Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive122

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Hyquest reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: 31h to the IP)[edit]

Page: General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Tucson Theological Seminary
User being reported: Hyquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), also appears to be editing as or in conjunction with 174.18.20.181, and User:Azggardner


Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]


Per the article's history this editor admits to warring. In addition to the warring, the editor seems to admit to making COI edits (claiming they are "his/her" pages). The same editor has also disruptively edited the Tucson Theological Seminary article which is being discussed for deletion as evidenced by that article's history. The IP user also blanked this article's talk page.

I would also note that I think the General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc. should again be reverted (including for copyright), but I hesistate to do so so that I do not run afoul of WP:3RR myself. Another editor has already done this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Novaseminary (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit seems to indicate that 174.18.20.181 and User:Azggardner are the same person, and strongly suggests that all three are the same person. Novaseminary (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the anon IP (now blocked through other process) is the same as User:Azggardner, but not the same person (though editing in conjunction with) Hyquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as discussed on User talk:174.18.20.181. Novaseminary (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Result - 74.18.20.181 has been blocked 31 hours by Materialscientist. This IP is the same person as Azzgardner. A new user, Hyquest, has joined in discussions. Novaseminary is helping to sort it out, and has explained our policies. Blocks for the new editors will follow if the message is not received. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bmpowell reported by User:SchoolcraftT (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Mountain Parkway Byway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bmpowell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Mountain Parkway Byway


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bmpowell#3RR_-_Mountain_Parkway_Byway

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mountain_Parkway_Byway


Comments:
He dosen't accept what I tell him is correct and that the information needed to be changed. He used inaccurate informtion and clams that he is right.
Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by another admin. NJA (t/c) 15:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ferocious osmosis reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 h for both)[edit]

Page: Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Ferocious osmosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [6]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

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

  • Blocked both editors, 24 hours.  Sandstein  20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Raj2004 reported by User:Goethean (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Raj2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [12]


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

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

Comments:

  • Comment - As an outside observer who watched this from the beginning, I feel this should immediately be closed with no action. Reporting editor never notified the other editor of the report to this page; a simple content dispute. Editors appear to be working on the article in dispute, with no further reports filed since this one... Doc9871 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. The last revert by Raj2004 was more than 24 hours ago, and the participants are discussing things. Anyone continuing to revert should be aware that if they don't get consensus on Talk, blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:89.168.224.187 reported by Fred the Oyster (Result: No action)[edit]

1996 Manchester bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 89.168.224.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 00:16, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340622818 by Fred the Oyster (talk)Facts are facts")
  2. 00:24, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340626237 by Malleus Fatuorum (talk)The source is utter crap")
  3. 00:27, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340626744 by Fred the Oyster (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - No action. The IP was indeed being stubborn, but they only reverted three times, and they have not edited in more than 24 hours. Several others have edited the article since, trying to improve the phrasing of the disputed passage, so the issue appears moot. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Automyte reported by User:LTSally and by User:Willdow (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: The Watchtower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: History of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Automyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [19]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

User is targeting two articles, repeatedly adding POV diatribe against The Watchtower magazine at The Watchtower article; repeatedly adding improper WP:EL at History of Jehovah's Witnesses. There have been multiple reverts of user's work from several editors and several pointed comments on user's user page, all without effect. The user has not discussed any edits. LTSally (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Loonymonkey reported by User:Heqwm2 (Result: Heqwm2 blocked indef)[edit]

Page: Political censorship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Loonymonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I added edits to this article, which other editors repeatedly deleted without discussing on the talk page. What little response there has been, has been nonsense that has been repeated despite my refuting it. Heqwm2 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of pointy disruption that has gotten the reporting editor blocked repeatedly. Heqwm2 has just come off of a one week block for edit-warring and immediately launched into warring over the same edits on the same articles. I would also add that his personal attacks and comments are extremely disruptive and have the effect of chasing other editors away from discussion. These kind of comments [26] [27] [28] (and these are just a few of many, many examples) should be enough to block this editor again, regardless of their edit-warring. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop posting false information. I was not blocked for edit warring. I was blocked by an admin who first claimed that he was blocking me for vandalism, and then when I challenged him, switched to claiming that he had blocked me for edit warring, a claim he refuses to defend. You are making a personal attack to distract from the issue. Furthermore, I have given you chance after chance to discuss my edits, which you have refused to take, instead wasting my time with wildly disrespectful responses. You are the one not attempting to reach consensus. You are the one edit warring. And it is not the same edit. I have tried, over and over, to modify my edits to address the basis on which you claim to object, and each time I am rudely shot down.

My most recent attempt to edit the article: have you made any effort to discuss it? No, you have not. Yet you insist that you are not edit warring.

When I explain why your argument on the talk page is invalid, and you respond by simply repeating your argument without any acknowledgement that I have a counter argument, that is completely unacceptable. It says to me that you have absolutely no respect for me or the consensus-building process that editors are supposed to participate in. You and other editors are repeatedly insulting me and trying to threaten me into not editing, and then claiming that I am "extremely disruptive and have the effect of chasing other editors away". What hypocrisy.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Fastily has indefinitely blocked Heqwm2 for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BotfieldCatflap reported by Woogee (Result: Warned)[edit]

BotfieldCatflap (talk · contribs) repeatedly edit wars on the Tiktaalik page, reverting to his preferred version. I usse him a 3RR warning, but he did not reply, and continues to edit war. Has yet to use a Talk page. Woogee (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Warned. BotfieldCatflap has not edited for two days. If he starts again with the same pattern, he may be blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:AeronPeryton reported by User:JBsupreme (Result: 24H Block )[edit]

Page: List of Bemani musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: AeronPeryton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Examples:

1st revert 1 - 06:15, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 14:15, 30 January 2010)
2nd revert 2 - 12:24, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 20:24, 30 January 2010)
3rd revert 3 - 22:16, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 06:16, 31 January 2010)
4th revert 4 - 22:48, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 06:48, 31 January 2010)
5th revert 5 - 23:49, 30 January 2010 (According to Wikipedia servers, this edit occured at 07:49, 31 January 2010)

I do not know if I'm doing this right, so I apologize in advance for mistakes here (feel free to correct them). The editor in question, AeronPeryton (talk · contribs) has been constantly reverting edits to the List of Bemani musicians article. The edits in question involve removing back links to deleted/non-existent articles. I have had a run in with this editor recently regarding the removal of backlinks to a different page, but provided leeway given that it was a userfied article. [29] For the record, I still do not believe that deleted backlinks should exist on userfied pages either, but decided to just let it slide. For mainspace articles on the other hand it is common practice to perform these type of cleanup functions. JBsupreme (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This editor has been warned now a couple times on his talk page and was fully aware of the 3RR (or 4RR, really) violation. Since then a fifth revert has been made. [30] JBsupreme (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just seconding report. Warned user here [31]. Reminded user they're at 4rr here [32]. User responded insisting they would continue here [33]. User then reverted again here [34] (this revert is I think the fifth revert already mentioned by the orignal complainant JBsupreme.)Bali ultimate (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The guideline WP:REDLINK exhaustively explains the purpose of red links in the Wikipedia project. I do my best to keep my edits focused on advancing the Wikipedia project. After spending almost a week watching a mass deletion of biographies that are not or poorly sourced (instead of making an effort to work on them) mostly fronted by JBSupreme and Bali ultimate, I noticed that in addition to the subversive strategy of deleting little bits of an article at a time then asking for deletion because there's 'nothing but a sentence and it's not sourced!' both of them have taken to removing red links from other articles that lead to their deletions on the ground that it's "common practice".

I have opened communication with both of these editors and have been met with either no response at all or the deletion of my comments of the matter [35][36]. Or in this case, a very self-confident promise of being blocked for keeping with fundamental community beliefs. I don't know what time zone JBSupreme lives in but I corrected the timestamps for the edits he feels are in contest. In fact, only the final three are involved in his dispute, and that must be where Bali's claim of a third editor comes in. There's a lot of mis-information in their reports. As for my excuse for exhibiting 3rr behaviour, again, I do not believe that their edits are in keeping with good faith or even good ideas. It feels as though they simply want to delete and bury everything for good. Not even giving a second's thought to whether or not the person is notable due to disinterest and their focusing on the next AfD. Reading their own user pages is depressing as well, you get a terrible sense of anti-social and anti-cooperative personalities from them. Bali makes a deadpan insult to Jimmy Wales for making an intelligent (and too often factual) statement and JBSupreme forces everyone who views his talk page to load a full high-res image of ducks that can't even be completely seen on most screen resolutions, to list an example for each. Both of these editors act drunk with power and are going not going to work with anyone who is in their way, whether they're right or wrong.  æronphonehome  01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate has just made his own third reversion to the article in question, insisting that I do what I've been doing this whole time.  æronphonehome  01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for citing WP:REDLINK. I was looking for that guideline earlier and didn't think to search for it under the obvious. It clearly states: Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right) or every chapter in a book; nor should they have red links to deleted articles. (emphasis mine) I have been removing red links to precisely those types of articles, have tried to discuss it with you only to be met with hostility, and now here we are with you overstepping the bounds of 3RR. JBsupreme (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
@ Aeron - do you live somewhere where UTC does not apply? If so, in consideration for the rest of us, please accept the timestamps as they are.   pablohablo. 01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ÷seresin 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kbrose reported by Fnagaton (Result: Both warned)[edit]

JEDEC memory standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kbrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 06:19, 29 January 2010
  2. 16:49, 29 January 2010 Note the unhelpful comment about "rvv".
  3. 00:04, 30 January 2010


  • Diff of warning: here
  • The user also left this untrue insulting message on my talk page [37]. I have a feeling the user will not stop their behaviour.

Fnagaton 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Both warned. This report only lists three reverts, and it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the rule. Nonetheless, there seems to be an edit war going on. Both parties are urged to seek wider consensus. This article seems to be just one chapter in the Binary prefix war. Anyone trying to figure out how this article fits into that saga will not get much enlightenment from the Talk page. One would expect that both sides would take the trouble to better explain their positions on Talk, so that people new to the dispute could get oriented. If reverting continues with no actual consensus, blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoising reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: David Beckham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Hoising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 07:07, 24 January 2010 UTC


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:32, 30 January 2010 UTC

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
Comments:

I happened across this edit war fairly late. I reverted User:Hoising's changes leaving an appropriate edit summary, indicating he needed to discuss the issue and instructing him not to continue edit warring.[38] The next time I saw the page, Hoising had breached 3RR but hadn't been warned, so I left warnings for both involved editors.[39][40] Hoising read the warning, deleted it and then made his latest revert. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Warned. Hoising's desire to force the sizes of images looks to be a one-man war against the existing standards of the football project. His stream of reverts on the image sizes has not continued on 31 January, so perhaps he got the message. If he resumes his reverts against the apparent project standards, file a new report and mention this one. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ob4cl reported by User:TheJazzDalek (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Template:Killah Priest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ob4cl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:43, 29 January 2010

Comments:
I linked to consensus regarding my edit in my edit summaries; Ob4cl wouldn't even enter into a dialog via edit summary. Very carefully made fourth revert 1 hour and 1 minute after his first. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you check his contributions, you'll find he's now going around reverting many of my edits on various articles and templates, apparently out of spite. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - 48 hours. Editor has has made about twenty reverts on 31 January, mostly of changes by TheJazzDalek. Hardly ever uses edit summaries, and never replies to comments left on his user talk. His systematic undoing of changes by TheJazzDalek on a variety of articles looks like WP:Stalking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

62.43.17*.* reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Ethnic flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 62.43.177.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 62.43.178.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

(after multiple earlier reverts, almost daily since 23 Jan:)

  1. 16:52 28 Jan
  2. 11:32 29 Jan
  3. 17:41 29 Jan
  4. 21:43 29 Jan
  5. 23:54 29 Jan
  6. 16:59 30 Jan (new IP 62.43.178.208 from same range as earlier 62.43.177.92)
  • Prior warning (before latest rv): [43]; also edit summary [44]

Comments:

User ignores ongoing talkpage discussion, never uses edit summaries or reacts to them; this was his only ever attempt at communication, apparently in response to [45]. IP might be identical with earlier Indymediacentral (talk · contribs), who was revert-warring in a similarly stubborn fashion. Fut.Perf. 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Semiprotected. The problem is not due solely to the IP editors, but the article is subject to constant reverting, and changes are hardly ever discussed on Talk. The lack of criteria for 'what is an ethnic flag' seems to add to the tumult here. Editors might consider an AfD. Full protection may be the next step if editors don't favor an AfD and if semi doesn't reduce the contention. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DuKu reported by User:Finell (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Euclid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: DuKu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

DuKu is editing warring over Euclid, a long stable article, against consensus (2 editors other than me have also reverted him) and is mis-characterizing one source to contend that Euclid is of "oriental origin". I added the external link that DuKu wanted to add, but with a correct citation and without the editor's mis-description of the link as being about Euclid's "oriental origin", in the References section,[51] but that did not satisfy DuKu.

Before DuKu's most recent edits and reverts, he added a link to a self-published paper by someone who is not a reliable source on the topic and who promotes a WP:FRINGE POV on mathematics history[52], which was discussed and settled a long time ago on the article's talk page (Talk:Euclid#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry and subsequent sections). Before that, he linked a blurb for a pamphlet on Amazon by the same fringe author.[53]

The issues were discussed with DuKu on the article's talk page (at the end of the Talk:Euclid#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry section and Talk:Euclid#Consensus and Opinion on adding link to Perseus and beyond)—DuKu raised the issue, after he was reverted, but then went ahead with no consensus—and also at User talk:Finell#EUCLID 3.

DuKu accused another experienced editor of vandalism for reverting DuKu's edits,[54][55] and has been uncivil and tendentious in the talk page discussions referenced above.

DuKu is a new user, who became very active very quickly, and is clearly not fluent in English. Therefore, I am not asking for a block. Rather, some firm guidance by an administrator on all of these issues may be sufficient; comments by other experienced editors do not seem to make much impression on DuKu. Thank you.—Finell 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action.—Finell 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:70.29.59.12 reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Kick-Ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.29.59.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:
User:70.29.59.12 keeps adding highly POV material sourced to apparently their own blog, claiming that Marvel Comics stole their idea. At least three editors have left notes about this at the user talk page, but the reversions continue with abusive language in the edit summaries. The same pattern is visible at Kick-Ass (film). This was originally reported at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Self Promotion on for Kick-Ass comic book and film, which is where I came across the problem. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Has now apparently started up as newly created account User:Rightous. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Reversion continues [63], [64] and [65] using new account and old IP address. The material being inserted is as one editor noted "unsourced and potentially legally problematic accusation of infringement by Marvel" [66] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur in the description by Jezhotwells. This appears to be a matter of one editor (though it appears they are now using a newly created account in addition to the IP) with a personal axe to grind reverting several established accounts and anonymous editors. The accusations this editor is making are sourced only to their personal website and essentially accuse Marvel of stealing the editor's idea, which could expose Wikipedia to legal liability. --MikeJ9919 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The most recent reversions are [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours (original IP) Kuru (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kavs8 reported by Per aspera ad Astra (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Dublin Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kavs8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [73]

  • 1st revert: [74]
  • 2nd revert: [75]
  • 3rd revert: [76]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:Kavs8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77] [78] [79]

Comments:

There is a huge edit war ongoing over the question whether to list Thomson Airways flights out of several Irish airports (especially Dublin), which is fought on a number of European airports. These flights cannot be booked directly and are therefore not notable per WP:NOTTRAVEL Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC) -->

This user (Kavs8) has been hostile in the past as well. This time around, his only justification is that "I flew it so it must exist". And, of course, comments like:
  • "i will continue to edit-war if continue's to be distructive in editing"
  • "if you continue to STOP edit-waring and re insert all destinations served by Thomson charter i will stop edit-waring but under that condition." Jasepl (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - Warned. No recent edits. If Kavs8 resumes in the same style, open a new report since a block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mark Shaw reported by IP 96.244.150.95 (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Little Green Footballs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mark Shaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [80]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A, he made his fourth revert before I got a chance to warn him. (Update: Notified)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Comments: I am well aware that I am at 3 reverts, however, I feel I made adequate attempts at communication and do not deserve to be reprimanded. He simply chose to edit war. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Stating "you start the discussion, then" is hardly a mature attitude to take, especially when the pattern of WP:BRD is not being followed. You have just as much obligation to use the talk page as the other editor does. In fact, a little more, because you're the one looking to change things. Discussion is ongoing on talk page, it appears. Achieve consensus, it takes two to edit-war. tedder (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Check the timestamps: I am at 3R, not 4. Also, I note that 95 has begun using the article's discussion page, so perhaps this can be resolved without too much difficulty. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Stale. Neither party was justified in making so many reverts, and if they continue in the same vein, blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:93.142.159.24 reported by User:Brandmeister (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Greco-Persian Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 93.142.159.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

The words "Greek defensive victory" were changed to just "Greek victory", but reverts continue against consensus. This is mot likely Xashaiar (talk · contribs), socking unlogged, but could be another Iranian sock.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:

User:Bovineboy2008 reported by User:Gqwu (Result: 24h to submitter)[edit]

Page: List of Wii games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [94]

  • 1st revert: [95]
  • 2nd revert: [96]
  • 3rd revert: [97]
  • 4th revert:


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notified

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98] Discussion on user's talk page: [99]

Comments: Bovineboy2008 claims to have consensus to change the format of the table by deleting columns of information (release dates) I find useful. I have been updating the page with these dates for 2 years, and strongly object to removing any useful information. The member claims that to have consensus from a 2 month discussion on the article talk page, but I was unable to participate because I did not edit the page for 3 months. The format has been in place for 4+ years, and I feel there needs to be much more discussion over a longer period of time to warrant such a drastic change. Gqwu (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While I may have reverted 3 times, I don't feel I was edit warring. The user was being bold in reverting a change that was reached through discussion, s/he was reverted but refused to discuss. I wish the editor could have been in the original discussion, and can certainly open the conversation back up. But just posting that they "absolutely reject all attempts" ([100], [101]) to change seems that the editor did not seem to be interested in finding a consensus, but having things their way. I would say that my behavior wasn't the best either, but I am open to discuss and am not going to attempt to revert again. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - 24 hours to submitter, who is over 3RR. I offered him the chance to self-revert, but he continued to edit without making a response. The other participant, Bovineboy2008, has expressed his willingness to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Steel2009 edit warring reported by User:RasputinAXP (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Rowan University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Steel2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [102]


Diff of edit warring warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "Talk" happened in reversion comments. See diffs. User does not appear willing to discuss. Edit: User has now decided after being warned of AN/E to bring it to the Talk page.

Comments: Long time no see, former comrades-in-arms. While I'm no longer an admin, or even editing that frequently, I have taken over some editing duties on pages that need frequent attention, like that of my alma mater. The edit warring over the murder of Donnie Farrell is something I'd like to otherwise avoid, but a previously uninvolved editor has decided to remove all references to the incident. Since this began another previously uninvolved editor has stepped in to revert my previous reversions; since as yet he's not edit warring (and I'm cognizant of avoiding violating WP:3RR) I am not seeking to involve him as of yet.

  • 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. No clear violation of WP:3RR. There is a small edit war, which as of now isn't too serious and therefore editors strongly advised to read over and follow the guidance at WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 11:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:BobStinkyButt reported by User:NJA (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: BobStinkyButt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [108]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Various warns, all removed [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:

Result - Blocked indef by User:Edgar181. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:70.17.125.165 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.17.125.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [117]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk currently, but there is past consensus for the Arabic coming first and I attempted to get the IP to go to the talk page with his or her concerns ([125])

Comments:
The IP is continually changing the order of the languages despite a long-standing consensus to place the Arabic first. Three different users have reverted the IP, the IP just continues to revert. nableezy - 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Miss-jessie-gal reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 15h)[edit]

Bellbridge, Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miss-jessie-gal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 00:17, 23 January 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 338905757 by Mattinbgn (talk)")
  2. 06:23, 30 January 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 339451574 by Mattinbgn (talk)")
  3. 11:05, 1 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 340861225 by Bidgee (talk)")
  4. 10:19, 2 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341261334 by Bidgee (talk) THIS IS BACKED UP EVIDENCE GATHERED FROM LOCALS")
  • Diff of warning: here

Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 15 hours NJA (t/c) 11:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • User is back at edit warring again!
  1. 06:17, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341451559 by Bidgee (talk)")

Bidgee (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • And again!
  1. 09:56, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341636516 by Mattinbgn (talk)")

Bidgee (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Yet again, clearly a disruptive account.
  1. 10:07, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341655873 by Mattinbgn (talk)")

Bidgee (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:76.235.200.246 reported by User:SeanNovack (Result: 31h)[edit]


Previous version reverted to: [126]

This user seems to be pushing an agenda. While I admit I am a conservative, the facts I have presented are just that, facts, according to a polling source that is generally favorable to the political Left.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131] Cannot warn on 76.235.200.246 page because he doesn't have one

User has been Warned and has made two reverts since the warning. Arzel (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Comments:

[132] Rapier1 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Should block and block quickly. 3RR has been breached 3 fold--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jojhutton, I would like you to take the WP:3RR warning off my Talk Page. Thank You. ThinkEnemies (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In order to be fair, you did revert 3 times on the same page, and that is edit warring. Sorry, edit warring is edit warring. The only reason that you weren't reported is because you didn't revert the 4th time.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll accept any punishment that any administrator sees fit to meet out, but I would like it noted for the record that I was also adding information to the talk page and explaining that the reversions were being done because those edits that were being made were factually incorrect, as is proven upon reading the source material. Rather than revert a 4th time I brought the issue here. Rapier1 (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In retrospect, we should revert the ip as many times as it takes, since he is clearly removing the section against consensus. But to keep all of our noses clean, lets just wait for the block and then revert one last time.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, upon reflection, looking at the history there one of those edits was simply a cleanup of the previous revert with no other edits in between, so I believe that was only 2 reverts on my part (someone may want to double-check that, I'm getting confused with all the vandalism here). Rapier1 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this IP is a sock or is totally unrelated, but this block got an NPA mention here.  7  07:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Paulnrswain reported by User:Doktorbuk (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported: