Yopie (talk) Can you prove it's a hoax? No references? Sorry. A claim needs only its originator. I doubt you're a lawyer. Or perhaps law in Czech Republic is different."
- 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619431401 by Yopie (talk) As a lawyer to a lawyer: this is a legal matter not historic one. Anyone can advance a claim, and all that's required is their personal action."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on TW)"
- 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Same editor as 178.79.149.253 Yopie (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Response: not an edit war, just adding useful new information on Bosnian royalty using same standards as for Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc. Strange that someone would object to adding a perfectly legit claim by Bosnian royalty while seeing no problems with Ukrainian info as such an obvious hoax. This is a legal matter not historic one. Anyone can advance a claim, and their personal action is all that's required. Their own press office is sufficient, just as in case of Bulgarian royalty. As to the hoax allegation: feel free to provide references that say this is a hoax. Again, they seem perfectly legit according to the same standards we have for Bulgaria, Ukraine and so on royalty. 178.79.138.190 (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Califate123! reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Califate123! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619433036 by Dr.K. (talk) No personal attacks, just trying to build a credible encyclopaedia. Given recent events, the content of the article must change."
- 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619432124 by Polugap (talk) Reverting for obvious reasons. This is an encyclopaedia, not the dream world some nationals of a country want to believe. Wikipedia is based on facts."
- 11:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619411426 by ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk)do not revert substantiated facts"
- 11:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "update - changes in the last years"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 11:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Edit-warring, adding
Is this a joke? Our edits are totally justifiable (I'm sorry I deleted the "democratic country" reference, it was a mistake). The world has changed and the introduction of the article is ludicrous. One would think Greece is totally fine, with "high living standards", a paradise on Earth, overlooking the fact its GDP per capita has fallen by about 6,000$, the average salary has decreased and its unemployment rate, especially among the youth, has skyrocketed. If you're going to state that the World Bank (still) considers Greece an "advanced economy", you must also present conflicting points of view. They didn't exist until 2013, but now they're here and very visible. At least 3 agencies have downgraded Greece from a "developed market" to an "emerging" one. It's a fact, pure an simple. Wikipedia is about facts, truth, knowledge, and not nationalism or delusional realities. It's not very surprising to find that the ones reverting my and the other user's edits don't provide any justification and their usernames are written in the Greek alphabet (wonder why). Califate123! (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not very surprising to find that the ones reverting my and the other user's edits don't provide any justification and their usernames are written in the Greek alphabet (wonder why). Before you attempt again to cast aspersions based on the origin of other editors, read again my comments here and on the article talk. This is 15:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
User:97.127.71.178 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- )
- User being reported
- 97.127.71.178 (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
- 19:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
No talk page discussion because information is blatantly false. Episode could not air 2.5 months after ratings for it were posted (see refs). Further, I know user did not violate 3RR, but user is edit warring and disruptive.
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Actually, the IP did violate 3RR as their first edit at 17:45 changed material and was therefore a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Pyxon reported by User:Versace1608 (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Patoranking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pyxon (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:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and diff
Comments:
I am reporting User:Pyxon because he is violating Wikipedia's BLP policy by adding inaccurate information about the subject. I explained the meaning of the word origin (as it pertains to
Pyxon Patoranking is a Nigerian Musician. Here is the List of Nigerian musicians page.
Here are pages of Nigerian musicians picked at random from the above page. Please note the difference (or similarity) between their Origin and places their music careers started.
- Lagos and Osunare 2 distinct administrative states, or State of Origin in Nigeria. Osun is the artiste ancestral home. He is an indigene of Osun. His parents are from Osun and so were his grandparents and his children that will come after him.
- Imowas previously written by another user(not me). Also in the article under the sub topic : Early life, educational pursuits, and public image 2nd paragraph, it states "Both her parents are from Imo". This corresponds with what was initially written by the 3rd user and what he perceived to be the right response.
In Nigeria and Africa as a whole, origin is distinguished as the ancestral home of forefathers.
Pyxon (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
User:178.79.149.253 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- )
- User being reported
- 178.79.149.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 16:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC) to 18:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- 16:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "/* European */"
- 18:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Corrected references."
- 21:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619328462 by FactStraight (talk) By the same token as Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc."
- 01:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619361031 by Yopie (talk) As a lawyer to a lawyer: this is a legal matter not historic one. Anyone can advance a claim, and all that's required is their personal action."
- 03:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619374813 by Edward321 (talk) In this case wiki is at www.royalfamily.ba, which means the wiki is a primary source for the claim having been made."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on TW)"
- 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Same editor as 178.79.138.190 Yopie (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Robofish (Result: decline)
Page: Pol Pot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [96]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [97] 23:46, July 31 2014
- [98] 06:19, August 1 2014
- [99] 22:35, August 1 2014
- [100] 22:43, August 1 2014
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]
Comments:
TheTimesAreAChanging was edit warring with User:Djphrost, who also violated 3RR and has already been blocked for a week by User:IronGargoyle. Djphrost was the one introducing inappropriate material, whereas TheTimesAreAChanging was restoring the previous version of the page. Nonetheless, he violated 3RR as well. Robofish (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Waov12 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24 hours)
Page: McGill University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Waov12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [102]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here, here, here, and here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here
Comments:
This report is not about a violation of 3RR but an editor persistently edit warring with two other editors while refusing to engage in discussion in Talk. Although both of the other editors (one of whom is me) have explicitly asked this editor to participate in Talk and have created sections in Talk to address the issues he or she has refused to participate and simply reverts edits contrary to his or her preferred version(s). He or she is using edit summaries but edit warring while using edit summaries is not an acceptable replacement for discussion. I'm afraid that nothing short of a block will drive that point home for this editor. ElKevbo (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Dyrnych (Result: No violation)
Page: )
User being reported: Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [109]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]
Comments:
User:Factchecker atyourservice has made several edits to the page in question, many of which are controversial. I objected to the edits on several policy grounds and attempted to come to some kind of consensus, per BRD. To be fair, FCAYS has revised some of the edits in response to my objections, but other edits to which I've raised policy objections remain with those objections unaddressed. Specifically, the construction "The agency has maintained that low-level employees took it upon themselves to do this, but Lois Lerner, who at the time was Director of the IRS's Exempt Organizations Unit, refused to testify before Congress, twice citing her Constitutional right against self-incrimination, and was subsequently held in contempt of Congress" remains. I have noted my objection to this as SYNTH and received no real response (in Diff 2's edit summary FCAYS ignores the fact that this objection has even occurred). In fact, after some discussion, FCAYS informed me that several of my objections were "surreal nonsense" and explicitly declined to discuss the edits further. Following this, I reverted the page to the previous stable version, citing lack of consensus and asking FCAYS to wait for other editors to weigh in. The page remained unchanged for two days, which I later found out is likely because FCAYS was blocked for edit warring on a different page. Soon after the block was lifted, FCAYS reinstated the changes that he'd made, in slightly different form (Diff 1) as a "neutral summary of main article." I reverted this change, citing the lack of consensus; FCAYS reverted back (Diff 2). The ensuing conversation has descended into accusations that I may be a liar and that I want "a free hand to unilaterally write WP articles from a biased left-wing perspective".
Because it's a lightly-traveled page, only FCAYS and I have as yet commented on FCAYS's edits. I think that it's appropriate for more discussion to transpire before a consensus is reached, with possible content dispute resolution required. I don't really care if my preferred version remains as long as we get some other editors weighing in so that this isn't another instance of FCAYS and I yelling at each other (which we've done fruitlessly and at length in the past).
As I've noted above, FCAYS has just been blocked for edit warring at a different page. This seems to be a pattern with him: because the version of a particular article is his preferred version, it should (1) remain despite any controversy with that particular version among other editors or (2) be removed because that particular version is controversial based on his views. On a related page (the page that FCAYS is purportedly summarizing in this context), FCAYS has justified his reversion of edits I've made in part for precisely the same reason that I believe requires him to gain consensus for his controversial changes. This leads me to believe that consistency is unimportant for FCAYS, and that he will continue to edit war either to preserve material that he has added (nothwithstanding a lack of consensus) or to remove material that he does not want in the article (citing lack of consensus as a reason for the removal). I am also convinced based on our history that FCAYS will tendentiously revert any changes that I make to the page, restoring his preferred version and providing an arbitrary justification for reverting my edit.
I realize that my behavior towards FCAYS hasn't been the most collegial in the past (and that I've likely edit warred with him myself), so I understand if my behavior is in question as well. I also realize that this is not a 3RR situation, but I am attempting to avoid edit warring myself and am not reverting FCAYS's edit for a second time, meaning that FCAYS has no incentive to continue reverting (despite my belief that he would continue to do so if either I or another editor reinstated a previous version). I think that at least in this instance, I've tried to do things in an appropriate fashion.
- It's a beautiful Friday evening, so for now I will limit myself to linking to diff showing the material I'm accused of wrongfully editing, allegedly against consensus, and the allegedly controversial material I added which is said to be rejected by consensus.
- Which of these do you think reflects a failure of NPOV?
- In my opinion, my version is well-supported by recent pieces summarizing the controversy, such as ones found in the New York Daily News and the Wall Street Journal, and I attempted to track those sources via paraphrase.
- Anyway, I'll return later this weekend to engage this discussion more fully, but for now I'll say I believe the OP has mischaracterized our discussions to date — rather extensively. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not a violation of WP:3RR (way too much time passed between reverts), and really not enough of a pattern to establish extended editwarring. If you want administrative eyes on NPOV problems, let me know and I can look into it, but that's not a matter for this page, so if you don't want to ask me, you should ask at WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
with prejudice)
Page: Jennifer Lopez discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [114]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120] [121] [122]
Comments:
I'm concered that this user seems to be basing his edits on pure speculation that her sales are inflated, but there's no sources to indicate that, and could that be original research? Mussobrennon (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that this user, the reporter, has a habit of editwarring against consensus and against sources, as demonstrated by edits at pages such as Doris Day. With that in mind, it looks a lot more likely that this is not a good-faoth report, and thus I believe that protection or block(s) for the discography page would be unhelpful. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Stale)
Page: The Godfather (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128] [129] [130]
Comments:
This report is specifically for edit warring behavior, not violating 3RR. Ring Cinema recently came off of a month-long block for edit warring (see here [131]) and took up with the same behavior at the article in question since last week. His history of edit warring and block for same is long (see here [132]). In this particular case, User:Disc Wheel has been more than patient in trying to work and reason with Ring Cinema over content disputes. Others - including myself - have attempted to step in with editing the article in a productive manner based on consensus on the talk page and the content Disc Wheel has added to the article. Ring Cinema continues to attempt to block everything Disc Wheel adds and edits along with returning the article to the version he prefers, even while discussion is still proceeding on the article talk page. This is an ongoing and continuing issue, which is why I provided three diffs to discussions at the article talk page. He was already warned a few days ago by User:DangerousPanda that a block for edit warring behavior would be forthcoming if things didn't change. They haven't changed, they've just been delayed with the behavior starting up again yesterday. I did undo Ring's revert because of continuing discussion and dispute resolution in process. That reversion was undone by another editor. This issue just continues to go around in circles with nothing productive accomplished because of lack of cooperation and the continued edit warring behavior by the editor being reported. At the very least, having the article preventively locked to stop the edit warring would be nice. What would be even nicer is if Ring Cinema would understand that edit warring behavior, his tendency to article ownership, and his continual filibustering and wiki-lawyering is harmful and just needs to stop. Permanently. So far, he doesn't seem to understand this or care to understand this. As a result, editing articles he lays claim to is a nightmare experience. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- There was also this lengthy discussion at WP:ANI from only last week about the same issue. If you look back at the edit history on The Godfather you'll see multiple reverts by RC for edits made by Disc Wheel and Corvoe too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Kind of a bogus report. Corvoe later admitted he was in the wrong and apologized. Disc Wheel's complaints have turned out to be groundless, since his only extant complaint about my edits turned out to involve something we had discussed and agreed on. Is this kind of inaccurate reporting okay, Lugnuts, or would you like to correct the record here? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not inaccurate, as you're continued edit warring and block log shows. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, the facts you stated are wrong. You were wrong when you said I was warring with Disc Wheel last week. You were wrong when you said I was warring with Corvoe. You were wrong when you said it was the same issue. You're wrong when you say I'm warring. Now I expect an apology for repeating your lies about me. Take care of that by the end of the day. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not inaccurate, as you're continued edit warring and block log shows. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Kind of a bogus report. Corvoe later admitted he was in the wrong and apologized. Disc Wheel's complaints have turned out to be groundless, since his only extant complaint about my edits turned out to involve something we had discussed and agreed on. Is this kind of inaccurate reporting okay, Lugnuts, or would you like to correct the record here? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Winkelvi's ad hominem attacks continue, something he had been remonstrated for in the past. His previous accusations about warring on this page have been shown to be without merit. I would simply point out that, in a content dispute, I am offering different solutions trying to find a mutually satisfactory solution. Winkelvi, on the other hand, is reverting me, two or three times now. Since both Winkelvi and the other editor involved (Disc Wheel) have a history of inserting material that is factually incorrect, they must be monitored closely. I am attempting to keep this article devoid of errors while accommodating their views, as the record shows. Perhaps instead of warring with me, they will accept one of my compromises. That is my preference. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- These statements are rife with error and misrepresentation as well as ad hominem. Above, Ring Cinema points fingers and attacks while building up himself in a very dishonest manner. My original report stands: edit warring and article ownership behavior that prevents others from editing productively and article from evolving in a positive manner. Same as every other time he has been blocked. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Would you care to specify an error? I see none. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the 5 diffs:
- the first edit was one I reverted myself a half hour later. Obviously not warring and I have to question Winkelvi's good faith in mentioning it.
- removing a factual error -- this is under discussion
- reverting myself from edit 1 (the only two edits that you can call a revert are this one and the first, which cancel each other)
- removing dubious material, as my edit summary says
- correcting other material while retaining the other editor's material
What do you think of the fact that the third diff offered is me reverting myself? Is Winkelvi so confused that he didn't realize I restored his edits with that change? Or is he trying to harass me? The edits involved don't even involve the same sentence or facts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Winkelvi, can you explain the appearance of falsification in your five diffs and the accusation of edit warring? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ring Cinema, I refuse to be sucked into an argument with you, regardless of your accusations, aggressive tone, and attempt at bullying. My report stands. If administrators (who are already familiar with your recent block and others) viewing this report don't see your continuation of edit-warring behavior and article ownership behavior with the evidence provided alongside with your history at this article and your history of blocks for the same, then so be it. I'm looking for prevention of disruptive behavior, not punishment. I don't play that game. I'm hoping to see and experience a status-quo of collegial, cooperative, productive editing at the article, nothing more. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but your five diffs have nothing to do with edit warring. Are you saying that you are so careless in your accusations that you pay no attention to their accuracy? I would like to point out that the reason that I have to keep such a careful eye on you and Disc Wheel is that you have both contributed inaccuracies to articles I've edited. Then, you provide this rather striking example of inaccuracy, attempting to accuse me of edit warring by using two examples that amount to no change and three others that correct errors in the article. Either you made this mistake on purpose or by accident, leaving the options that either you intentionally misled or unintentionally confirmed my criticism of your inattention to the facts. Which is it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ring Cinema, I refuse to be sucked into an argument with you, regardless of your accusations, aggressive tone, and attempt at bullying. My report stands. If administrators (who are already familiar with your recent block and others) viewing this report don't see your continuation of edit-warring behavior and article ownership behavior with the evidence provided alongside with your history at this article and your history of blocks for the same, then so be it. I'm looking for prevention of disruptive behavior, not punishment. I don't play that game. I'm hoping to see and experience a status-quo of collegial, cooperative, productive editing at the article, nothing more. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Closing. This is a complicated situation, and it really would better be discussed at the incidents noticeboard. I'm still willing to respond here, but a response wouldn't be reasonable when the editwarring has apparently stopped. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit surprised you take such a sanguine view of an ersatz use of this forum. Did you actually check the diffs? In case you didn't notice, two of the diffs are me editing and then reverting myself. How many false accusations do you think amount to nothing? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
User:LawrencePrincipe reported by User:Chealer (Result: No action )
- Page
- Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- LawrencePrincipe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619280007 by Chealer (talk)Duplication not identified. This is a new reference from the WSJ previously unmentioned in this section."
- 13:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Removal of citation template. The url for this is already there and has been posted for several days. If the link is not working on your machine then put it on Talk page here."
- 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619285577 by Bigbaby23This is a consensus edit between 3 editors on Talk page. Please stop edit warring WP:EW and your next revert puts you over WP:3RR. You have no support on Talk."
- 02:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619366908 by Bigbaby23 (talk)Repair and restore previous version after block on previous editor. Please discuss further edits on Talk."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Warn"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This user seems to lack care, often missing obvious problems even when reverting changes from others. More problematically, he often ignores WP:ROWN, sometimes uses condescension and poor justification rather than trying to understand the edits he does not approve or understand. After being warned yesterday following multiple 3RR violations, the user has combined 2 reversions in the latest one, portraying it as a mere reversion of a controversial edit, which arguably would not have caused a new violation.
While bending the rules cannot be tolerated, I appreciate some of his work (including part of 2 of the very edits I'm reporting) and am sure he can become/remain a useful contributor. He is clearly a genuine newcomer and equally clearly not a native English speaker, something to take into account when determining the consequences, which I hope will be moderate. Chealer (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- User:Chealer appears to have confused the editing described above with an edit block which has just been made against User:BigBaby earlier today by User:EdJohnston for edit warring. Also, User:Chealer has been asked to respond on the Talk page at the Wikipedia page concerning his/her own edits, and has not yet answered there. Following his/her lack of responses to Talk, an WP:EW message was placed on his Talk page as well for his/her multiple reverts without engaging on Talk. Since User:Chealer is an experienced editor his/her not using Talk and making multiple reverts may require some further inestigation. I have already opened this issue on the Wikipedia Talk page. If a history of the reverts of User:Chealer are needed then they can also be compiled and submitted. It is hoped that now that the block has been issued against User:BigBaby for the edit warring described, that User:Chealer will start to make more use of the Talk page when requested during editing. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Lawrence, just because another editor that you are in disagreement with has been blocked does not mean it gives you the right to immediately revert their edit in violation of the edit warring policy. Actually, it is quite the contrary, where doing so appears to game the system and looks as if you are using the block for personal gain in the edit war. That said, the conversation at Talk:Wikipedia appears to support your version of the article, and I would argue with a few more users commenting might even establish consensus. Because of this, I am hesitant to block you. For the time being, please self-revert, continue to discuss on the talk page, and request an appropriate edit be made based on the consensus reached there. If you fail to self-revert, you will be blocked for the edit warring violation that you have already committed. Thanks, Tiptoety talk14:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Lawrence, just because another editor that you are in disagreement with has been blocked does not mean it gives you the right to immediately revert their edit in violation of the
- User:Tiptoety, Yes, the edit is to be restored exactly by your indications, with no personal gain of any kind intended. If I understand correctly, the Lead section is to be restored to the first version of User:Chealer available prior to the disruptive edits by User:BigBaby, which I identify here as that made by the Chealer version 22:24 of 27 July 2014, which is to remain until Talk page consensus is established. If for any reason this is not the choice of revert which you prefer, I accept any change to it which you would prefer to post there as the preferred version. Your preferred version is not to be changed until consensus on Talk page is reached as you indicate above. If there are further instructions for conducting the Talk page discussion there, please let me know so that I can follow them as well. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- @LawrencePrincipe: by self-reverting, I assume Tiptoety meant to revert your edit shown to be in violation of 3RR by this report. That was not probably not a request to revert all your edits which violated 3RR. For sure, self-reverting did not mean reverting changes from other editors, even less going back nearly 100 revisions.
- And whatever Tiptoety could have meant, you're constantly expected to provide accurate edit summaries, not the kind you used in your latest 3RR violation, nor the kind you used in your pseudo-self-revert. If you use an edit summary like "Restore version of Chealer prior to Bigboy per Tiptoe by revert. Version 22:24 of 27 July 2014, per Talk page.", I'd expect to find the article in a state where it was before, not a state which never existed and which requires intervention from a bot and myself. Note that this case is not about "Bigboy"[sic], but about your editing. You were not requested to revert User:Bigbaby23's edits.
- You could have reverted your edit in a few minutes. Instead of that, you must have spent more time crafting a broken version, a twisted edit summary, and you lost any assumption of good faith we could have left.
- I am very disappointed. --Chealer (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Ratemonth reported by User:tgglass (Result: Tgglass indeffed)
Page: )
User being reported: Ratemonth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [133]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]
Comments: Ratemouth is of the opinion that third party candidates should not be permitted to have their picture displayed in an article about political race. Several people have undone his reverts, so the consensus is going against him. See also the persuasion of C.Fred to allow the picture posting in the discussion of the suppression.
Tgglass (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)tgglass
- Blocked. The reporting user and his master have been indeffed. I have to eat dinner; otherwise, I'd consider also blocking User:Joncmaxwell.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
User:TerriblyTerrible reported by User:Hzh (Result: Blocked)
Page: Michael Johns (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TerriblyTerrible (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148]
Comments:
User TerriblyTerrible is currently involved in edit war with different users, some edits have been reverted 4 times (e.g. entries on discography). The user has a history of deleting content on this particular page with his or her own idea of what counts as notable, was quiet for a while, but has renewed editing the page due to news of the death of the singer. Hzh (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is a page created and edited almost exclusively by three or four fans of the American television show American Idol. The subject finished in eighth place on one season six years ago. The page itself is a strong candidate for deletion, though I have not yet pursued that. What I have done is to remove statements sourced with blogs and other unreliable/unacceptable references and statements sometimes not referenced at all. TerriblyTerrible (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Second Quantization reported by User:Tokamac (Result: )
Page: EmDrive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Second Quantization (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [149]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154]
Comments:
I don't understand the massive deletion of the EmDrive article done by this user, and its selective choice between references that must be deleted and those who can stay in the article. For example he justified a posteriori his multiple deletions, warning about primary sources and original research, but in fact deleted almost all independent verification and validation work (Chinese replication). He deleted all references of peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals by independent researchers over the world throughout the article, while deciding other references proposing similar replication (NASA) or theoretical explanation (Sonny White at NASA) should stay. In Edit summary he treated Chinese academic scientific journals that even have their own page in Wikipedia as "dubious" to justify their deletion, thus based on the fact they are not American. He deleted the peer reviewed tensor-scalar theory possible explanation of an Argentine physicist, but kept the alternate quantum vacuum fluctuation conjecture of an american engineer from NASA. Actually he deleted all references but NASA that showed the research is not anymore original research since they demonstrated other labs around the world could replicate the claims made by the inventor. Now the article is almost in the same state as it was a few weeks ago before all the attempts to improve it with NPOV.
His massive deletion without creating anything better instead was irrespective of hours of sourcing research for references and editorial writing.
Moreover I can see Second Quantization is a habitual offender for having already been blocked twice. (mistake from me on this last sentence, apologies. See note below)
Tokamac (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note. Tokamac, first, your statement about the other user's blocks is rather clearly misleading as both blocks were self-requested and apparently had nothing to do with misconduct. Second, you are required to notify the reported user of this discussion, and you did not; I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Jfulton006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 06:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC) "Introduction restructured for clarity"
- 07:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619520794 by NeilN (talk)"
- 07:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC) "Edit was implemented correctly."
- 20:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC) "Absolutely. Message me your objections"
- 07:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619601726 by BlackCab (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
[[155]]
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Talk page discussion --NeilN talk to me 09:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Smart Nomad reported by User:Al Khazar (Result: )
Page: Khazars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smart Nomad (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:Smart Nomad has a very difficult time understanding the policies of Wikipedia and mistakes lack of opposition for support. He expects Wikipedians to deliver quick responses without taking their real lives into consideration. Another problem I'd like to point out is that he overreacts to the simplest remarks and takes reports as threats. That alone can tell you about how much trouble he's been in the past.
Khazar (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The above statements by User:Khazar are null, void and not applicable. FIRST OF ALL: I have not broken the three revert rule, not even close (my 4th revert was comfortably out of the 24 hour perios), so you made an unfortunate mistake there (I thought you were well versed in the rules, since you are so comfortable to throw them around?)
All he does is use provocative language to justify his actions, without ever explaining anything, which is very strange. He reports me here, but didn't explain the situation - how are people supposed to know what is happening? The least you could have done is actually explain what is going on, instead of leaving me to do all the work.
Summary: In the Khazars article it states the Bulgars were in union with the Khazars; the source does not state that, instead it states that the Volga Bulgars were part of the Tiele union. The source is [1] page 14.
I have confronted him about the source and asked him directly why he doesn't comment on the fact that it doesn't say that on the source, but he continues to evade that question which just goes on to show that apparently he isn't interested in discussions and resolving the problem, which goes to show his nature. He just comes here, not explaining why he is ignoring the source and putting in wrong information and reports with just pasting the diffs
Overreacts to the simplest remarks? Your comments - 1) "Duke" it out on the talk page and 2) Your proposition, your burden. This is the last time. Revert one more time without discussion, and I'll report for edit warring - hardly seem simple. "Duke it out on the talk page" are provocative and signify that you think I'm just here to argue, which I made clear I was not after I explained simply in my edit comments that that is not what it says in the source. To say I have a "burden" for stating that that is not what it says in the source is plain rude and unnecessary. To say 'revert one more time without discussion' is plain wrong, since i did discuss, twice, in my edit comments, unlike you, who just reverted without looking at the source or discussing. These two comments immediately made me realize the type of person I am dealing with, especially after I quietly explained in my edit comments that the source does not state that - I didn't use proactive language. He also states it is my opinion? How exactly? I used the source, not my opinion. How much trouble I have been? Need I remind you what trouble you have been in? And how you've ignored sources in the past? Smart Nomad (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
He says "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too." Yes, I did try to resolve it on the talk page, something which you have not bothered to do. I haven't just reverted without talk, unlike you, I explained in my edit comments. Smart Nomad (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not mistake lack of opposition as support and understand Wikipedia's policies. What support? I am reading the source, which states that the Bulgars were part of a Tiele union, not a Khazar union, so why would I need support to change something that is wrong, according to the source? Smart Nomad (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Galatz reported by User:Huldra (Result: Declined)
Page: )
User being reported: Galatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [156]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 1st revert 14:27, 1 August 2014 mv from 2014 UNRWA Facility Incidents, thereby removing the name "Israeli raids" from the title.
- 2nd revert 14:46, 1 August 2014 mv from 2014 UNRWA Facility Incidents, thereby removing the name "Israeli raids" from the title.
Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [157]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [158]
This article is under
- The first RR mentioned is because my NPOV on the title of the article was removed because any of the issues were addressed.
- Second RR was because I was attempting to fix the NPOV issues with the article especially the title. The title having "Israeli Raids" is extremely NPOV. This is a two sided war and both views need to be shown. My move was to a NPOV title that shows that there were incidents, not a one sided attack. As you can see from the article there was return of fire, returning fire is not a raid. - Galatz (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh and also the rule quoted above was changed, and this article is not under the sections mentioned on the new rule - Galatz (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- This article was under ARBIA sanctions from the second it was created. Wether or not there is a notification on the talk-page is irrelevant. And the talk-page shows that no-one agreed with you on the article-name move. Huldra (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, as I stated above no one objected to my page move, only to my other NPOV issues. Meaning I brought it up, and after 1 day of no objections I moved it. - Galatz (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because we were too occupied with answering all your other objections? And clearly, when someone undid your move: someone disagreed with you. In spite of this, you repeated the move. If you had only moved it *once* you would not have been reported here. You edit-warred, to get your preferred title, end of story. Huldra (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, as I stated above no one objected to my page move, only to my other NPOV issues. Meaning I brought it up, and after 1 day of no objections I moved it. - Galatz (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- This article was under ARBIA sanctions from the second it was created. Wether or not there is a notification on the talk-page is irrelevant. And the talk-page shows that no-one agreed with you on the article-name move. Huldra (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note. In my view, there has been a significant amount of disruptive editing by more than one editor at this article. I've formally alerted the two users in this report to the discretionary sanctions. One of the other editors was already notified. I'm not inclined to take any action here, but that doesn't preclude another administrator from doing so, although I believe more than one block would probably be needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to see the diffs please, for what you call "significant amount of disruptive editing" from other editors, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I assume you mean only you, and if you want me to make a case for blocking you for violating WP:1RR, fine. Here you reverted the article move, and here you altered material in the article, also a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- That second is a self-revert, (I and linked a name, not noticing that it already was linked) and adding a cn tag, (which Galatz agreed with.) Are you telling me that "adding" the word "vacant" to a sentence is a revert? In that case, is it possible to edit an article more than once a day *without* breaking 1RR? Huldra (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Arguably, adding the word "vacant" was a revert because it changed the sense of the material. However, because you did not add, change, or subtract any words, I wouldn't count it. Nor was it the addition of the fact tag. It was changing "one of their schools" to "another of their vacant schools" that was a revert. Putting aside the addition again of the word "vacant", it wasn't just a minor change because by changing the word you changed the meaning of whoever wrote it in the first instance. Was that a self-revert? If so, please point me to the diff in which you changed it and were in this edit changing it back.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The second of the diffs you gave are actually two edits. The second edit was a self-revert. The first edit added the cn, the word "vacant" twice, and, and I changed "one" into "another". Since you have said you would not count that inserting "vacant", or cn, is a violation, I´m left with the understanding that changing "one" into "another" constitutes "a significant amount of disruptive editing" from my part. We learn something new every day, on Wikipedia, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Arguably, adding the word "vacant" was a revert because it changed the sense of the material. However, because you did not add, change, or subtract any words, I wouldn't count it. Nor was it the addition of the fact tag. It was changing "one of their schools" to "another of their vacant schools" that was a revert. Putting aside the addition again of the word "vacant", it wasn't just a minor change because by changing the word you changed the meaning of whoever wrote it in the first instance. Was that a self-revert? If so, please point me to the diff in which you changed it and were in this edit changing it back.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- That second is a self-revert, (I and linked a name, not noticing that it already was linked) and adding a cn tag, (which Galatz agreed with.) Are you telling me that "adding" the word "vacant" to a sentence is a revert? In that case, is it possible to edit an article more than once a day *without* breaking 1RR? Huldra (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I assume you mean only you, and if you want me to make a case for blocking you for violating
- I would like to see the diffs please, for what you call "significant amount of disruptive editing" from other editors, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see a move and a revert and assorted impassioned-but-not-really-blockable editing. What am I missing here? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you're speaking generally, there have been multiple move reverts and multiple other reverts. The article is subject to ArbCom sanctions and a ) 00:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Momčilo Gavrić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Moca1810 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC) "At the age of 8,in February 1915, he was promoted to the rank of kaplar"
- 21:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC) "At the age of 8,in February 1915,he was promoted to the rank of kaplar (Corporal) by the commander of his unitname=grandson Momcilo Gavric"
- 19:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC) "8"
- 18:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC) "8"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Sources */ new section"
- 13:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Here's a link to the biographical dictionary that says 10 and not 8.
https://books.google.se/books?ei=PqreU9CeC8_U4QTL8IGwBQ&hl=sv&id=ozYYAQAAIAAJ&dq=српски+биографски+речник+момчило+гаврић&q="као+десетогодишњак+унапређен"&redir_esc=y
I'm using nowiki tags because of problems with rendering the entire link correctly. - Anonimski (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Waov12 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 1 month)
Page: McGill University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Waov12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [159]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here, here, here, here, and here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here
Comments:
This report is not about a violation of 3RR but an editor persistently edit warring with two other editors while refusing to engage in discussion in Talk. Although both of the other editors (one of whom is me) have explicitly asked this editor to participate in Talk and have created sections in Talk to address the issues he or she has refused to participate and simply reverts edits contrary to his or her preferred version(s). He or she is using edit summaries but edit warring while using edit summaries is not an acceptable replacement for discussion.
I reported this editor to this noticeboard yesterday and he or she was blocked for 24 hours. After the block expired, he or she immediately resumed the activity that led to the block. He or she may have some reasonable viewpoints and arguments but we can't come to a consensus if he or she completely refuses to edit Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – 1 month. User has been adding promotional material at McGill University since February. They continually revert others who remove these additions. They have never used an article talk page, so they get a grade of zero for discussion. Any admin may modify this block if they become convinced that the editor will follow policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
User:COD T 3 reported by User:Faustian (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: COD T 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Note: User had previously posted as an IP: [166] where he earned multiple blocks for disruptive editing: [167].
Previous version reverted to: [168]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user has been battling to keep any negative information about the Blue army out of the article for years. I attempted an RfC: [175]. Only one outside person gave his definitive opinion, he supported the inclusion of the info that this user reverted and the RfC was closed with conclusion that info statement reflected source. I added another bit of info with referenced source he then removed that. Another editor re-added it (diff here: [176]), stating it was okay. User:COD T 3 reverted him also (the last diff among the reverts). He appears to have have given himself veto power over the article, reverting any info he deems is negative. Here he is explaining why he reverted the addition of info referenced to an encyclopedia entry: [177].
Comments:
I would like to respond to user Faustian's accusations. On multiple occasions Faustian was advised by other users to change his approach to editing the article. Yet, Faustian continues to add highly controversial material based on vague or incomplete statements despite advise from other contributors against doing so.
Example of comments directed at Faustian and his editing:
Adding misleading statements
- Due to highly controversial nature of this material, you need to limit yourself to the real subject: which is who said what and why. Stop stating everything like some kind of final court verdict. Poeticbent talk 22:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, Poeticbent. The controversies section should probably focus more on "who said what" rather than trying to state things as facts in Wikipedia's editorial voice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- And here you have a tertiary source - an encyclopedia - which while not exactly prohibited, should be avoided, especially for controversial claims. Volunteer Marek 04:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Yet, in his latest edit user Faustian used Encyclopedia Judaica - an encyclopedia - to level a mass accusation against the entire 68,000 strong army using the authoritative Wikipedia editors voice to do so. Despite the fact that other sources clearly state that the discipline issues were limited to individual soldiers and units not the entire army. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Drawing false conclusion form RfC
- Are there other sources confirming both rapes and scrolls? It looks like the entire very controversial statement is based on a single source. Faustian, if you feel that this statement is that important for the integrity of the article, you should be able to provide more sources. Personally, I do not see why it is so important, as most armies commit similar crimes.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Truther2012 that "most armies commit similar crimes", and thus insisting on levying a mass rape charge against the Blue Army is not really pertinent, as well as not actually feasible under WP:SYNTH with this particular sourcing. Please see also my how-to, WP:How to mine a source for a tutorial on how to get more information out of source material in a step-wise fashion. Regardless, you're going to need more of it than this very short, confusing partial quotation. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
After such statements were made in the RfC by the only two outside contributors that participated, user Faustian came to the final conclusion that it was all right to add the highly controversial claim anyway, without providing a second source as advised.
Examples of bias by Faustian
- Faustian titled a Talk Page section "Blue Army Rapists" this title was removed by another contributor who also though it was offensive. 15:26, 10 July 2014 Poeticbent (please continue with research but don't do things only to make people upset and nothing else)
User Faustian is clearly displaying bias when editing the article, yet he continues to accuse others of misconduct. I have every right to challenge his statements on the grounds of neutrality. After, 2 Dispute Resolutions and 2 Mediation Boards user Faustian continues to add more one sided material to the Controversies section, creating issues of neutrality and undue weight within the article. The issue here in not me reverting the edits, but user Faustian continually trying to add questionable statements. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Source stated Blue Army was particularly noted for many crimes including rape. So I made a topic heading in the talk section about it. When COD T 3 reverted info in the article based on a reliable source, I opened an RfC. Diff for RfC: [178]. The RfC had few commenters and only one made a definitive comment: the statement accurately reflected the source. So I added the statement, and COD T 3 reverted anyways, with some other excuse. This was immediately prior to his edit warring that was reported here. BTW, his quotes were cherry-picked. For example he quoted SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:11, 9 July 2014. I added more context, and the conclusion was: "That seems reasonable to me. It is clearer within this larger-context quotation that the "laundry list" is in fact describing the "Jew-bating and pogroms". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)" So he is falsely making it seem that SMcCandlish was supporting him. More examples can be provided but that's beyond the scope of this report.
- Based on his comments above, COD T 3 seems motivated to continue behaving disruptively and battlegounding. He will continue reverting any info that is negative about the Blue Army.Faustian (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- COD T 3 is a single-purpose account who is here to white-wash the history of the Blue Army, not to build an encyclopedia. Please note that none of this wall of text is relevant to the simple question of whether she/he has been edit-warring for the past week. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:1RR restriction on the whole article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
User:206.128.123.119 reported by User:NQ (Result: Semi)
- Page
- Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 206.128.123.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619747727 by NQ (talk) The "Facts" on here are worthless. The mess revolving around the Max Havoc film WERE NOT ALBERT'S FAULT."
- 00:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619747074 by NQ (talk) WIKIPEDIA AND THE PEOPLE OF GUAM HAVE A VENDETTA AGAINST ALBERT PYUN!"
- 00:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619745576 by NQ (talk) Pyun had nothing to do with the loan from Guam. This is all a campaign by the Guam people and the sorry-ass Guam press in attempt to slander Albert Pyun"
- 00:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619744045 by talk) continuing the fight..."
- 00:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619708935 by HkCaGu (talk) I had the article restored to your version, Tony. Pyun and Cynthia spoke with me also. I'll be watching article now and changing the lies..."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on tw)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Persistent addition of personal commentary by self declared fans of the subject. See [179] NQ talk 00:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected ) 04:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Can an admin please put a block on this IP? There are several more Albert Pyun movies as well as the article for the director himself that had always been subjected to this kind of spam/vendetta/3RRs. HkCaGu (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the IP restored the edits at HkCaGu's talk page (where HkCaGu have a right to remove content on his talk page). Please instate a block. Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- We don't preemptively block an editor for what they might do in the future. However, I've blocked him for six months for making a legal threat here. He was also being tremendously disruptive on multiple user talk pages. That said, if another administrator believes that what he said doesn't constitute a legal threat (often a subject of much disagreement), they can feel free to take any action they deem appropriate without consulting with me first.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Damián80 (Result: Indeffed)
Page: )
Page: List of Mi corazón es tuyo episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zeta54 (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:
- Edit User Zeta54 on List of En otra piel characters
- My edition
- Edit User Zeta54 on List of Mi corazón es tuyo episodes
- Here appeared an ip where reverts me.
Comments:
The user Zeta54, who was recorded yesterday in wikipedia, has started an edit war, because you want both items are deleted. This user is apparently a puppet Sky0000, user was blocked 3 months, for abusing multiple accounts, pretending to be other people. Although the user has not confirmed to be him, I order a audit [180].--
I confirm everything and I am really sorry, but Damian has also been blocked twice for edit warring[181], also his puppet account Chema, [182], which now is closed was in edit war 1 time[183]. That means for that person is 3rd time to be in war. Also Damian promised not to fall in wars again[184], but he broke his promise and tries to get rid of me by accusing me of doing multiple accounts. Also we have war in article List of Corazon Valiente characters. I have forgot many passwords and I know I did wrong, but please I am not only one who is guilty here. Best wishesZeta54 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Is admitting evade blockade?, That's wrong. Also do not know you do not want another account?. I've only reversed twice, because his desire that these two items are deleted, is unpredictable. Besides I is not get to complain to much.--(talk)12:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, Damian, proofs say that you have been punished twice for that account, and 1 for puppet. Also you have had wars, where you didn't get punishment. I admit all, because I am honest. Zeta54 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know that circumvent blocking, cause to be expelled forever from wikipedia?. I do not understand you want to tell everyone that I have been blocked 2 times and having a puppet account?. That and everyone knows it, in exchange for you, if I have fulfilled my two locks. And I have not escaped my blocks.--(talk)12:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know that circumvent blocking, cause to be expelled forever from wikipedia?. I do not understand you want to tell everyone that I have been blocked 2 times and having a puppet account?. That and everyone knows it, in exchange for you, if I have fulfilled my two locks. And I have not escaped my blocks.--
I don't want that block. And I'm not escaping. And that's not my ip, I checked it from device. Really sorry. Zeta54 (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Narang 5 reported by User:Dialectric (Result: Blocked)
Page: Gopi Chand Narang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Narang 5 (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:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [diff]
Comments:
User Narang 5 has repeatedly removed a referenced 'controversies' section, without explanation or edit summary, and has not responded to requests to discuss the removal made in edit summaries and on the user's talk page.Dialectric (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- ) 08:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Biar122 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Declined)
Page: Lambros Tzavelas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Biar122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 4 Aug 15:08
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189] Warning against removal of maintenance tags
Comments:
Stubborn removal of maintenance tags on self-written article despite warning. Not yet a 3RR breach, but clearly disruptive edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Declined. Both users were edit-warring over the tags. More important, it appears that Biar122 finally accepted the clean-up tag, so hopefully the dispute has been resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
User:SilentDan297 (Result: Both warned)
Page: Babymetal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moscow Connection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Multiple edits have been made for each section, while I am guilty for previously forcing my edits in the past on this article, I have calmed down and gone with reasoning, however this editor, despite the lack of consensus he has, reverts my edits despite huge discussions on the talk page of which my edits are enforced by guidelines, templates and other editors.
- Members
- Infobox
- Members + Discog
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Babymetal/Archive 1#Fresh discussion
Comments:
I have made other edits in the past as evidenced by the articles revision history but to list all the reverts would be a nightmare. Huge discussions have taken place and while several other editors have agreed to the edit's I have made Moscow Connection appears to be the only one against these edits as no one else has voiced out against them.
Warned. It appears to me that both of you have been battling in the article and on the talk page for a while, although neither of you has breached SilentDan297 and Moscow Connection are warned that if you persist in similar behavior, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Malpaso reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked)
Page: Henry Kissinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malpaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Five reverts after being challenged by two editors over questionable sources and excessively detailed POV in the lead of a BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
User:SALAMMK reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- )
- User being reported
- SALAMMK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 09:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Prophethood in Ahmadiyya */"
- 09:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC) ""
- 09:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Prophethood in Ahmadiyya */"
- 13:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) ""
- 07:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC) "prophets in islam is ended with the prophet Muhammed (pbuh).prophet muhammed(pbuh) was the last prophet in islam ."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Discussion: User_talk:NeilN#AHMADIYYA_MUSLIM_JAMAATHU NeilN talk to me 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- not here to build an encclopedia. And he's aggressively disruptive, at the reported article and other editors' talk pages, as well as repeatedly creating an article that is tied to all of his other edits. Thus, the only issue for me was whether a block of limited duration or an indefinite block was warranted. I decided to accord him a little good faith and did not indefinitely block him.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Carson2345 reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Behemoth (roller coaster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carson2345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Correct, cited version
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]
Comments:
User is insisting on changing values at both this article and at
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing by Ronhjones.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
User:96.246.139.135 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)
Page: )
User being reported: 96.246.139.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Motion Picture Association of America film rating system
Previous version reverted to: [213]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Motion Picture Association of America
Previous version reverted to: [220]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [225]
Comments:
The IP hasn't technically violated 3RR, but is conducting a slow-burn edit war across these two articles by repeatedly adding unsourced content to the articles, despite being reverted by three other editors besides myself. The IP started this campaign on August 1 on
- Blocked – for a period of one month. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djmex9205.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Bbb23! This editor has been driving me nuts the last few days. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
User:JackAidley reported by User:Tutelary (Result: Not blocked)
- Page
- Jérôme Lejeune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- JackAidley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620090207 by Kyohyi (talk)"
- 12:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620002540 by Tutelary (talk)"
- 10:30, 6 August 2014 {UTC) " (Removed 'original research' tag; every claim made in the article is appropriately referenced to quality sources; and no-one has replied to the talk page comment I made prior to removing the tag.)"
- 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620002412 by Tutelary (talk) Please follow your own advice."
- 20:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619960353 by Tutelary (talk) Too significant to leave out of lead."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Discuss on talk */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparison to Marthe Gautier article */"
- 20:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparison to Marthe Gautier article */ r"
- Comments:
The user has been prompted to follow
- Jack's broken 3RR, yet not reverted since you left him a proper warning of 3RR on his talk page. He did remove the original research tag post that, an edit which has been reverted. If he does one more revert in the next few hours, he'll be blocked. I'll leave him another note on the talk page. Let's allow this to float, and block him if he doesn't follow. Do you think that works? Wifione Message 16:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I am just a bit irritated that he's continued to revert as a result. He seems to be using the talk pages now and not accumulating a second 'R' after that initial WP:BRD. Tutelary (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I know you're not asking me, but those were my thoughts precisely. There was an earlier warning but less obvious than the second. Still, I was reluctant to block unless he continued.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Bbb23, you seem to be all around the project. How many same named socks do you have? :) Good to see you as always. Jack's removed the message I left him on the talk page. So I guess he's read it. I do think (and hope) he will follow my suggestion to him to use dispute resolution than reverts. I'll let the report remain here for now and just check back in the evening today. Good to bump into you. Wifione Message 17:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not blocked Jack's backed off from reverting. So closing this report for now. Wifione Message 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Dan56 reported by User:CountGramula (Result: decline)
Page: )
Page: Radio (LL Cool J album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
Previous version reverted to: [226]
Previous version reverted to: [227]
Diffs of the user's reverts at Run–D.M.C. (album):
Diffs of the user's reverts at Radio (LL Cool J album):
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [233],[234]
Comments: Dan56 is edit warring at two pages to keep mention of
- Neither edit warring nor due weight, but I'm sure those looking at this might be interested in your edit history and in the fact that you seem to have made edits to articles talk) 21:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the guideline I cited in my revert at Aaliyah (album) is clear enough to avoid any discussion on this matter, so this report is kind of disconcerting and suspicious coming from someone who presumably had never encountered me. talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the guideline I cited in my revert at Aaliyah (album) is clear enough to avoid any discussion on this matter, so this report is kind of disconcerting and suspicious coming from someone who presumably had never encountered me.
- Declined. There may be other issues in play here, but nothing that AN3 can do here. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Ahmetyal (Result: prot)
Page: )
User being reported: Master Tyranus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dersim_Province&diff=prev&oldid=620128395
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dersim_Province&diff=prev&oldid=620130195
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dersim_Province&diff=prev&oldid=620130801
This user has violated 3RR and has removed parts of the article, which is reliably sourced. The article is
- ) 21:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well there is nothing to discuss. I've told him/her about the sources during my edits, but he kept editing/moving the page. --talk) 21:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've also told him that if he had some newer reliable sources for him claims, that I would accept them. --talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've also told him that if he had some newer reliable sources for him claims, that I would accept them. --
- Well there is nothing to discuss. I've told him/her about the sources during my edits, but he kept editing/moving the page. --
- Page protected. Both pages protected for one week so discussion can occur. We need to have a history merge when editors can settle on a title - please contact me or another administrator to take care of it. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Tutelary reported by User:70.194.130.117 (Result: decline)
Page: Gerry Hutch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [237]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
70.194.130.117 (talk · contribs)has repeatedly attempted to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerry Hutch and has been reverted by Tutelary (talk · contribs) and others 1, 2 3 4 5. Also,70.194.130.117has repeatedly removed the AfD from Gerry Hutch and was reverted by Tutelary and others. 1 2 3 4 5 Jim1138 (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)- My error, the diffs I listed above were by 70.194.134.49 (talk · contribs), not 70.194.130.117
- 70.194.134.49 (talk · contribs) has been blocked Jim1138 (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:SergiSmiler reported by User:IndianBio (Result:Blocked one week )
- Page
- List of awards and nominations received by Miley Cyrus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- SergiSmiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620235560 by IndianBio (talk) And some of them are important and relevant awards entedies not you?"
- 13:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620235200 by Lady Lotus (talk) Look, I understand that some may not be but VEVO if that should be, mostly because they are real, they have social repercussions and also, are the"
- 13:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC) "Look, I understand that some may not be but VEVO if that should be, mostly because they are real, they have social repercussions and also, are the specials that are recorded in the channels of Youtube, so please let these at least ..."
- Consecutive edits made from 13:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC) to 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- 13:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620225357 by Lady Lotus (talk) sorry, but if this is relevant, is a charity prize you deserve to have your presence here."
- 13:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620223719 by Lady Lotus (talk) sorry, but if this is relevant, is a charity prize you deserve to have your presence here."
- 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620234410 by Lady Lotus (talk) But that policy? is a given for his social work award! what is the problem?"
- 13:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 620224122 by Lady Lotus (talk) sorry, but if this is relevant, is a charity prize you deserve to have your presence here."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 08:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Blocked for one week.—Kww(talk) 13:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Marauder40 (Result: prot)
Page: )
User being reported: Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [243]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [249]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: User thinks that just because he is reverting different users, 3RR doesn't apply.
[250]
Marauder40 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Marauder40 for your contribution. Be nicer still if you made an effort to challenge disruptive behaviour more generally. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am challenging the disruptive behavior, now 7 reverts since 6 August on one page equals edit war.Marauder40 (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected. Contaldo80 is not the only one edit warring here, but this can probably be worked out on talk. @) 21:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Esoglou (Result: prot)
Page:
User being reported: User:Contaldo80}}
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [251] – 07:47, 6 August 2014
- [252] – 07:36, 7 August 2014
- [253] – 07:59, 7 August 2014
- [254] – 08:04, 7 August 2014
- [255] – 12:56, 7 August 2014
- [256] – 13:10, 7 August 2014
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [257] – first
[258] – and again.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [259] – first
[260] – and again
Comments:
Esoglou (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Edits were made by three separate users. Two of them unregistered and the third Esoglou. These edits removed a lot of material on the grounds of "original research" and "removing propaganda". The two unregistered users had not been previously involved in discussions. I asked to discuss on the talk page to better understand the issues. But this did not happen. I therefore had reason to believe the edits were disruptive; but had tried to be helpful and constructive. Furthermore I suspect that the two unregistered users are being controlled by Esoglou as sock-puppet. I have brought the issue to attention in the relevant place. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Bryancyriel reported by User:Ryulong (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Angry Birds Go! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Angry Birds Epic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bryancyriel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
121.1.18.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
121.1.18.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
121.1.18.239 (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 on Angry Birds Go!:
Diffs of the user's reverts on Angry Birds Epic:
Diffs of the user's reverts on List of Mario role-playing games:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [286]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not that I'm aware. All that's clear is that Bryancyriel ha attempted to get Frmorrison blocked for getting in his way and he responded.
Comments:
Bryancyriel has been involved in a two week long edit war regarding these two
- I agree, this needs to stop. The suggestion that a source calling it the 'Mario Kart' of the mobile (the ' ' were in the article not added by me) means Angry Birds Go it is part of the Mario Kart series is absurd and under no circumstances should be included in the article in the first place let alone readded multiple times.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Let me know if I need to semi-protect the articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Sceptic1954 reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Blocked)
Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (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: [287]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
This user was warned multiple times about 3RR [288],[289]. The article talk page also provides warning about discretionary sanctions by Arbcom [290].
There was a discussion involving this user here, but he still made 9 reverts during six hours.
Comments:
My apologies, I can see I am in breach of the rule: I thought it referred to reverting the same material. I this case the material was significantly different and there were different editors. By referring to the rule I can see I was mistaken. I will study it more carefully because I certainly don't want the indignity of being blocked. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Could I add to the above that the so-called multiple warnings were only two, which doesn't usually qualify as 'multiple' and they were the same case and I ask you to look at the outcome, I wasn't warned let alone blocked, in fact I felt vindicated. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Please refer to the outcome here. I accept entirely that I have been in breach of the rule and if you look back at the discussion you can see I was anxious not to breach what I consider the rule. It's easy to misunderstand and I would have no leg to stand on if I breached it again. Actually I don't intend to spend much more time on this page anyway as there appears to be a majority against my general approachSceptic1954 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- First six reverts are reverts of the same paragraph (starting from "The crash occurred") and essentially of the same material. Other three reverts are in different place, but to "enforce" essentially the same idea/POV. Do I understand correctly that User:Hardicanute was you? What that story was about? My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The edit-warring was egregious and against so many editors I lost count. In addition, many of the reverts were over the same or related material, so Sceptic1954's statements here have little credibility. Nor does he promise to leave the article alone; his statement is at best wishy-washy. (The Hardicanute history is old and irrelevant.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Reddragonawakens reported by User:Cold Season (Result: Blocked)
Page: Han Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reddragonawakens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [291]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [292]
- [293]
- [294]
- [295] (at this point I had warned him and thus the user continued with a sock account)
- [296]
- [297]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [298]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user has been asked to engage in a discussion on his/her own talkpage, but instead has been repeatedly evasive and didn't bother.
Comments:
The user has been downright hostile (including cussing and swearing [299]), removed the repeated comments for discussion from his/her talkpage ([300]), and showed a belligerent attitude with false accusations rather than attempt a discussion ([301]). --Cold Season (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reddragonawakens.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
User:MohaddesTop reported by User:Helpsome (Result: Blocked)
Page: Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MohaddesTop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [302]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
I am not involved in this article but I saw the ongoing edit war and thought I would report it here as it doesn't seem likely to end any time soon. Other editors have used article talk pages as well as the editors own talk page to no avail. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [308]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [309]