Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive246

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Steel1943 reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Already handled)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Drafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steel1943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: *2014-04-28T18:17:34 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,654 bytes) (+16) . . (Deleting a draft: Boldly updated section to include a current XFD forum to be able to nominate drafts for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 2014-05-17T12:55:56 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (-148) . . (Undid revision 608955114 by Unscintillating (talk) Again, reverting bold changes where no consensus has been formed for this specifically for the "Draft" namespace)
  2. 2014-05-17T13:45:01 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (+28) . . (Undid revision 608959986 by Unscintillating (talk) Reverting edit based on false wording used by previous editor - not "stable text", but "editor's POV")
  3. 2014-05-17T20:56:42 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (+28) . . (Undid revision 609001195 by Unscintillating (talk) Again, reverting controversial bold edit - already attempt WP:BRD proc. on talkpage, prev editor has yet to participate - RFC)
  4. 2014-05-17T23:45:04 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (+28) . . (Undid revision 609018231 by Unscintillating (talk) No, this is a "no-consensus-based" version of what you believe to be correct - please attempt to resolve on talk page)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Comments:

EW case reopened
  • I am re-opening this case as a case of denialism and refusal to discuss.  After providing full detail of the sequence of edits here (Diff One), here (Diff two) is the reply.  Discussion is required.  Please reread the initial report above, and you will see that there is not a word about the stable version, which is the dispute that caused the edit warring.  Note that the RfC, etc., is misdirection, because there was already an open discussion started 2014-04-16, WT:Drafts#Venue to hold deletion discussions for Drafts.  This is about WP:BRD, where the OPer thinks that my R is somehow a B, without providing evidence.  The same is true from studying the edit comments in Diff One.  This denialism is an idée fixeUnscintillating (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: This complaint was already addressed above. Two editors have been reminded that the next revert could lead to a block. The point is to stop the edit war. If there are (in fact) multiple discussions running on the same page, why not make a proposal to unify them. At present there is an RfC header over just one of the discussions, the one at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Process for deleting drafts. If you wish, ask an admin to decide which discussion is active and close the others. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: List of Person of Interest episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 13:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18:27, 16 May 2014 (edit summary: "Per Baseball Buggs")
  2. 00:22, 17 May 2014 (edit summary: "No reason given for deletion")
  3. 10:57, 17 May 2014 (edit summary: "I'm still waiting for a 'valid' explanation.")
  4. 12:00, 18 May 2014 (edit summary: "/* Season 4 */ Per talk Page")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Comments:

This report is related to a report above but concerns a different editor. 2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194 suspiciously began editing List of Person of Interest episodes only after Baseball Bugs stopped editing. His first edit was a reversion to Baseball Bugs's version,[5] as were his second and third reversions.[6][7] However, his third reversion also included some vandalism (adding "f" to the end of words, joining words with random letters and just joining words for no apparent reason), and I reverted that edit accordingly.[8] After I left the 3RR warning on his talk page he did engage in some discussion on the talk page, waiting until after the expiration of the 24hr period before reverting again. While the lastest revert is not an exact reversion, it does restore the contested dates, which constitutes a partial reversion. Despite the lastest edit summary claiming "Per talk Page", there is still no consensus to add years. As a side note, after reverting the edit containing vandalism, I did make some edits aimed at a minor compromise with all editors involved,[9] and that was at least partially successful. However, 2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194's latest edit is still obviously edit-warring. Other editors still seem willing to discuss. Only 2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194 seems intent on continuing the edit war and his comments on the talk page are of some concern. --AussieLegend () 13:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected ten days by User:Kelapstick. It appears there is a consensus on the talk page not to add information about 2014-2015 prematurely. If, in addition to IPs, there are also registered accounts that think differently they should wait until they get support from others on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: No action)[edit]

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


No need in diffs: from history you easily see it is removal of notability tag.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Russian Bazaar.

At first I thought the user requires edit summary. So I reinstated tag with edit summary "nodability questioned". HOwever the user insist on removing the tag. IMO it is a blatant violation of wikipedia policy about tags, which cannot be removed without discussing its merits. PLease intervene. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


Comments:

Here is the diff in which the OP began edit warring, although it satisfies 3RR.  I issued a "notice" of EW on the OP's talk page, here, which I closed with "FYI", meaning I didn't need a response.  The OP responded here, escalating with both a 3O and this 3RR.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: It is generally considered a bad idea to remove a tag from an article without resolving the issue or explaining why the tag was unwarranted. User:Unscintillating did neither. Upon further review, I not only agree with User:Staszek Lem's tagging of the article as of questionable notability, I have gone ahead and nominated the article for deletion. I would also note that this is User:Unscintillating's second edit war this weekend, a disturbing trend. pbp 22:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmargi and User:Favre1fan93 reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: No action)[edit]

No longer relevant here. Use the article talk page or WT:TV. Will somebody please open an RfC instead of continuing a content dispute on admin boards. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
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: List of Person of Interest episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs) and Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs)

What we have here are a couple of users who are systematically reverting anyone who tries to put (2014-2015) into various TV show articles. The fall schedules have been announced, yet they insist on preventing posting of the obvious, going so far as to post hidden comments ordering other editors not to add that info. I want an explanation from one or both user ID's as to why they're doing this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'd like to know why this user has used a. my talk page and b. this venue but not the article talk page to address this issue. I'll address this matter there. --Drmargi (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You wouldn't answer my question on your talk page, so I have very little confidence you will do so on the talk pages of the various articles you're trying to take ownership of. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Drmargi. First, neither of us were edit warring. Second, you should have taken this up on the article talk page, not both of our talk pages, and then here, when I didn't even have a chance to respond to you. As well, wouldn't you think if there was a hidden note there, it's there for a reason? If you actually read WP:CRYSTAL, it states that an article on the 2016 Olympics is fine, but even though we have confirmation that the show will premiere in the fall (again, only fall), there is still a multitude of potential setbacks that could prevent it from airing: Writers strikes, cast disagreements, a presidential speech, (God forbid) a cast member's death. As well, this has been discussed by the Television project and it has been agreed upon that years should not be added until episodes actually air in the television season. If you see it on other pages, then they are in the error, not this page. That is what I would have said to you if you took the proper channels, but since you haven't, I am no longer contributing to this discussion here. If you want to bring it up on the article's talk page, be my guest. - Favre1fan93 (talkComment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If that isn't a crystal-ball-based argument, I don't know what is. You could make the identical argument about any future scheduled event. Sorry, your argument doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How does the above provide an excuse from edit-warring? You can edit-war after a single edit, as I'm sure you know. The process is WP:BRD - which does mean that Bugs should have been the one who started a discussion on the article talkpage, but then again, Drmargi refused to provide a valid reason for removal of Bugs' edit, so Bugs could be excused for believing that Drmargi had reverted in error the panda ₯’ 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your response. Drmargi did provide a valid response to Baseball Bugs's question, explaining both that there was a hidden note in the article, and that the "source says returning in 2014, not 2014-2015".[10] How then could Baseball Bugs believe that "Drmargi had reverted in error"? --AussieLegend () 05:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
DP, did you actually read my response on my talk page? I refused nothing. The edit had been reverted once already (by Farve1fan), and I reverted a second time. There wasn't a lot more to say than what the FF's edit summary and the hidden note said already. Bugs left a message on my talk page, and I answered the question he asked clearly and directly, as anyone who took the trouble to read my response can see. The trouble is, Bugs wants an answer to a question he didn't ask, and seems to be nursing some old grudge or pissed off about something long ago forgotten by everyone else. No one is edit warring aside from Bugs. This whole situation is utterly farcical, frankly. --Drmargi (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The two editors are edit-warring against anyone who dares put the obvious (2014-2015) in. And by the way, the guy who said this should be on the article talk page still has not posted on the article talk page. As I had predicted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm still waiting for a valid explanation. The fact that it's not yet September ain't it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: from an outsider: can't this be resolved peacefully with a compromise? Say, leaving 2014-2015 in, but adding a qualifier such as "predicted"? Because it does seem like a fairly sure prediction, barring exceptional events. — Yerpo Eh? 09:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • This is not a valid edit-warring or 3RR report. Neither editor has breached 3RR and Baseball Bugs hasn't demonstrated evidence of edit-warring. This is a content dispute so this is not the appropriate venue to discuss. To clarify though, adding "(2014-2015)", "(2014-15)" is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. The addition of years is based on a recent renewal notice and assumption that episodes will air in 2014-15. However, a renewal notice 6 months prior to the next season does not guarantee that episodes will air in a particular year. An examples of this is Hotel Hell, which was renewed in 2012 but did not air any episodes in 2012 or 2013. Episodes have only just been scheduled to air in 2014, 2 years after the renewal. There are many things that can happen between when a series is renewed and when episodes do eventually air. Two and a Half Men was expected to air for a full season in 2010-11 but production was halted twice and the season ended nearly three months before it was expected to end. The Playboy Club, Last Resort and Alcatraz were all expected to air for full seasons but were cancelled during their first season, The Playboy Club after only 3 episodes had aired and while several more were scheduled to air. Because of the uncertainty regarding TV series, including years in the section heading when episodes have not been scheduled to air is widely considered by the TV project to be WP:CRYSTAL and we do not add years because of this. This is why Drmargi and Favre1fan93, as well as other editors (including me) have been removing years from future season headings. It is, unfortunately, something we have to deal with every year around this time when the American TV season finishes. --AussieLegend () 04:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Your argument is not valid. CBS has already said it is on the "fall schedule", which translates to sometime during the fall of 2014. What you're really doing is granting ownership of a number of articles to those two editors. Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Being on its fall schedule is no guarantee that the series will premiere this year. There is too much uncertainty with TV programs. --AussieLegend () 16:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
        • That's a pretty ignorant comment. But not as ignorant as the user who fell into that copycat troll's trap and claimed I was socking. I've reported user Desk Ref to ANI, and I would assume that any foreign IP's are also copycats, if not actually socks of that user. So their arguments can all be crossed off, and you can continue to own the page. And since it's obvious no one here is going to do anything about this page-ownership situation and the ignorance that's driving it, feel free to close this section. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. There is a difference of opinion as to how much evidence is needed before we announce the 2014-2015 season for the Person of Interest (TV series). A typical revert is here. Consider an WP:RFC or use one of the established methods of WP:Dispute resolution. If announcement of a new season when episodes have not been scheduled to air is indeed "widely considered by the TV project to be WP:CRYSTAL" then User:Drmargi should be able to document it by linking to past discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
For the record, it as FavreFan1 who initiated the removal of the dates, and added the hidden note. I came to the party later. BB just made a target of me because he's still pouting about some ancient conflict or another, the specifics of which I've long forgotten. AussieLegend provided the link, and Bignole, who wrote the policy at Project:TV added his comments, so it's quite thoroughly documented. --Drmargi (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
A policy that defies common sense ain't much of a policy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Drmargi, could you point me to this documented policy? From what I found on the talk, AussieLegend pointed to previous discussion with three editors. (This discussion also brought up that this is not to do with WP:CRYSTAL.) Also, I did not see the results of discussion integrated into MOS:TV. From that, it doesn't look like a "policy" per-say. Is there a different location I'm not looking at? It seems to me, if people disagree with the the old discussion, it's fair game to start a new one and reach consensus. Kirin13 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It's probably preferrable to let FavreFan or AussieLegend respond to your request. They're active on Project:TV whereas I'm not. I'm sure one of them can satisfactorily address your concerns. --Drmargi (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Kirin13, I was the one to possibly bring the "policy" claim into this. I do see what you are seeing, that same discussion that I in fact started on the project talk page. I, however, did feel that this was stated somewhere in our MOS, as for as long as I have been working on articles in this project, this has been the case: years are not added to the headings until episodes air, or you can unequivocally source that episodes will air in that calendar year, per all the reasons myself and AussieLegend have been stating here and at the discussion over at the article talk. - Favre1fan93 (talkComment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I listed them alphabetically. If I ever had any dealings with either editor at some point in the past, I don't remember it, and would just as soon keep it that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Dr. ashlee g reported by User: Hafspajen (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Editor doesn't discuss the topic on talk page, that is well sourced but keeps removing sourced material. Also was warned for edit war and still continues. Hafspajen (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) (Comment from uninvolved editor) @Hafspajen: According to the edit history of Talk:Miniature Pinscher,you haven't been discussing on the article talk page, either. Have you discussed on the editor's talk page, at least? Epicgenius (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I will take back notice. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Kumarila reported by User:Maunus (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: 2002 Gujarat riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kumarila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 22:40, 19 May 2014 - Kumarila (Undid revision 609300289 by (talk) Why did u remove it before discussing then ? It is properly sourced, u r the one playing edit war)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:15, 19 May 2014 - Kumarila (Undid revision 609195360 by Vanamonde93 (talk))
  2. 22:20, 19 May 2014 - Kumarila (Undid revision 609298245 by Vanamonde93 (talk) Lead talks about complicity of Narendra Modi,. This line does not say that. Don't show your bias in editing.)
  3. 22:33, 19 May 2014 - Kumarila (Undid revision 609299750 by Maunus (talk))
  4. 22:40, 19 May 2014 - Kumarila (Undid revision 609300289 by Maunus (talk) Why did u remove it before discussing then ? It is properly sourced, u r the one playing edit war)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. User talk:Maunus 22:40, 19 May 2014 - Maunus
  2. User talk:Kumarila 22:45, 19 May 2014 - Maunus
  • Comment - First above diff isn't to Kumarila's talkpage. Second above diff simply says "I have reported you." This diff is the warning:
  1. 05:40, 18 May 2014 - Vanamonde93 (Warning: Removal of content, blanking on 2002 Gujarat riots. (TW)) Jsharpminor (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Recent_revert

Comments:

Talkpage show User:Kumarila's history of problematic editing. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC) -->

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week by User:DangerousPanda. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:31.220.238.96 reported by User:TMDrew (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page
William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
31.220.238.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Other views */"
  2. 09:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC) "Reinserted factually correct material - no reason given for its removal."
  3. 00:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC) "You have still not provided a good reason to remove a factually correct material. The fact that he may think the term is not justified does not affect whether or not, objectively, it is. Furthermore, please refrain from making threats. It isn't helpful"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

We have gone over this material on the talk page. This editor refuses to use the talk page and continues to revert these edits. I warned the editor in the edit summary. Still continues to edit war. TMD (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking back on the history of this IP, every single edit that this user has made has been a variant of the quote "William Lane Craig believes that God has the moral right to commit genocide." This has been discussed on the talk page, and we have decided against this wording. This IP user has made no other contributions to the page, but has continued to insist on this wording since March of this year.
11:56, March 15, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-22)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (→‎Other views)
14:09, March 16, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-66)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎
07:26, May 17, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+28)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (→‎The Resurrection of Jesus)
05:18, May 18, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (Reinserted factually correct material - no reason given for its removal.)
20:27, May 18, 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (You have still not provided a good reason to remove a factually correct material. The fact that he may think the term is not justified does not affect whether or not, objectively, it is. Furthermore, please refrain from making threats. It isn't helpful)

Every one of these edits has been for the same thing. This editor should be blocked from the page.--TMD (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Blocked 1 week. The IP has been warring since March to claim that Craig is defending 'genocide' by God, referring to the deaths of the Canaanites at the hand of the Israelites. This puts the word genocide in Wikipedia's voice. The cited material by Craig does not defend genocide as such; he uses other words. The same IP has also received three warnings for vandalism since March. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:B88 reported by User:Hafspajen (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

Sigh, what am I doing on this page two times in 24 hours... I can put my (non-existing) Doctoral hat on that this analysis is completely wrong. Hafspajen (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC) [11]

Would you please include some diffs, or even the page you're referring to? As it stands this is a malformed report. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is one, [12] it is Paul the Apostle. Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.
There have been three reverts in total done by three different editors -- two one way, and one the other.
  • Also, this is a seriously malformed report. Please use the form for these reports, that's why it's there. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the so called malformation, not used to report here. Drmies told me that it was three, not four so, I figured... He is a respected administrator, he should know. Hafspajen (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • If the first edit is a removal--but their first edit was the addition of that, ahem, information. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Anyway, not a very polite editor. Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


(cur | prev) 02:16, 20 May 2014‎ B88(talk | contribs)‎ . . (121,833 bytes) (+2,702)‎ . .(I don't discuss with hypocrits) and 3.
(cur | prev) 02:05, 20 May 2014‎ B88(talk | contribs)‎ . . (120,935 bytes) (+1,804)‎ . . (undo | thank)this is 2
(cur | prev) 00:28, 20 May 2014‎ B88(talk | contribs)‎ . . (119,221 bytes) (+90)‎ . . (undo | thank) This was 1, I thought, readding someting removed, .
(cur | prev) 01:07, 19 May 2014‎ ༆(talk | contribs)‎ . . (119,131 bytes) (-90)‎ . .(Undid revision 608002981 by B88 (talk)) (undo | thank)
Now Drmies, is it 3 or 4? Hafspajen (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, now I see--and that's why it's important to follow the proper formatting of these reports. I hadn't seen that +90 edit: technically, I'd say, that puts them at three, yes. But you know what, this really needs Bbb23; I'd still let this go by. By the way, I warned them on their talk page for this edit warring and the OR/SYNTH. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Yes, that was no good report, I agree. Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen:It's neither 3 nor 4. Edit-warring is edit warring regardless of how many edits have been made, and can be as little as 1 or 2. More than 3 is what we call a bright-line rule, and is usually sufficient evidence that a war is occuring.
It looks to me like he added some content at 01:58, added more content at 02:09 (which may or may not be revert 1 depending on if he just added the same stuff or not), then reverted the 1st or 2nd time, depending on your count, at 02:16. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Edit -- @Drmies: I hadn't analyzed that thoroughly. The +90 was part of a string of edits by B88, and a string of edits is counted for 3RR as one edit. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No, it was my fault. Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, the +90 was putting back this, removed exactly the same content, here 00:28, +90 - string or not. That will be one edit, with all the edits after, yes. Than came the different 02:05, and later 02:16. So it is three alright. Hafspajen (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Jsharpminor, no problem. They just reverted again, and I blocked for 36 hours. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Man, now he is back with a new account... [13]. Five. Hafspajen (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
And he's been given a new block by Drmies. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── [14] Hate being right, seven or? Hafspajen (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

With the page now semiprotected so only auto-confirmed users can edit it, that should stop the rampant sockpuppetry. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Einsteinbomb reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]
  5. [20]
  6. [21]
  7. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursMusikAnimal talk 15:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Windersteinburg reported by User:Zmflavius (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Second Sino-Japanese War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Windersteinburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Sino-Japanese_War&diff=609328447&oldid=609323165

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 01:46, 20 May 2014 (add cause of war)
  2. 01:04, 20 May 2014 (re-adds on Tunchow Mutiny)
  3. 00:39, 20 May 2014 (no edit summary)
  4. 23:32, 19 May 2014 (adds Tunchow Mutiny)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASecond_Sino-Japanese_War&diff=609309640&oldid=599655685

Comments: For some four reverts, Windersteinburg has persistently attempted to re-add material with a dubious source with relation to the Tungchow Mutiny to the Second Sino-Japanese War page, including extremely lurid, dubious, and undue degrees of detail, blatant POV pushing, and poor grammar. The added material also bears a strong resemblance to content which another user, Banzaiblitz, attempted to repeatedly add to the Tungchow Mutiny page, for which he was eventually banned for a combination of edit-warring and sockpuppeting (in fact, the "source" used is the same which he used), and who thereafter repeatedly engaged in sockpuppeting in relation to this topic. However, while the content is similar, the posting style of the two is fairly dissimilar. In any case, despite opposition by another editor wrt to further attempts to add this content (for the above stated reasons) on the talk page, Windersteinburg has continued to edit in this material without concern for the other editor's concerns.
Zmflavius (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In the upper comment, User Zmflavius couldn't show the details of his expression "dubious". He repeatedly erase and rewrote my edit with such poor reason. ~~Windersteinburg~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windersteinburg (talkcontribs) 03:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursMusikAnimal talk 15:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:75.177.156.78 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: IP warned)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.177.156.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:18, 19 May 2014 - 75.177.156.78 (→‎melissajoanhart.ning.com: It is AGAINST POLICY to refactor others' talk page comments)
  2. 16:58, 19 May 2014 - 75.177.156.78 (→‎melissajoanhart.ning.com: Don't change the heading as I ORIGINALLY wrote it.)
  3. 17:07, 19 May 2014 - 75.177.156.78 (Undid revision 609261110 by Elizium23 (talk) Header as ORIGINALLY posted.)
  4. 23:02, 19 May 2014 - 75.177.156.78 (→‎melissajoanhart.ning.com: Flyer22, please be thorough enough to look at the ENTIRE edit history; Elizium changed MY header and moved MY comments.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 23:03, 19 May 2014 - Elizium23 (Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (TW))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. User talk:75.177.156.78 - 17:01, 19 May 2014 (→‎WP:RSN: new section)
  2. User talk:75.177.156.78 - 23:05, 19 May 2014 (→‎Order of comments on RSN: new section)

Comments:

This anon IP claims to have nine years of experience editing Wikipedia, and yet has remained bellicose and incivil throughout this entire dispute, while not having a single shred of evidence to bolster his case. I have requested that this user stay away from my user talk page as discussions are not productive at all. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Summary by uninvolved editor: Elizium23 and the IP editor got into it over whether melissajoneshart.ning.com, a fansite, is an official site published by the celebrity, and if so, if it is a reliable source or not. On 02:44, 19 May 2014, Elizium took it to WP:RSN. The IP editor created another section for basically the same discussion at 14:44, exactly 12 hours later. Elizium23 merged the discussions at 16:01. The reverts are the IP attempting to break the discussions apart. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, Elizium removed my header and (without discussing with me and another editor who commented) moved my and another editor's comments out of their original section. I invite any admin to also carefully review Elizium23's edits. Not that his edits justify any of my edits, but there may be a case of WP:BOOMERANG. Elizium appears to have a vendetta here because I justifiably challenged one of his sources as unreliable and he simply can't let it go even though other editors agree with me. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
      • If you and Elizium were basically discussing the same issue, why would you have an issue with Elizium moving the comments? Also, why would you start another section to discuss the very same thing? In fact, it seems to me that the third opinion did not agree with that, or moving it back to its own section.
Whether or not the fan site is valid is its own question, and I think I'd have to agree with you on that point. However, that's not what we're discussing at AN:3. Here, we're discussing whether or not someone should edit war. The answer is almost always no. And it looks like you decided, for whatever reason, to edit war over the placement of your comments. I think that's a candidate for WP:LAME. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I am the third party. Why I reverted the IP should be clear from the edit history; I also noted why on the IP's talk page. The IP placing his or her comments at the beginning of the merged section, and changing the original heading to the heading of the section that was merged, was completely unproductive. Like I told the IP, "Elizium23 merged your section with his or hers, which is allowed...per Wikipedia:TALK#Editing comments. Your order is not the original order, and you are making a mess of the section. STOP IT." The IP has now stopped reverting. It is a WP:LAME edit war indeed, but at least Elizium and I had very valid reasons for reverting the IP on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: IP warned. If they try to refactor again (without getting consensus) they may be blocked. See WP:REFACTOR for a help page on this topic. It makes no sense that the IP would revert more than once to put the posts out of date order. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Der Golem reported by User:Liongrande (Result: Both warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: # diff

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

Comments:
A month ago I requested User:Der Golem to be blocked. But User:EdJohnston merely locked the page for a month. Unfortunately, even after a month, he keeps vandalizing the page. I therefore request the vandal to be banned for a long period to stop him for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liongrande (talkcontribs) 10:21, 20 May 2014‎ (UTC)

I would like to add a note here to make the situation little more clear: the user Liongrande is categorically against inclusion of any sort of Jews in the article about the nation of Czechs. Have a nice day everyone.--Der Golem (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not categorically against anything, I'm just responding to your blatant vandalism and disrespect of community consensus.--Liongrande (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Both editors warned. The next person who reverts the article may be blocked. Liongrande gets special mention for reverting the article while his own 3RR report was open, and for using the term 'vandalism' incorrectly. See WP:Dispute resolution for the steps you can follow. I'm also notifying both parties under WP:ARBEE since this is a dispute about nationality in Eastern Europe. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Massyparcer reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Rail usage statistics by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Massyparcer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 12:31, 19 May 2014 (unsourced/outdated material and original research cleaned up)
  2. 14:41, 19 May 2014 (reverting unexplained revert)
  3. 12:31, 20 May 2014 (I don't think you have looked through the sources when you wrote that message to me. They're dead and unverifiable, I have removed them as per violation of WP:Verifiability. The last list is a self-created list, significantly violating WP:OR.)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:31, 20 May 2014

  • Comment from uninvolved editor: The "diff of edit warring / 3rr warning" above is the AN3 notice. The original edit warring notice chronology follows (a cute little edit war in its own right):
  1. 16:40, 19 May 2014 (+944) - Placed by ZH8000 (→‎Stop edit warring - Rail usage statistics by country: new section)
  2. 06:05, 20 May 2014 (-942) - Removed by YJAX (Undid revision 609258317 by ZH8000 (talk))
  3. 12:32, 20 May 2014 (+942) - replaced by ZH8000 (→‎Stop edit warring - Rail usage statistics by country: new section)
  4. 12:34, 20 May 2014 (-942) - removed by Massyparcer (Undid revision 609374531 by ZH8000 (talk) please do not repeat the same message.)
  5. 12:36, 20 May 2014 (+944) - replaced by ZH8000 (Reverted 1 edit by Massyparcer (talk) to last revision by ZH8000. (TW))
  6. 12:40, 20 May 2014‎ (-942) - removed by Massyparcer (Again, would you stop starting an edit war on my talk page please?)
  7. 13:38, 20 May 2014 (+3,451) - replaced and added to by ZH8000 (Talk, explain, prove your position!)
  8. 14:10, 20 May 2014 (-4,949)- removed by Massyparcer (I have no interest in talking to you.)
  9. 15:31, 20 May 2014 (+5,534) - replaced by ZH8000 and added AN:3 notice (Undid revision 609384629 by Massyparcer (talk) an3-notice)

Jsharpminor (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  • Diff of warning: here

Comments:

His last comment was: "I have no interest in talking to you." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Massyparcer&diff=609384629&oldid=609383564

Comments from same uninvolved editor as above:
It seems to me to be very much worth noting that the last comment on the talk page is from 2011.
Edit summaries are no substitute for discussion.
Massyparcer is under no obligation whatsoever to keep any 3RR warning notices on his talk page.
Massyparcer's talk page is not the proper place to have this discussion; the article talk page is. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
My view: It looks like Massyparcer is basically blanking and removing large sections of content with little to no explanation as to why. YJAX seems to agree with Massyparcer's action. Chronology is Massyparcer blanked, then ZH8000 reverted. Two additional reverts on each side brings both to 3RR. The fact that there's nothing on the talk page means both ought to have talked about it by now, so both are kind of at fault there. As for the revert war on Massyparcer's talk page... well, that's another story. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This was a tough one. I think Jsharpminor summed it up pretty well. The bold, revert, discuss methodology is a welcomed one. After the first revert an effort should have been made to resolve the dispute. Three back and forth edits occurred before any attempt to discuss the changes occurred, when ZH8000 added this message to Massyparcer's talk page. Massyparcer responded by blanking the notice, which as Jsharpminor mentioned, is perfectly acceptable. Massyparcer, instead of trying to follow up with a legitimate attempt to discuss the matter, again reverted ZH8000's changes. I agree with Jsharpminor that the article talk page is a more appropriate place to discuss an obvious dispute rather than to utilize the edit summaries and continue to undo others' changes. It is often difficult to find consensus with only two editors who are at odds. If you use the article talk page, other editors familiar with the subject can chime in to help build a consensus.
The revert war over at Massyparcer's talk page only further delineates the two parties' refusal to engage in a civil discussion with one another. I'll also note that Massyparcer's third revert at Rail usage statistics by country occurred almost exactly 24 hours after the first. I feel no leeway should be given here under the aforementioned circumstances. The three-revert rule is in place to prevent disruption and help reinstate the collegial spirit of the wiki. We are here to work collaboratively to build encyclopedia, not dismiss others viewpoints - regardless of how much you may think yours is correct. — MusikAnimal talk 01:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User:DVdm reported by User:DParlevliet (Result: DParlevliet blocked one week)[edit]

Page: Double-slit experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DVdm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:
Three editors did delete the same edit for which I report the last one (thenother did stop deleting). In their comment they don't give reasons which Wiki-rules allow to delete. Syntax is not correct(should be improved), not enough references ("citation needed" should be placed). I have several times asked what the exact problem is, because I also want to improve myself, but I get no answer. For comment see also my comments in the "view history" of the article. DParlevliet (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted once and gave a clear reason for it, as a followup to previous comments by other editors on talk page and in edit summaries. This report might call for a wp:BOOMERANG. In case user would have reverted a 4th time, I already had prepared the following entry:
Previous version reverted to: [32]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Section Talk:Double-slit experiment#Please discuss changes opened by user Ancheta Wis, recently revived: [37], [38], [39]
I find this report rather disturbingly harrassing. DVdm (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleting the same part by different editors is no way of prevent the 4 revert rule. DVdm knew of the other deletions and still did it a fourth time. DParlevliet (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) For WP:3RR the same editor must do four reverts, not different editors. ~ Kirin13 (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
DParlevliet made another revert. wp:BOOMERANG applies. WP:3RR doesn't beacuse not only does it require same person to make the four reverts, it must also be within 24 hours. However WP:EW applies. Assuming IP is DParlevliet, then he has four reverts on this issue. ~ Kirin13 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Update:
  • 4th revert: [40] Good grief.
Yes, IP is indeed without any doubt DParlevliet (wp:DUCK, see previous edit in same article, also undoing a revert), perhaps he forgot to login. DVdm (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

I think it should be considered reasonable to replace something that employs such poor syntax and such poor logical connectedness between sentences that it does not make a helpful contribution to general readers. Originally there was one discussion. It was replaced by DParlevliet without discussion or justification. Suppose a third writer had come along and replaced that block of text with a third version, also without discussion or justification. Would DParlevliet accept such a change as progress? I came upon his last revert sometime last night. I tried to read it. I did not understand what he was trying to say. I therefore reverted it to a version that is comprehensible and is not misleading to the average well-informed reader. On the discussion page I explained to DParlevliet something that I have learned in the course of discussions on some thorny points, i.e., it is better to argue your case for a change on the talk page and use facts and logic to counter objections raised on the discussion page, and then to make your change. That is better than my making some significant change in the article first and then have it immediately reverted.

In past discussions I have not found DParlevliet to be responsive. Above, DParlevliet wrote, "I have several times asked what the exact problem is, because I also want to improve myself, but I get no answer." In the past when I have asked questions of DParlevliet in attempts to reach a common understanding he has not been responsive or cooperative. I do not think it is fair to readers to let an incomprehensible piece of writing stand while attempting to instruct an editor in ESL and also in how to properly develop an argument. I am having more and more trouble excusing DParlevliet of his general attitude, and I agree that this report seems "disturbingly harassing."P0M (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: DParlevliet is blocked one week for long-term edit warring at Double-slit experiment. Over the period since April 1 it appears that DParlevliet (and his IP) have reverted this article about 14 times. In my opinion any admin could lift this block if DParlevliet will agree to take a two-month break from editing any physics articles. We are way past the point where DParlevliet should have perceived he lacks consensus for his changes. Comments by others on the talk page suggest that WP:COMPETENCE could be an issue; it's a difficult topic. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User:71.42.218.20 reported by User:129.33.19.254 (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Iron Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.42.218.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [41]
  2. [42]
  3. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

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

Comments:


I have asked this user not to edit war on the indicated article, but the user stated that they "will not relent" and continued to edit war after my warning. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked for 48 hours. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 17:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mypageone reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Withdrawn by nominator)[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator. Quis separabit? 19:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
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.

I restored the following, which was archived without ever being processed; hence I am placing it at the top Quis separabit? 13:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I politely advised editor Mypageone not to insert information regarding minor children (per BLP) on the above article. He/she ignored the hidden comment specifically regarding this issue in the first place after similar edits were removed, and has now, without comment or explanation, simply restored the edits I removed. I do not intend to get into an edit war with an occasional or one-topic editor or be goaded into violating 3RR, but if this editor is going to edit in bad faith then something needs to be done. Please see [45], [46]. Editor notified on talk page but apparently can't be bothered to respond. Thanks, Quis separabit? 00:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

(Non-administrator comment) This report is malformed, lacks any diffs, user never received any edit warring/3RR warning before put on noticeboard, and there is no discussion in articles talk page. As far as I can tell Mypageone did one revert, so reporting him for edit warring seems like a stretch. If you're having a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:3O or similar process. Since there hasn't been any reverts in 2.5 days, this 'edit war' is stale and WP:BLOCK is not punitive. ~ Kirin13 (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:TwoHorned reported by Calypsomusic (talk) (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Koenraad Elst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

  1. 11:10, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 608200537 by Calypsomusic (talk) Sorry but these editorial activities were his for an important part of his life.")
  2. 11:13, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 608200792 by Calypsomusic (talk) Why ? All his books are published by VOI !")
  3. 11:17, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "prodomo ref: koenraad elst blog")
  4. 11:20, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "This is notable")
  5. 11:49, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Fixing typo raised by BracketBot")
  6. 11:59, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reintroduction of deleted content by disruptive user")
  7. 12:05, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Re-introduction of deleted contents by disruptive user.")
  8. 12:09, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "ref problem")
  9. 20:18, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Not sure than the flag "Hindu politics" is appropriate here.")
  10. 12:10, 17 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "The merge tag is the one pending.")
  11. 12:12, 17 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Neutralization")
  12. 12:13, 17 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  13. 12:13, 17 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "no wikilink for that")
  14. 10:59, 19 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Tag restoration: there is consensus in the TP for fusion.")
  15. 17:39, 19 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Per TP, with deleted prodomo material and neutralization.")
  16. 16:11, 20 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 609389205 by Calypsomusic (talk) No, per TP, there no BLP violation here, and the OR aspects have been neutralized in the sentence.")
  17. 16:48, 20 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "No, per TP,")
  18. 18:14, 20 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 609405436 by Calypsomusic (talk) The answers and majority is clear on the TP. And you don't have it.")
  • The last 4 diffs show edit warring breaking the 24 hour rule (by some minutes, he was gaming the system).
  • Diff of warning: here
After this warning, TwoHorned should have stopped edit-warring. However, he made another revert just minutes outside the 24 hour period, so was gaming the system and breaking the 3RR rule. After breaking the rule, he just replied "ok for me"
  • Diffs of warning: here
I made many such attempts to ask TwoHorned to discuss on the talkpage before making further reverts and restorations of BLP violations in the BLP article.
  • He was warned many times for BLP violations (one of the latest: here).
  • He has been warned countless times about BLP violations on this article, judging from talkpages and his block log, as far back as 2006.
  • He is already indefinitely banned on the French wikipedia for sockpuppetering, personal attacks and edit warring. see here and confirmed here
  • His block log shows numerous blocks for edit warring on the Koenraad Elst article and other articles.

Calypsomusic (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look on this to understand the real motive behind the creation of this request. Also have a look of this edit of User:Calypsomusic which is a personal attack of antisemitism. User:Drmies has locked the page and put a warning of the article's TP to which I agreed (as opposed to User:Calypsomusic so far...). Not to mention edit warring of User:Calypsomusic him/herself: example. TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 17:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
So what was this edit? here. That other editors have said that TwoHorned is promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is a fact. here an user says: "To cap it all, your language – when it is not incoherent – gives away the game: why else mention the ethnic origin of an author (‘some jewish writers’)? Shades here, perhaps, of an old discourse (‘the jew Dreyfus’)." And in this discussion here an editor says that an "anti-Israel editor named User:TwoHorned" is promoting fringe anti-semitic conspiracy theories. And you didn't agree, you only said "ok for me" just after you made your last revert. I stopped reverting your BLP policy violations on a BLP article after the warning, and I asked you many times to discuss on the talkpage and not revert.--Calypsomusic (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, one opinion of an anonymous user under IP who was there for a few days plus someone who says I criticize Israel's politics. How lonely I feel myself under the seriousness of your accusations. But, wait a minute, these stupid accusations remind me these ones long time ago. Don't unmask yourself so easily, infdef sockmaster User:Hkelkar. TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 08:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
No, going through your edits and talkpage discussions it is very easy to find out that you are obsessed with just a few things: Koenraad Elst, Rene Guenon, Neoconservatism, Jews, Islam-critical scholars, and all the articles where these topics mix. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • no Closed  The article has been fully protected and I've notified both users of discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:64.26.134.201 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
Prophets in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
64.26.134.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Prophethood in Ahmadiyya */ There is a consencus amongst all Muslims that Muhammad (Allah bless him) is the last prophet. Ahmadiyya differ in definition of Prophet. It like adding Muslim view in the topic of Trinity."
  2. 20:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 18:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 609437028 by 78.26 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Prophets in Islam. using TW"
  2. 20:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Prophets in Islam. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal of Ahmadiyya content */ new section"
Comments:
  • no Closed  Report was good at the time, but is now stale. (17 hours since last edit) Re-report if this user resumes edit warring. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:FelixRosch (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

This report concerns the admission of User:Moxy of using edit warring against this editor for the purpose of controlling and manipulating this user's available time for contributions made to Wikipedia.

Editor:Moxy is edit warring on three separate edit pages simultaneously (Putin, Russia, Ukraine), and has published a personal attack against this editor referring to me as child and inferring that he/she is the only "adult" editor on my Talk page. User:Moxy has also admitted to using Edit Warring (User:Moxy refers to warring below as "my posts and edits", which are all edit warring edits and reverts) as his/her way of oddly controlling other users on how and where they are to use their available time for edit contributions to wikipages which User:Moxy wishes or requires them to use their available time for edit contributions for, with the following statement on this user's Talk page:

"Finally a reply to my posts and edits (that is, reply to multiple edit warring). Sorry its come to this - but please stop copy and pasting news articles and book quotes all over," admission by User:Moxy.


The edit warring has caused many lost hours of editing time to this editor. The edit warring by Moxy is also wallpapering false statements about "cut-and-paste", which has nothing to do with my edits which contain fully researched quotations, and for which Wikipolicy on "Valid usage" and "Fair usage" is explicit in recognizing as valid. The basis of this report for action/intervention is based on the admission to edit warring above made by User:Moxy. Therefore, the conventional links to the diffs to the warring are not included though they may be verified directly from the edit history pages. I can provide all of the diffs or edit ref#s if requested to do this by the reviewing Administrator. These are the diffs for the edit warring on Vladimir Putin:

(cur | prev) 20:58, 7 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (194,063 bytes) (-1,432)‎ . . (revert copy and paste job - Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. - this is not hard to understand) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:52, 7 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (195,495 bytes) (+1,432)‎ . . (→‎Intervention in Crimean Peninsula: Add recent report in NYTimes of Putin attempt at de-escalation after Crimea military build-up. Add cite and url.) (undo)


Add again on Vladimir Putin on 12 May:

(cur | prev) 16:32, 12 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (192,677 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (→‎Intervention in Crimean Peninsula: restore tag removed without fixing the quote farm.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 15:59, 10 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (192,585 bytes) (-3,670)‎ . . (→‎Intervention in Crimean Peninsula: Repair Quotefarm problem template and restore narrative format for readability. Previous version was not in narrative format.) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixRosch (talkcontribs)


These are the diffs for edit warring by User:Moxy on Ukraine page:

(cur | prev) 20:44, 1 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (247,691 bytes) (-625)‎ . . (WP:NOTHERE - editor has been told to join the conversations - but yet still edits this copy and paste job !!) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

(cur | prev) 20:27, 1 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,316 bytes) (+625)‎ . . (→‎Russian intervention in Ukraine: Adding update and cite of status of 2014 International Geneva Pact. The International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the direction and progress of events in the region.) (undo) [automatically accepted]


These are the diffs for edit warring by User:Moxy on Russia page:

(cur | prev) 20:47, 1 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (201,538 bytes) (-1,523)‎ . . (revert copy and paste job again.. Did you even read your tlak page messages?) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:35, 1 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,061 bytes) (+1,523)‎ . . (→‎Annexation of Crimea and 2014 Geneva Pact: Agreement with PhilKn on condensed version, and the International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the progress of events in the region. Add cite.) (undo)


In the process of preparing this report, User:Moxy has continued edit warring on yet another Page, a fourth wikipage, for Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet in opposition to the cited book by Harold Bloom and in opposition to my short edit there;

(cur | prev) 07:52, 18 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,064 bytes) (-493)‎ . . (revert info that is in the article already - readers knows this by this point and the section is about "Criticism and interpretation" not origins of set work) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 15:28, 17 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,557 bytes) (+493)‎ . . (→‎Critical history: Adding critics Arthur Brooke in 1562 and John Swan in 1635 as predating Pepys. Previous version did not include them. Include citations.) (undo)


The edit warring by User:Moxy must be halted and the personal attacks must be retracted. User:Moxy has expressed anxiety about becoming an administrator on Wikipedia which may be related to his/her use of edit warring on this user's contributions on the wikipages listed above. Wikipedia was never taken a position defending uses of edit warring. It would take about one full day for me to correct and repair the repeated damage done to my fully cited edits by User:Moxy if his/her edit warring activities could be curtailed or refrained from editing for 24 hours. Edit warring needs to be stopped on Wikipedia, and the use of edit warring by User:Moxy to make personal attacks against other editors is a poor example to other users of Wikipedia. FelixRosch (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Admins are less likely to look into this without proper diffs --NeilN talk to me 17:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. This was included in the report above. FelixRosch (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
No, those are not diff's - you simply copy/pasted the page history the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Use {{diff}} or {{diff2}}. Also provide diffs for claims of personal attacks. ~ Kirin13 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation What we appear to have are single edits/reversions across multiple articles across multiple weeks. The examples above are not even on the same article. The filer should please review WP:3RR and WP:EW so as to understand what they are and how they apply. It is also recommended that they review WP:BRD as a means to obtain consensus for edits. Also, I see no personal attacks - although this board is not the right place for them, as that's an WP:ANI issue the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:TMDrew (Result: Declined for now)[edit]

Page
Academic bias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC) to 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    1. 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 609255694 by Nomoskedasticity: Still waiting on someone to discuss these edits on the talk page. Please don't revert an edit if you can't actually come up with any reasons it shouldn't be made. (TW)"
    2. 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC) "restore edits in between"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor has continually refused to obey the consensus view on the talk page, and instead that her version of the article be the official one, regardless of the opinions of other editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMDrew (talkcontribs) 21:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. I don't see any clear consensus, either on the article talk page or at WP:RSN. Perhaps a little bit more consensus against TMDrew's version at RSN toward the end of the discussion. That said, this is a VERY slow burning battle, and I'm not prepared to take any administrative action at this point. However, if the battling in the article continues, sanctions may be warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What TMDrew isn't saying is that these edits are unrelated to any consensus that may or may not be developing with regard to the sources discussed at RSN. In fact, as you can see in my edit summary, I am begging other users to discuss these edits on the talk page. But instead, people are reverting without any explanation of what's wrong with the edits, making discussion impossible! No one has actually expressed any problem with these edits; it seems like TMDrew is just trying to get me blocked because of my previous disagreement with him and because he believes I am a "skeptic."Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Is that a bad thing to be accused of? What exactly does he mean? Religious skeptic? Christian skeptic? General skeptic?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Brandeks reported by User:TriiipleThreat (Result: Warned)[