Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive134

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:190.140.235.166 reported by User:TheFarix (Result: s-protected)[edit]

Page: List of Bakugan Battle Brawlers: Gundalian Invaders episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 190.140.235.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Comments:
This IP editor keeps adding unsourced information about an episode title and airdate despite the fact that the sources do not support either bits of information. I've warned the editor earlier when I noticed the problem.[10] However, the editor continues to add the information without any further comments.

Earlier diffs where the IP adds in the same information over a period of 8 days.[11][12][13][14]Farix (t | c) 01:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor has switched to a different IP, 190.140.234.119 (talk), and is continuing to edit war.[15][16]Farix (t | c) 12:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • IP has now been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism on other related articles. —Farix (t | c) 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:2knowledgeable reported by User:Andrensath (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Ohalo College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 2knowledgeable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [17]

  1. 05:16, 20 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369074184 by Shuki (talk) Reasoning doesn't wash")
  2. 05:24, 21 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369214083 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) vandalism; war editing")
  3. 05:25, 21 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369214301 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) vandalism; war editing")
  4. 08:09, 21 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369311978 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) reverting the revision; editor is close to breaking the three-revert rule")
  5. 08:33, 21 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369321251 by Andrensath (talk) please discuss this like a grow up. your behavior is inaprorpiate")
  6. 9:50, 21 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 369323544 by Andrensath (talk)enough already. look at the talk page")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

User has also been making personal attacks, and misdeploying warning templates on the talk pages of Shuki, Nomoskedasticity, and myself. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a classical case of the pot calling the kettle black. The editor keeps blanking the section without discussion and seems unwilling / unable to discuss it. I have turned to Wikipedia Mediation Cabal [20]. The Editor will receive full cooperation if s/he is willing to communicate and compromise2knowledgeable (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There's only one editor who has violated 3RR on that page, with repeated additions of unsourced material; nor have the editors insisting on sources failed to contribute to the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not true: I keep asking the editor to discuss this. More spedifically - the editor claims that I need to document sources, and I keep asking what exactly needs documentation [21] and the editor fails to answer. Again, if s/he tells me what s/he needs I'll try to help. But the editor seems unable to communicate or mediate.2knowledgeable (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


I also suspect that the very recent additions to the talk page were performed in support of this report, and in order to avoid being reported for war-editing in the first place (see my own warnings to both editors which were conviniently deleted... [22][23])2knowledgeable (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 24 hours - you seem to not understand that edit warring to your preferred version is not acceptable. Please see WP:BRD. You boldly added your section. It was reverted. You readded it six more times. Warning those with whom you disagree about edit warring or opening a mediation request does not make that conduct acceptable. Rather, it shows that you understand and are disregarding the policy. You need to be willing to allow the wrong version of the article to be there temporarily while you discuss the issue, particular when erring on the side of not saying anything (as opposed to potentially saying something incorrect). --B (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hkwon reported by User:Giftiger wunsch (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

Page: Talk:Park Geun-hye (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: hkwon (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: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29] (note this is not on the article talk page, but I believe it is still acceptable.)

Comments:

  • The user brought this to wikiquette reports seeking feedback, and reverted me twice when I didn't support his view. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I made a compromise by collapsing irrelevant material on the talk page rather than simply removing it, which I believe is better in terms of wikipedia policy; a block may not be necessary if the user leaves this change alone; I accept that since the comments were irrelevant but not harmful I probably should have done this to begin with. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I reported User:Sennen goroshi's behavior of deleting Rinkaym's comments on a talk page to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts at 11:56, June 21. While the page was waiting for a dispute resolution by an administrator, User:Giftiger_wunsch deleted my comments and Rinkaym's comments twice, and I reverted those deletions to preserve the page for a neutral decision, urging User:Giftiger_wunsch not to delete others' comments any more. Hkwon (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I still don't believe the comments are irrelevant, but don't have any problems with collapsing them as long as no one removes others' comments from a talk page without a good reason. Hkwon (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think a quick look at the recent edit history of Hkwon will show someone pushing the 3RR as far as possible and generally being disruptive with their edits and their dealings with other editors. Comments such as Are you out of your medication or something? [[30]] and why don't you make those warnings when you become a real administrator? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giftiger_wunsch&diff=prev&oldid=369349325 while not relevant to this case, go someway to showing the lack of respect this user is showing for wikipedia and fellow editors. Perhaps a short block from editing, will help this user understand that 3RR is not a right, 3RR cannot be broken just because you think you are right and that some general respect and civility for other users is a really good thing. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the user has mainly been relatively civil, I am just concerned that his comment regarding making warnings when I'm not an administrator is demonstrating that he doesn't properly understand policy; in any case, only the 3RR violation is relevant here, and since the user seems to have stopped reverting the article, a block may not be necessary. I'll leave that to the discretion of the reviewing admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 12 hours --B (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Apalaria reported by Ragib (talk) (Result: blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Jana Gana Mana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Apalaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 14:39, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  2. 14:54, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  3. 15:20, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  4. 15:20, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  5. 15:29, 21 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")

--

Older edits of similar nature from June 15

  1. 12:34, 14 June 2010 diff (via his IP)
  1. 08:59, 15 June 2010 diff
  1. 09:47, 15 June 2010 diff


  • Diff of warning: here

Ragib (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Comments:

Apalaria (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts Hindi language script for the Bengali language song Jana Gana Mana (written in Bengali language and Bengali script). Despite repeated requests to stop in his talk page and the article talk page, he has not refrained from reverting to his preferred version. He has made similar edits on June 15 (though stopped short of 3RR then) and also via his IP Special:Contributions/71.120.115.92.

While I have reverted his edits today, I guarantee that *I am NOT* going to revert it any more today. I am very much open to discussing the issue in the article talk page and hope that the dispute will be resolved that way. --Ragib (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Accepting Ragib's assurances that he will not be editing the article again today, and will continue to discuss on talk.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I pledge once again here that I will not edit the article further today and hope to resolve this in the article talk page via consensus. Regards. --Ragib (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 07:45 19 June 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:11 21 June 2010

Comments:

Screwball23 was blocked four days earlier for the same revert, and made a further revert two days ago. Several users have attempted to explain to Screwball23 on the article talk page why the text he keeps adding is not acceptable, but to no avail. They seem intent on adding this information even when it has been reverted by several different editors. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 31 hours - second time in less than a week. --B (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme reported by Jeff G. ツ (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 20:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:05, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "a differing viewpoint")
  2. 17:12, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368828150 by MickMacNee (talk) uhhhh WP:OWN much? petitions can have countering viewpoints and this page needs to be n")
  3. 17:17, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 368829439 by MickMacNee (talk) I don't need consensus to state my opinion in Wikipedia namespace")

—  — Jeff G. ツ 20:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale The last edit to the page was on June 18. 3RR blocks are to prevent disruption, not for punishment. If the user has not edited this page (nor any other) since June 18, there is no disruption to prevent. --B (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:98.26.5.166 reported by User:DCGeist (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Joseph McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.26.5.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

  • 1st diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]
  • 2nd diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

The IP's purported source appears to be bogus. I also left a caution about appropriate sourcing on the IP's Talk page, customized by hand to address this particular situation: [39]DCGeist (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakrtalk / 08:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Tomtolkien reported by User:Almost-instinct (Result: s-protected)[edit]

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

Tomtolkien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

95.149.233.129 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

88.110.140.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

88.110.190.140 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44] [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Charlesdrakew#York

almost-instinct 10:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PS User:Tomtolkien in this diff takes exception to my belief that these IPs and he are one and the same almost-instinct 10:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do take exception - almost-instinct 's allegation is without evidence or foundation and should be removed. Unless directed otherwise I will remove all instances of the false allegation with 10 hours unless others have acceptable reasons or there is consensus against. Furthermore, I think it is likely based on the edit pattern of the York pages and other pages involved with the Education section, that it is other users involved in an edit war and that this editor's allegation is directed to put up smoke. The lack of discussion, seeking of consensus and AGF on the part of the other editors would appear to bear this out. Tomtolkien (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Semi-protected for a week as obviously we lack the technical capability to enforce a block against an IP user who hops IPs. The "accusation" should most certainly not be removed from this page (though it will be archived in a week and we can collapse it after a day or two). Whether it is removed from the talk page itself is a decision for y'all to make, though I would suggest hiding the section (you can use {{hat}} and {{hab}}) and starting over if there is heartburn about it. If the reporting party wishes to pursue a checkuser request, you are welcome to do so at WP:RFCU. Although I hear a faint quacking off in the distance, there is certainly nothing that I am going to issue a block on without a checkuser, nor do I see any real cause for one. Even if you were to assume that the IPs and Tomtolkien are the same user, what policy would they have violated? --B (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This solution seems to be efficient and elegant. Thank you almost-instinct 16:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Riitoken reported by User:Rick Block (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Bayes' theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Riitoken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [46]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:
The last three reverts are within the past 24 hours.

Rick Block (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Editor is warned they may be blocked if they continue to restore their diagram at Bayes' theorem without getting consensus on the Talk page. The same person has been making lots of undos at Risk (game). EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

wiki inclusion[edit]

I'm not sure where to send this complain too because it was impossible to find anything via wiki help.

My name is David Annarelli, creator, copyright holder, and composer for the band Discordian Society. The band has existed for a decade now, has 1 EP and 2 Full Length albums out, and has fans all over the world. I have posted this band under the heading Discordian Society several times as 1 of the definitions of said group. I continue to find it removed as if it were not a fact. Since the group itself is based on stuff that is essentially made up as they go along, our inclusion should be more than warranted.

Please help me resolve this most annoying issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.251.168 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Power-nap[edit]

Power nap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Original Power-Nap article was improperly deleted and a severely edited version was merged into "Nap" -- I restored and reinstated the original version, but now someone is trying to delete it again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.164.197 (talkcontribs)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined It wasn't "improperly" merged, it was redirected as an editorial decision. When you tried to fork the article into an improperly named article, a bot incorrectly believed it to be vandalism. Whatever this is, it isn't edit warring. The article now exists at power nap and nobody is going to redirect it without consensus. There is nothing to resolve here. --B (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:LrdSothe reported by Richard Myers (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Three editors have reverted changes made by LrdSothe. LrdSothe appears to have violated the 3 revert rule by edit warring over the article Labor unions in the United States. While i believe we all agree that the article could use improvement, edits by LrdSothe have made the article worse, in my opinion. Richard Myers (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I provided notification of this report to LrdSothe's TALK page. LrdSothe removed the notification. Richard Myers (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 48 hours. Good grief. --B (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Page: Jack the Ripper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DrKiernan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1, 2, with links to prior reverts within 24 hrs.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59], and on usertalk page: [60]

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Although both parties should be reminded that 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement, there is obviously no disruption to be prevented by blocking anyone especially since DrKiernan has self-reverted the fourth edit in question. --B (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
That's fine with me; apparently getting reported was enough to show him the error of his ways. He apparently asked someone else to revert for him. Sigh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Talk about opening a proverbial "can of worms". I do so love the "political" side of WP! Color me wrong... Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Anne Feinstein reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Upstate New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anne Feinstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [61]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments:


This user has edit warred on several articles since their first edit 04-27-2010. They have edited no talk pages and have not responded to any messages on their talk page. Tiderolls 02:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NJA (t/c) 08:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I also warned the user about a possible longer block for repeated blanking of pages. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Maashatra11 and User:109.67.1.252 reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Chips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maashatra11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 109.67.1.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [70]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75] Block history, with past blocks for edit warring, show a clear understand of the rules regarding edit warring [76]

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

Comments:

OK, this is where it gets complicated. First and final revert were made using an IP - an IP with a grand total of 17 edits. Included within those 17 edits are 4 edits on articles that have also been edited by the main acct. The last edit by the IP and the main acct used the same edit summary when reverting (although RVV is pretty common) other shared edit summaries include "prod" The times when the accts are active are rather revealing, as soon as I warned the main acct for edit warring, the IP stepped in and reverted. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Since making this report, there has been one more revert.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but considering that your desire was to remove my text from that particular article - I consider that to be a revert. Even if I am wrong in stating that it was a revert (which I don't think I am) it still leaves you with 4 reverts within a 24 hour period, and sock puppetry. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
My desire was to merge your text into the appropriate destination, and not, as you claim it to be, "to remove your text from that particular article". You can re-add that text to Chips if you wish. Note also that I self-reverted my fourth revert and left all your original text intact. I acknowledge that User:109.67.1.252 is myself, I don't know if it accounts as sockpuppetry since I forgot to log-in after logging out (I only noticed I wasn't logged-in in retrospect). Best regards, Maashatra11 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You didn't notice that you were editing with an IP? I see. I guess this message that you deleted [[79]] and this threat to report you for sock puppetry[[80]] that you also deleted did not make it clear enough. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The merge was a clear revert, you could have copied the information to the initial article , but you chose to remove it from the initial article. That is a revert. Just as clear as it being a revert, is your reason for doing so, you wanted to ensure that there was no exclusive content on the article that you were trying to get deleted. It was a revert, it was gaming wikipedia, it was you editing under an IP and an account in order to get around 3RR and it was you self-reverting after a 3RR report was made against you. You cannot get away with breaking 3RR, just because you self reverted after a report was made. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment OK, you're both edit-warring so if blocking is necessary, I'll be blocking both of you. Alternatively, you could BOTH start pursuing dispute resolution with all haste. Regardless, I'm going to start you off by asking for more opinions at WP:FOOD. CIreland (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. My argument is that chips is a WP:POVFORK of french fries, containing ONLY duplicated text from that article as the two terms are identical, "french fries" being the American expression for the "chips" of Britain. I really see no reason to keep the Chips article as it is. Maybe if someone can prove me that "Chips" is a completely different term from "french fries" with authentic sources and content, rather than just copypasting the text from the french fries article, I'd be convinced that it deserves its own article and I'd be happy to compromise. Please see this AfD: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chips_UK from 2006, about a similar article, the result was to unanimously delete it. Best regards, Maashatra11 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Funny comment Seems like someone is eager to make this apparent "skirmish" appear eventually in WP:LAME. And I don't think it's me... :) Maashatra11 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Maashatara11 immediately self-reverted this edit - "11:32, 24 June 2010 109.67.1.252 (18 bytes) (rvv) (undo)" so there are only three reverts, not four. As CIreland said, you both were edit warring but I think it's cooled off now, so there is no need to block anyone. --B (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

141.76.183.120 and 141.76.179.247 reported by User:Wtshymanski (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

141.76.183.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and
141.76.179.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Tried to discuss at IP talk page, but no luck. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Semiprotected. A dynamic IP is warring to restore an ungrammatical version of the article. The 141.76.* IPs do not participate on Talk. Between them the IPs are way over 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Celine Dion and Petergriffin9901's usage of WP:3RR and his engagement in WP:EW (Result: No violation)[edit]

An edit war is something that I truly hope to avoid, which is why I am writing on here, first. I am specifically talking about, Petergriffin9901's edits on the article Celine Dion, here [87]. The user decided to add information that I believe is wholly uneccessary. The revision that had been in place for some time was completely sufficient, in my opinion. Nevertheless, after clearly telling him that it was not neccessary, he repeatedly reverted my edits, violating WP:3RR, something I warned him about breaking. He also wrote on my talk page, stating irrelevant personal statements, and not heeding my advice. I decided not to revert his edit, and came straight to this page to see what can be done. I don't want to start a war, but I also want to keep the article's reputability and maintain its FA status. I do hope something can be done. Thank you. BalticPat22Patrick 01:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Will not edit the article for a week)[edit]

Page: Caroline Nokes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:33, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ its not notable, unless it affects her career or something happens about it")
  2. 17:37, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ what happened")
  3. 14:30, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by Nomoskedasticity; Guy is named in reliable citations, removing is censorship, . (TW)")
  4. 14:34, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nomoskedasticity; Cited content please move to discussion. (TW)")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88] (user is long-established and is well aware of the rule.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Currently under discussion at WP:BLPN

Comments:

Here's a bit of context for this user's reversions performed today: as is clear from comments here, he is unhappy that contributors to BLPN do not share his views on how to edit the Nokes page -- so today he has been reverting my own efforts to pare down the section on her affair, restoring details regarding a non-notable person. These reversions took place after I suggested that he seemed to be contemplating a course of action that constituted WP:POINT.
There is also disruptive WP:POINT editing on the article talk page, here.
I'd also like to note misuse of Twinkle for the reversions performed today and would request that twinkle (and rollback) be removed from his account.
Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment from uninvolved editor—this does indeed appear to be a textbook breach of the 3RR, an edit-war over a simple content dispute, and does indeed show evidence of rollback/Twinkle abuse. Suggest block and removal of privileges. ╟─TreasuryTagCaptain-Regent─╢ 16:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    Disclaimer—I came across this because I watch one of the involved editors' talkpages. ╟─TreasuryTagCaptain-Regent─╢ 16:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on my talk, I cant see a violation I cant see a warning and I cant see anything that I could revert to remove the complaint. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't see a violation? [89][90][91][92] – what don't you understand? ╟─TreasuryTagconstabulary─╢ 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit one and edit two are not connented to edit three and four at all there is no warring here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
They don't have to be "connected" – you made four reverts on that page within 24 hours, so you breached the 3RR. You are an experienced editor and know about the rule, so did not need to be warned IMO. ╟─TreasuryTagChancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Where is my warning, I didn't get one where is my opportunity to revert if there is an issue where is the continuation of any warring after my warning, none of these things exists. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I only speak English and thus have no clue what that means, but you have been warned about the 3RR many times before (more than once by me, I think!) and so were well aware of the restriction. Why did you break it? ╟─TreasuryTagstannary parliament─╢ 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that I have violated policy, if I had a good faith notice would have been nice and a good faith request to revert would have been nice and if you had of given me a warning and I had continued in a similar manner then there would be something worthy of action here as it is none of these things happened and there is nothing worthy of action here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that I have violated policy – well, WP:3RR clearly states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." You did that, therefore you violated the policy, clearly. Nothing requiring that experienced editors receive warnings. You should know. But I debate with you further. ╟─TreasuryTagmost serene─╢ 17:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I tell users wanting to make a complaint, to make a decent report, when 3 reverts have occurred then add a warning to the users talkpage, if the user makes another revert then request him on his talkpage to self revert, if he does not do this then you have a strong complaint. This complaint has none of those strengths. Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason you don't see a 3RR warning is that you removed it from your talk page already. This appears to be a technical 3RR violation. (See the reverts listed above. #1 and 2 remove material from the article, and #3 and 4 are marked as 'Revert' in the edit summary). You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will take a break from editing the article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Since he already has a lengthy block log for edit warring and a number of warnings over the last few months, I'm not sure this is an appropriate outcome (imho). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Nomosk. And since Rob insists that he did no wrong, letting him completely off the hook would scarcely be constructive? ╟─TreasuryTagperson of reasonable firmness─╢ 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This was not a warning it was a FYI you are reported, the first contact I had had. I will happily agree to avoid the article . Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's a 3RR vio, and warnings are not an entitlement. However, if Off2riorob could voluntarily agree to avoid the article, there's no need for a block. T. Canens (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I will avoid at all costs. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - Off2riorob has agreed to a voluntary restriction from the Caroline Nokes article, which will expire at 18:11 UTC on 2 July 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Noted and appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Khadija-NJITWILL reported by E8 (Result: 24h)[edit]

User User:Khadija-NJITWILL has exceeded three reverts in 24 hours and ignored requests to discuss their additions to the Environmental technology page. The user has made unilateral additions and deletions of questionable value, and portions of the added content are cut-and-paste plagiarism. I have copied all the proposed content to the talk page for editing and discussion. I am requesting a short block be placed on the user to draw their attention to their own, or the topics talk page.--E8 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Blocked 24 hours. The person is clearly edit warring. Though they are new, they did not stop after warnings. You've also complained about plagiarism. Though it does appear that the material is cut-and-pasted from somewhere, you should back up the charge of plagiarism by giving links to the original source of the material. Such links could be added to the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Amakthea computer reported by User:O Fenian (Result: not blocked)[edit]

Page: List of terrorist incidents, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amakthea computer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [93]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:

The fourth revert is only a partial revert, reverting back to add one incident instead of two. The editor is edit warring against the existing consensus on the page that add incidents must be described as "terrorism", one that is obviously backed up by policy and has also been endorsed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick. O Fenian (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Block might not be necessary for now as they have not continued to revert since their fourth revert and are discussing it on the talk page, this may change though obviously. O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined in light of discussion on talk page. O Fenian, you've been edit-warring, too; 3RR is not an electric fence which one must pass in order to edit-war.--Chaser (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee reported by User:Themoodyblue (Result: No action)[edit]

I am reporting MickMacNee for his repeated reverts of a quote I entered in the article Isner–Mahut_match_at_the_2010_Wimbledon_Championships. I entered a quote from a comment made in The Guardian regarding the sportsmanship, integrity and importance of the Isner-Mahut match and quoted the entire quote, as it made several pertinent points and seemed to sum up what many other tennis commentators were making. MickMacNee has edited it down to one sentence, which not only completely changes the meaning of the quote but also has not apparent consensus for the edit. He has changed it back to his version three times, and then sent me a message threatening to report me here. I enclose his message and my response below. It is a violation of the most basic wiki ideas to change someone else's work simply because one person doesn't like it. He offered no rational explanation for his edit other than "it was objected strongly to" and I was very "bold to have added it" in the first place. I wasn't aware I needed MickMacNee's permission to add something to an article that I felt gave it far more depth and information. If I am wrong please correct me, but in looking at his talk page I don't think I am the first person he has done this with. Specifically, I would like him to stop violating WP:EW, WP:BRD and NPOV standards and create a talk section on the article page, get a consensus about what should be done with the quote, and then follow whatever the clear consensus is that the community comes to. His single opinion is not a consensus, and if he feels that "it's presence is objected to, strongly," he needs to demonstrate by whom, other than himself, it is objected to by. I feel that he should have gotten a consensus through to talk page before he begins ripping into something that was posted long before he started working on the article at all.

This is what I originally posted: A number of players, former players, officials, media commentators and fans all joined McEnroe in commenting on the way that both players conducted themselves. One commentator in the Guardian seemed to sum up most of the comments in saying that {{cquote|[T]his match in one fell swoop reminded people of what sport is supposed to be; intense and competitive, but also with fair play, respect, class and sportsmanship. Isner and Mahut reminded the world that winning might be important, but how one wins is even more so. Today Isner may have scored one more service break than Mahut, but they both, and sport in general, won a much grander victory. These two gentlemen returned class and respect to the field of competition with their sportsmanship, grit, determination and mutual regard for the abilities of their opponent. They were playing for the love of the game, something almost all professional athletes seem to have long ago forgot. In that sense, they won a far more tremendous victory today than simply a tennis match. In ten years, few will likely remember who won this year's Championships. However, people will be telling their great grand children, who will tell their great grand children, about the day that sport regained its soul."[22] (In the article, this was formatted to a quotation paragraph).

This is what he has reverted it back to three times: One commentator in The Guardian wrote "In ten years, few will likely remember who won this year's Championships. However, people will be telling their great grand children, who will tell their great grand children, about the day that sport regained its soul."[22]

Here are the messages we have corresponded.
....message transcription begins here....
This is a warning for you to stop edit warring on the above article. If you want your version to remain, start a discusison on the talk page and get consensus for it, but I can categorically tell you right now, it is a blatant violation of NPOV, and it is simply ridiculously long to boot. I have no idea where you got this idea that it is Wikipedia's role to reflect the 'power' and 'gravitas' of an external source's entire quote in this way, but you are massively wrong. I am trimming it one more time, to restore the consensus situation per WP:BRD, namely, you were bold to add it, and it's presence is objected to, strongly, and has been removed pending discussion. If you reinstate it again, I will be asking at the edit warring noticeboard for an admin to remove your ability to carry on being disruptive until you accept that this is not how you resolve disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You sir, are the one who needs a reality check. You started the war with an arbitrary edit that has no consensus behind it. Simply because you object to a long quote does not mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that it is "ridiculous". As you are the one editing and changing the original post, you are the one who needs to open a talk page discussion and get a consensus. Your opinion is not the rule of law. Where do you find a "consensus situation" (based on WP:BRD) that conforms to your opinion about the edit. There isn't one, and your stating, however forcefully, that there is does not create one. How arrogant is it to assert that I was "bold to add it"? Does everything have to pass through your censorship filter in order to have a consensus? Show me where others are of the same opinion and I will abide by that, but I have looked and found none. The quote was part of the article long before you started editing it to fit your personal standards. If you find this disruptive, than that says more about your insecurity and arrogance than it does about my quote. Remember, YOU edited down a quote that YOU found "ridiculous" without any consensus to back it up. Before you go threatening people with banning, you should look to your own behaviour. How does my editing constitute "being disruptive" and your does not? You have changed my original work three times - isn't that is disruptive and unacceptable? I see no pending discussion, no attempt to find consensus, and no attempt on your part to do exactly what you are demanding of me. Until that is present, please stop threatening me meaninglessly - you say "it's presence is objected to, strongly," - by whom, precisely, besides yourself? Please list them so that I can see a consensus for your action. Absent that, please stop threatening people to get your way. It is unseemly and unnecessary. DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is pretty clear, and WP:DR and WP:3RR are even clearer. I haven't threatened you at all, I've warned you what the consequences would be if you carried on edit warring. And sorry, but you aren't special, these consequences are what anyone in your position would be facing if they were acting in the same way. Do not fall into the trap of thinking the warning has anything to do with the validity of your content, it does not. But on that issue, if you think your content is valid, it will be a trivial matter to show it has support then wouldn't it? I await to be convinced, but based on my experience in editing thousands of other articles, I remain strongly skeptical that you have a proper handle on what is and isn't appropriate in this situation. You comments about how this one massive quote summarises everybody else's opinions nicely is just out and out editorialising tbh, very concerning. But let's be crystal clear, I am not required to begin that discussion for you, not in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You have have made no effort to show that you have support for anything, yet seem to think that I need to show solid support for every word I write. That is a pathetic double standard. At any rate, you are correct - you don't have to have that discussion with me. I have posted this whole mess in its entirety on the edit war board and have reported you for edit warring. Please take it up with them. If they say that I am doing something wrong, I will certainly abide by that. However, you asserting your opinion and then arguing that it is the only correct choice is beyond arrogance. I will abide by the consensus that the edit warring board reaches. Please do not contact me again on this issue. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
....end of transcription of messages....

Please give me, and MickMacNee, some guidance on this. I simply do not feel that one person's opinion is a consensus for changing something, however forcefully (and almost abusively) he states that it is. I have to admit, his tone is part of the problem here, because I feel that it is also reflective of his attitude. Please let me know what to do here. Thanks. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the only mistake I made here was to massively over-estimate Themoodyblue's experience with Wikipedia's rules and processes. He has notionally editted here since 2006, long before me even, yet he seems to have little or no grasp of BRD or DE, let alone 3RR. He is under some misguided idea that it is me who needs to get support for his disputed content, and that the admins who peruse this board are going to sort out the content dispute for him. Quite the opposite, I warned him for edit warring on the article, while admittedly coming close to 3RR myself as he repeatedly tried to restore the content, but I had explained the facts of the matter to him, and as is normal, warned him that if his next move was another revert, I'd be coming here myself. The only thing to be done here is for Themoodyblue to realise his content is disupted, and if he still wants it in, he needs to show it has support beyond fighting with me or bitching about my attitude to all and sundry. Had I had the first idea how little experience he has, my approach would of course have been more tempered, but it's too late now. Mea Culpa. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If someone disputes an edit, discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring. It's that simple. Fences&Windows 20:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This is far from the first time that MickMacNee's overly aggressive, antagonistic and abusive attitude has caused disruption. Time and again he picks on edits that most other users find perfectly acceptable, instigates an edit war (often with provocative, disrespectful or dismissive edit summaries), and fires tirades of abuse, disparaging remarks and personal attacks at his targets. His behaviour suggests that he enjoys fighting on Wikipedia. His very extensive block log over the past couple of years speaks for itself (and I see he was indefinitely blocked earlier this year, but managed to have his block removed after a profuse apology and showing apparent intention to change his ways). His habit of vulgar and abusive posts to users who he disagrees with is totally disruptive (examples: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109] - and these are just from his own talk page). For how much longer will good faith contributors have to put up with this horribly abusive (and I'd go as far as to call it troll-like) behaviour? 81.155.12.99 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This report is pretty tl;dr. This noticeboard is really meant for reports in which you list diffs showing a 3RR vio or, if you really think it merits administrative action, edit warring that does not actually violate 3RR, rather than long textual explanations of what happened. Those are more suited to our dispute resolution procedures or, if you really must, the drama board. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Result - No action. If this is intended to be an edit-warring complaint, it is too hard to follow. We are talking about a heavily-trafficked article, and if your material is worthy of inclusion, you should be able to find supporters for that material on the article's talk page. I suggest opening a discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:JALatimer reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: Users instructed to "chill" :) )[edit]

Page: Matthew 6:7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 02:23, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 03:06, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "restoring article")
  3. 04:21, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370200368 by Neutralhomer (talk)already did take it to talk. stop redirecting.")
  4. 04:32, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "saving the article from bulldozing")
  • Diff of warning: here

NeutralHomerTalk • 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you didn't take my suggestion. Options are going to be "block both of you" or "block neither of you because you two are discussing your edits". Which would you prefer? Prodego talk 04:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Question before my answer, why am I being blocked? - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Takes (at least) 2 to edit war. At any point you could have just stopped reverting, which would have stopped the edit warring just as much as if JALatimer did. But neither of you did. Prodego talk 04:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as the latter. Prodego talk 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Per my post to your talkpage, we will make it the latter. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Since JAL seems to have declined that, I have blocked him for 55 hours (longer than normal given the number of warnings and second chances). Prodego talk 05:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:IP reported by User:ianmacm (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Hans Zimmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An IP keeps on adding this to Hans Zimmer, despite advice about WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR. Also refuses to discuss on the talk page, and tries to WP:GAME the system by forcing WP:3RR.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Semiprotected. The same person is using more than one IP to edit war on this article. Cf. WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

IPs reported by User:Pfainuk (Result:s-prot )[edit]

Page: Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Persistent POV warrior using multiple IPs on Falkland Islands to edit war.

IP addresses: