Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive171

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:98.98.237.70 and User:Jivesh boodhun reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 1 month)[edit]

Page: Party (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.98.237.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]
  • 5th revert: [6]
  • 6th revert: [7]
  • 7th revert: [8]
  • 8th revert: [9]
  • 9th revert: [10]
  • 10th revert: [11]
  • 11th revert: [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Comments:
Massive edit war over a release date. The IP is trying to remove sourced content with their own unreferenced version. IP is also a possible sock of 216.6.232.238, who was just blocked as a sock of Brexx. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  • IP was apparently a block evader. Blocked for a month, and page semi-protected for a month by Kww. Swarm X 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User:109.148.28.4 reported by User:Michig (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Mark Morrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.148.28.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [14]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

Comments:

IP has repeatedly added unsourced claim about a BLP. Warnings have been met with abuse on my talk page. Blockable either on BLP or edit-warring grounds - you decide. The same addition has also been made from IP 109.151.12.193 ([20]).

User:87.210.232.221 reported by User:Taivo (Result: 60h)[edit]

Page: Lozovaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Sumy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Romny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.210.232.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21] (Lozovaya) [22] (Sumy) [23] (Romny)

Lozovaya

  • 1st revert: [24]
  • 2nd revert: [25]
  • 3rd revert: [26]
  • 4th revert: [27] (Here wikilawyering user switches to adding WP:POINTy citation tag
  • 5th revert: [28]

Sumy

  • 1st revert: [29]
  • 2nd revert: [30]
  • 3rd revert: [31]
  • 4th revert: [32] (Here wikilawyering user switches to adding WP:POINTy citation tag
  • 5th revert: [33]

Romny

  • 1st revert: [34]
  • 2nd revert: [35]
  • 3rd revert: [36]
  • 4th revert: [37] (Here wikilawyering user switches to adding WP:POINTy citation tag
  • 5th revert: [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

User has been told on his Talk Page that Russian variants are standard and useful Wikipedia information in eastern Ukrainian articles.

Comments:

This is another example of a common Ukrainian nationalistic edit war--removing Russian variants of place names in eastern Ukraine, where roughly half the population speaks Russian natively. Indeed, it is especially egregious in the case of Lozovaya, since the article title is the Russian variant and the edit warring anonymous IP is pushing a Ukrainian nationalistic POV to remove reference to the Russian variant in the city name template as well as in the text of the article. The editor is clearly aware of edit warring rules in Wikipedia since he/she switched from simply reverting after three reverts to placing WP:POINTy citation tags instead in an effort to avoid penalties surrounding edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit warrior has also begun expanding his nationalistic edit war to other articles: Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Mykolaiv, Cherkasy, and Luhansk. --Taivo (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This anonymous IP is not just pushing his POV on these other articles, but edit warring besides. --Taivo (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 60 hours - systematic edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:173.52.212.151 reported by User:129.94.78.162 (Result: already blocked)[edit]

Page: Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.52.212.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [40]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  • Edit summary of [46]
  • Edit summary of [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  • Multiple appeals in edit summaries to IP
  • IP's talk page where the editor is direct
  • [48]

Comments:


The user is highly aware of WP policy see [49] where they are attempting to build consensus around their own position, editing with internal comments. They are not good at consensus, or listening to others, or restricting their own reverts. They are less good at building consensus when multiple article editors disagree with them, and they turn to political invective in edit summaries. 129.94.78.162 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

IP has attacked me and accused me of going over 3 reverts (I currently am at three and have no intention of going over). IP has shown no respect for 3RR or consensus, and continues reverting. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked. Try giving actual warnings for 3RR and edit warring on the talk page in the future as well. Edit summaries don't count; neither do vague references to vandalism (see WP:DV), which will only enflame the situation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan reported by • Astynax talk (Result: page protected)[edit]

Page: Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 14:07, 19 October 2011 (edit summary: "per User:Dank and User:Malleus Fatuorum at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive2")
  2. 14:12, 19 October 2011 (edit summary: "per talk; Pedro II is linked both in the lead and the article body, so I'll do the same for Teresa Cristina")
  3. 14:59, 19 October 2011 (edit summary: "It isn't a foreign word; it's used in english.")
  4. 18:23, 20 October 2011 (edit summary: "That's just a dictionary of names; what you need is a source using the name for this individual.")
  5. 18:25, 20 October 2011 (edit summary: "according to the sources given at FAC 1")
  6. 18:26, 20 October 2011 (edit summary: "remove italics for an English word")
  7. 07:04, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "failed verification: the source given does not mention Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil")
  8. 16:11, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "As I said in my edit summary, the sources are given at the FAC 1 page.")
  9. 16:12, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
  10. 16:14, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
  11. 16:20, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "Restore sourced information. The books are written in English.")
  12. 19:12, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "if not suitable for the lead, put it somewhere else; tag original research")

Comment: DrK is an admin and well aware of the need to avoid this sort of edit warring. • Astynax talk 19:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first time he has got involved in edit warring and been blocked for doing so. There are four editors [50][51][52][53] opposing his actions in the article, nonetheless, he kept on:
  1. [54]
  2. [55]
  3. [56]
  4. [57]
Astynax filled this complain and nothing happened to DrKiernan. Why? --Lecen (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

  • It doesn't actually look like he violated 3RR. Some of those edits are consecutive edits, which for the the purpose of 3RR only count as one edit. He only performed two reverts on the 19th, and one on the 20th. On the 22nd, his first five edits constitute three reverts (three of the edits are consecutive). The last edit was the relocation of information which was in specific response to an edit summary that stated the content was not appropriate for the lede. So there is not 3rr violation and no case for a mandatory block. However, on the subject of edit-warring then he is probably guilty of that, but if you are going to look at it in that context and impose sanctions, then I think we have to take a look at the actions of all the editors involved in the dispute becuase he clearly isn't the only editor who has been edit-warred. I recommend taking no action against any of the editors, but putting the article under full-protection for a week; there are discussions already underway on the talk page, and those need to be concluded before there is further editing. Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
What you're talking does not make any sense. Who else was edit warring? Each editor reverted a single time what DrKiernan did. --Lecen (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history no editor has violated 3rr. However, both you and Paulista01 along with DrKiernan have edit-warred. If blocks are deemed necessary then they should be applied equally, which means all three you should receive one. However, itt seems to me the discussion on the talk page could have a productive outcome so I don't think blocks for any editor involved would be conducive in this dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Betty Logan, you should be careful with what you say. I only reverted a single time DrKiernan's edit.[58] Do not accuse me of edit warring. Paulista01 reverted him two times because DrKiernan had removed sourced content for unsourced content.[59][60] That's not edit warring. --Lecen (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Although the reporting tool lists edits over a couple of days, the specific 3RR (of the cited information which does indeed give the "Alphonso" spelling which DrK claims failed his source verification):
  1. 00:04, 22 October 2011
  2. 09:11, 22 October 2011
  3. 09:20, 22 October 2011
There are indeed continuing disputes, even after the FAC process, over frustratingly minor points that in this case crossed the "bright line". • Astynax talk 18:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale DrKiernan was pretty clearly edit warring. It's been about 24 hours since his last revert, though, which would make this incident a bit stale for a block. If it continues (on either side), report it back here. The fact that this report went ignored by sysops up until now is concerning. Swarm X 18:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
DrKiernan has just reverted for the fifth time in less than 24 hours.[61] Will someone do something about it? There are fours editors who are oposing him and still does it. No one in here seems to be taking this situation serious. Add: "It's been about 24 hours since his last revert, though, which would make this incident a bit stale for a block". It has been 24h because none of the four editors wants to be accused of edit warring, since since DrKiernan is allowed to revert as many times as he pleases. Now the article is stuck in DrKiernan's last revert. This is why there hasn't been "quiet" for the last 24h. --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It's been more than 24 hours since his last revert so his revert count has been reset, and he's entitled to revert an alteration to the article as per WP:BRD. I suggest in accordance with BRD you propose your edit on the talk page and see if there is consensus for adding it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
His last revert here (the fifth in less than 24h) was at 19:37 on 23 October 2011. Unless you live in a different planet, that's not more than 24h. Since it's quite clear that you're not even trying to understand the problem and you're clearly biased and has shown no desire to help, I see no reason to continue talking to you. --Lecen (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
You are mis-representing the issue: The "fifth" revert as you so call it is the only one in a 24 hour period. His last edit on the article was at 19:12 on the PREVIOUS DAY i.e. more than 24 hours earlier. Therefore the edit at 19:37 couldn't have been the fifth in in 24 hours could it? It is true he has edit-warred, but that was only in response to you violating WP:BRD. You made an edit (as permitted), he reverted (as permitted), and instead of taking it to the discussion page (as advised) and getting support you reverted him (i.e. you edit-warred)! A clearly provocative action. Yes he broke the rules, but only in response to someone else doing so first. No-one is guilty of violating 3rr, but several editors have edit-warred. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The development of the article was going pretty fine when user Kiernan started to impose his POV, destroying the edit history of the article for a meaningless discussion about an information which is there just as a small addition. Other users asked him to stop with that, including me, but he insisted until the limit. I agree with user Swarm: any new irregular revert must be reported. Tonyjeff (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that isn't how WP:CONSENSUS works. Everyone is permitted to revert new alterations to the article. If that happens WP:BRD stipulates you must take it to the talk page and reach a consensus. You have a week to do that now so I suggest you propose your edits with sources on the talk page; if Dr Kiernan objects to them it is his job to come up with a policy/guideline based rationale as to why they aren't appropriate. Hopefully you can come to a compromise, but if you can't then an RFC should be posted on the appropriate Project page and then impartial editors can judge the proposed edits taking account of the respective policy based arguments for and against them. We don't allow groups of editors to out-gun a single editor since that is subsceptible to agenda pushing. In a dispute the edits and the rationales need to be clearly laid out so a decision can be made based on those rationales, not by editors using a majority to force through edits. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the point that it I the one who brought the article to GA status and it was I the one who brought it to FA status. Not DrKiernan. He does not speak Portuguese, he does not know about Brazilian history and he never helped me in any form before. You talk like four different editors were bullying him. Now these four editors (three of whom are Brazilians) who have always contributed to Brazilian-history related articles are supposed to be taken hostage by the will of a single editor who does not speak Portuguese and never read a book about Brazilian history before? Are you kidding? Do you believe I brought eight articles about Brazilian history to FA standard by what? Luck? --Lecen (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Betty Logan, the way you accuse and yes, you are taking DrKiernan side, everything you have done favored him, very odd, have you seen the users connected to DrKiernan? One guy called Lecen a "dickhead", they are acting like a gang. Paulista01 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Page protected by Fastily. Swarm X 21:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:122.160.126.4 reported by User:Presearch (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.160.126.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This is edit warring. A detailed report was filed on this noticeboard a couple of days ago, and User:Swarm blocked the offending IP who was engaging in disruptive editing. But now the IP just went back and has continued edit-warring (DIFF). I have given another warning (DIFF). Seems to me like it's time for a block that is longer than 48 hours. -- Presearch (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know further details, here is the previous report, now archived HERE.

Previous version reverted to: diff COMMENT: I'm not sure how relevant this is. It should be clear from the change-log that the IP was introducing changes, or tying to keep them there. But this version does precede all the activity.


The IP (User:122.160.126.4) is repeatedly making changes to the page for Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, a deceased former president of India. The IP wants his name to be spelled as "Radhakrishna" (no final n), contrary to the name of the page itself, and contrary to Radhakrishnan's own usage in his byline in all of his English language books. I have made a posting on the talk page (DIFF) to this effect. However, the IP has simply reverted my edits without responding on the talk page. I warned the IP through a couple of vandalism templates -- perhaps edit warring warning would have been more appropriate?), but this also has not produced any effect. (The only discussion the IP has ever offered is an edit log claiming that because Radhakrishnan once signed his name w/o the final n, that form must be correct). Possibly these changes may be related to some sort of inter-ethnic identity conflict (Tamil vs Telugu?), but I am not an expert on this. Diffs of the IP's changes are:

User has been notified. Please suggest next steps. Could an administrator simply implement a block of the IP? (my warnings mentioned the possibility of blocking) (NB: I posted this earlier at WP:ANI, but was told to come here) -- Presearch (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1-link 2-diff (comment: vandalism warnings, probably should have been edit-warring warnings)

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

Comments:

  • (((BEGIN COPY OF ARCHIVED RESPONSE: Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Aside from the revert warring, the edits themselves are blatantly disruptive. Swarm X 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC) END COPY OF ARCHIVED RESPONSE)))

Blocked again for 3 days. Swarm X 16:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:85.122.25.236 reported by User:Daizus (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: Dacian Draco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.122.25.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:


As you can see on the talk page, this user refused to cooperate or at least to discuss before reverting my edits. I also warned him not to continue with the reverts, but my warnings had apparently no effect. Daizus (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Edit warring from all sides; a block based solely on technical grounds of 3RR violation will leave the IP unable to continue dispute resolution, and will leave Daizus unable to revert for 19 hours as well (thus completely stunting the process). Page protection accomplishes nothing, as it appears Daizus will stop at 3RR. If Daizus does in fact revert again, then both sides can be blocked for 3RR violation. Daizus is recommended to seek a third opinion at WP:NPOV/N; if further edit warring occurs before 13:09 UTC tomorrow, feel free to cross out the decision in the header above and reopen the case (although please don't secretly meatpuppet). Apologies to Daizus if his opinion is temporarily railroaded (whether it is legitimate or not). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:XLR8TION reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: 84 hours)[edit]

Page: List of diplomatic missions of Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XLR8TION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [68]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:

XLR8TRON made a fourth revert (linked above), and at the same time told me that "You're heading to your 3RR." I noted this on his talkpage and asked for a self-revert (the warning above), and they replied on my talkpage that "I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out...Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert." So not only did they break 3RR, they did so knowingly and then warned me not to break it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User [Chipmunk Davis] is an editorial hypocrite. Please note that on October 7th he edited this article [75] on and did not remove Turkey nor Cyprus from the list? Why not? The fact is that he's wrong. Cyprus is not Middle East! Alaska is near Russia. DOes that make it part of Asia? NO! Cyprus has had a Greek culture for centuries. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ASIA!

With regards to Turkey, Turkey is defined by the Wikipedia article on Europe as being part of that continent. Wikipedia articles on continents are NOT determined by the United Nations. The definition of Europe has remained unchanged for centuries. Turkey is part of Europe. Istanbul is in Europe. The Bosphurus is the mouth to the Black Sea. Russia's territory stretches out to Russia but that doesn't make Russia an Asian country. They are not part of ASEAN or any other regional Asian orginization. Take a step back and realize that you're wrong. It's ok to accept a mistake, but please put an end to this ridiculous edit war and accept the facts set forth in the Wikipedia article of Europe. Ihave use talk page discussions but he has reverted the article without using rational discussion. Please see the Wikipedia article on Europe and the list of states on that continent, and you can say that ChipmunkDavis is simply vandilizing the article due to stereotypes and ignornace.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joseph201 reported by User:Sabrebd (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Nickelback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseph201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [76]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm X 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Increased to 72h, see below section. Swarm X 22:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joseph201 reported by User:Moxy (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page: Nickelback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseph201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [85] -

First ongoing edit war

  • 1st revert: [86] -16:35, October 21, 2011‎ October 21, 2011‎
  • 2nd revert: [87] - 16:41, October 21, 2011‎
  • 3rd revert: [88] - 17:17, October 21, 2011
  • 4th revert: [89] - 22:57, October 21, 2011
  • 5th revert: Restart of edit war on this matter - [90] - 17:20, October 24, 2011

Secondary edit war over album sales by same user on the same page - using different numbers at differ points

  • 1st revert: [91] claim of almost 21m sold
  • 2nd revert: [92] - now claiming 50m
  • 3rd revert: [93] - now claiming 21m again
  • 4th revert: [94] - now claiming 50m again
  • 5th revert: [95] - claiming 50m again
  • 6th revert: [96] - claiming 50m again
  • 7th revert: [97] - claiming 50m again

3RR warning: [98] Copyright vio warning: [99]

Comments:
We have more serious problem then just the "edit wars". We have copy right problem (copy and pasting) that is simply being ignored by the editor. Such as:
"Reviewer Erik Pedersen of the Hollywood Reporter seemed to grasp the essence of the band. Reporting on a Nickelback show in West Hollywood in October of 2001, Pedersen noted that the band had mixed the hard rock sound that had taken the airwaves back around the turn of the millennium with enough melody to appeal to a wide audience. They seemed equally familiar with late-1990s post-grunge, 1980s metal, and Led Zeppelin-style 1970s rock. Proud to be hard rockers, the band "shrugged at subtlety and hissed at trendiness," Pedersen wrote. He also noticed that Chad Kroeger, with his striking long hair and goatee, had become a charismatic rock frontman, noting that the lead singer easily got the crowd to scream when he wanted them to and that his performance of a more sensitive song, "Too Bad," addressed to Kroeger's father, "drew shrieks from the numerous females in the crowd." that is coped from Copyright © 2011 Net Industries and its Licensors – All Rights Reserved

  • In addition to all of the above, he's broken 3RR at How You Remind Me. As you can see on his talk page, myself and several other users have informed, warned, and tried to help him change, but to no avail. His more recent edit warring tries to blame it on his brother, not him, who of course is doing the same exact reverting he was... Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm X 22:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • After reviewing his edits, I've upped the block from one day to three days due to the addition of copyvios. Swarm X 22:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiki101xyz reported by User:The Last Angry Man (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Stormfront (website) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wiki101xyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [101]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

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

Comments:
The talk page has not been used, the user is adding unsourced and non neutral content to the article The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Was warned; reverted again. Kuru (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Happyhubie reported by User:Hourick (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [107]


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

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

Comments:
This was previously discussed last year [111], but apparently he's at it again and seems to be using an IP to do it as well.. I'm hoping to prevent another edit war. This guy is tiring.--Hourick (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2011 (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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bold Clone reported by Alucardbarnivous (talk) (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: Power ring (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 02:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:13, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* Black Light's Power Ring */")
  2. 18:15, 22 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* Similar devices */ Not related to the Green Lanterns")
  3. 00:21, 25 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 456921129 by Alucardbarnivous (talk) They are not similiar devices. If you disagree, you can bring the matter up.")
  4. 02:44, 25 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457254007 by Alucardbarnivous (talk) Vandalism is a large and vague term. You'll have to explain before you can accuse me of anything.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Alucardbarnivous (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bold Clone reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Power ring (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bold Clone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [112]

  • 1st revert: [113]
  • 2nd revert: [114]
  • 3rd revert: [115]
  • 4th revert: [116]
  • 5th revert: [117]
  • 6th revert: [118] (Made after the user replied and was aware of this report)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Power ring (DC Comics)#Removal of content

Comments:
User continues to edit war, reverting three four other users despite a rough talk page consensus against them, and any notification of WP:3RR is "beauracracy" which is ignored. User has demonstrated they have no intention of ceasing to edit war on the article. - SudoGhost 15:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus with me, therefore there is no consensus. I am waiting for you to respond to me on the TP. You are not doing so, and you so no indication os later doing so. User seems unwilling to try to reach consensus...--Bold Clone (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that the user removed diffs from the report to make it appear as though they did not violate WP:3RR. Three users on the talk page have expressed the opinion that your edits are not beneficial to the article, forming a rough consensus. That the consensus is not "with you" and therefore not a consensus is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - SudoGhost 15:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
They did not violate the 3RR! It has to be a whole reversion, right? There is no consensus with me. If you are trying to reach a consensus, then you need to include me in the discussion. --Bold Clone (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Media:Example.ogg
Again the user has removed diffs to make it seem as though they did not violate WP:3RR. And no, right there in bold on WP:3RR, which was linked to you several times, "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Also, no. You are not required for a consensus, you disagreeing with the consensus does not make it magically go away just because you didn't approve. - SudoGhost 15:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:TomCat4680 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: WJRT-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TomCat4680 (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: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments:

Several editors have added the same unsourced misinformation. I removed it and asked them to provide a reliable source yet they refuse. I am not breaking any rules. Stealbeard1 and any editor that has reverted this without providing a reliable source is clearly violating WP:PROVEIT: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[1]

TomCat4680 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Responsible editors, such as myself, would simply add a 'citation needed' tag and wait a few days for the citation to appear. But TomCat4680 reverts even those edits without waiting for a citation. I can say at my end that a suitable citation has not been found yet. WJRT-TV's Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/#!/ABC12WJRT mentions the HD newscasts, but I do not think it qualifies as a citation for Wikipedia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 Question: The third and fourth reverts are the same edit, and the edits above are not within 24 hours of each other. Is this a 3RR report, or a general edit warring report? Because unless I'm miscounting something, I'm not seeing four reversions within a 24 hour time period. If I'm mistaken in this, please clarify. - SudoGhost 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a general edit warring report because it is one editor reverting the edits of about a half dozen editors without requesting a citation, just reverting instead of adding a 'citation needed' tag and wait a few days for the citation to appear. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Then please note that if this is the case, that you are as guilty of edit warring as the user you are reporting, as you reverted the content despite knowing there was a dispute regarding said content, without attempting to discuss it on the talk page beforehand. The number of editors involved is immaterial to this. However, there is now a discussion taking place on the article's talk page. - SudoGhost 18:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I was simply following WP:3RR #3 Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. In this instance, the policy is WP:PROVEIT which all other editors were clearly violating by refusing to provide a reliable source. Also please be advised that Stealbeard1 started this report BEFORE he attempted to resolve the dispute on the article's talkgpage. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
WJRT-TV hasn't been edited in over an hour. Myself and Stealbeard1 are attempting to resolve the dispute on Talk:WJRT-TV. I will not revert the article until the dispute is resolved. This report was unnecessary. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Question to TomCat4680 regarding "I was simply following...": Is there a specific exemption in this [126] section of the 3RR policies that you deem applies? If not, is there another place that lists the specific exemptions? I understand the section you quote is a summary explanation - but my understanding is that (as noted by the "For example" part) for each type of article, the specific exemptions must be met. I may be wrong. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I have stopped reverting even though Stealbeard1 re-added the information in question WITHOUT a reliable source, clearly violating WP:PROVEIT yet again (apparently this "rule" is not enforced though). TomCat4680 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation - although I'm fairly close to blocking one party or the other (still not sure which it would be, as both edit warred). FYI, quoting BLP to apply to an organization for a completely non-controversial piece of material isn't going to cut it - that's WP:WIKILAWYERing. As I assume both parties are still watching this page, they are under notice that further edit warring may result in blocks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/129.1.193.107 reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Herman Cain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 129.1.193.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [127]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135], [136], [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is simple vandalism so no resolution is possible.

Comments: I apologize if this is the incorrect forum for this, but the editor has added this vandalism to the article eight times in an hour. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User has been warned by a sysop and hasn't edited since that warning. It's no big deal that you reported this here, but just for future reference, vandalism such as this should be reported at WP:AIV, so if this continues, just bring it there. It's much easier to make a report there, too ;). Swarm X 18:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought there was a more appropriate forum, I just couldn't remember what it was. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I'll keep an eye on the article, too. Regards, Swarm X 18:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:108.67.181.12 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: warned blocked 3 months, article protected)[edit]

Page: Viktor Yanukovych (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.67.181.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

  • 1st revert: [139]
  • 2nd revert: [140] Labelling my revert as vandalism. The MO is the same as the IP User:71.224.207.195 from the previous case on 16 October. Possible sock: [141]
  • 3rd revert: [142]
  • 4th revert: [143]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]

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

  • Thank you. I think however that they will resume, given their past record. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I just added No. 4 revert. They are continuing unabated. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Both main accounts blocked and article protected for 3 months. Be sure to mention the rampant misbehavior if another report is necessary in 3 months. If the editor creates an account to evade the block, report to WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you Magog. Both for the decisive action and for the advice. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Canadian2000 reported by User:Tachfin (Result: warned)[edit]

Page: Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Canadian2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [145]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147]

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned User is new and was never made aware of 3RR. If edit warring occurs again, please report. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ashermadan reported by User:Binksternet (Result: warned)[edit]

Page: Ra.One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ashermadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [148]

  • 1st revert: [149] 00:54, October 26, 2011. Removing Rediff review. Changing "mixed reviews" to "generally positive reviews".
  • 2nd revert: [150] 01:05, October 26, 2011. Removing Rediff review.
  • 3rd revert: [151] 05:41, October 26, 2011. Revert of User:Monishrecords.
  • 4th revert: [152] 08:43, October 26, 2011. Revert of User:Guru coolguy, changing "generally mixed reviews" to "generally positive reviews".
  • 5th revert: [153] 08:49, October 26, 2011. Revert of User:Guru coolguy, removing Rediff review.
  • 6th revert: [154] 10:15, October 26, 2011. Changing "generally mixed to positive reviews" to "mostly positive reviews".
  • 7th revert: [155] 10:34, October 26, 2011. Changing "positive reviews" to "mostly positive reviews".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]

Comments:

Ashermadan appears to be overly concerned that the film be portrayed positively on the day it opens its main theatrical run. Many other editors are all over that film page, and edit warring is rife. This many reversions, however, stands above the other excitable article action. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Bink, I agree re:edit-warring, but since your warning they haven't been back. I've given them a level-3 warning for non-neutral editing, and subsequent "improvements" can be met with a final warning for vandalism, as far as I'm concerned. Since they weren't warned before, in my opinion we have no choice but to decline this; still, I feel they might be back, so perhaps we can leave this up for a day or so. And any time they're back, you are more than welcome to copy all of this and repost it with updates, and I'm sure the matter will be dealt with swiftly. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. I will be away from Wikipedia for about 12 hours. I'll check on our friend after that. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned No edit warring since warning by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). As stated before, warnings for disruptive editing/vandalism do nothing to stop the behavior or inform the user of penalties for edit warring.Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:G90025 reported by Muboshgu (talk) (Result: already protected)[edit]

Page: 27 Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: G90025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:13, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "undoing vandalism by Patyo1994")
  2. 15:29, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "undoing destructive edit by TaalVerbeteraar. Winehouse not confirmed for 27 Club due to no historically significant contribution to music")
  3. 15:31, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
  4. 15:50, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid vandalism by 12bigbrother12 (talk). Community must provide evidence and agreement that Winehouse be added to list")
  5. 16:03, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457503809-- Unfortunately, the community never provided consencus or sufficient data to confirm her listing so it was invalid in the first place. There was a long discussion about this before.")
  6. 16:06, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "/* Musicians usually included in the 27 Club */")
  7. 16:13, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Sorry, cannot stop because you're vandalizing the page, as stated on your user page")
  8. 16:33, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457507543 by Escape Orbit (talk) Community must have concesus on talk page that Winehouse be added with reasonable data to support")
  9. 16:39, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457510105 by Escape Orbit (talk): Edit had invalid summary tag/disruptive edit/edit warring")
  10. 16:41, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
  11. 16:43, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "")
  12. 16:47, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457511732 by Escape Orbit (talk) PLEASE STOP EDIT WARRING. SEE DISCUSSION PAGE TO SUGGEST WINEHOUSE BE ADDED TO THE LIST")
  13. 16:54, October 26, 2011 (Undid revision 457512019 by Escape Orbit (talk) Misleading edit summary-- said it was a cite but actually was edit warring. Please see discussion page, thank you)
  14. 16:56, October 26, 2011 (Undid revision 457512990 by Muboshgu (talk) PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION PAGE TO VOICE YOUR OPINION ON THE MATTER and stop edit war please. You have been warned)

User:Dohezarsersdah reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

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

Time reported: 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 13:02, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457165101 by Dougweller (talk) there were no Turks in Khorasan. Stop edit-warring.")
  2. 13:32, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457481681 by Kafka Liz (talk) source is antiquated and CONTRADICTED by the other sources")
  3. 19:45, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457513332 by Dougweller (talk)")
  4. 20:22, 26 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 457540138 by Kafka Liz (talk) DON'T DELETE SOURCES!")
  • Diff of warning: here

I was considering ANI as he is edit-warring in several articles, with some odd edit summaries, eg twice deleting well-sourced material saying it wasn't sourced, a little while ago deleting a source with an edit summary in caps saying don't delete sources, etc. He's had quite a few warnings which have been blanked (as is his right). Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC) —Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Early life of Joseph Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Comments:
John Foxe was placed on a 1RR restriction (see here and here) on Mormon-related articles for 2 years.

  • Comment - this one is kind of complex; I'm notifying DeltaQuad, who placed the restriction. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week I remember how long it took me to decide on the editing restrictions I imposed on John Foxe almost exactly two months ago. This one wasn't an easy consideration, but if you look at the content, there was revert of material, and would be just as equivalent as if it were separate diffs. That being said, the reverts did look like they were trying to improve the article, but as John Foxe knows, he's under restriction, and the intent of the revert is what is convincing me issue this block. The two weeks time that I recommended before would be punitive more than anything at this point. So the block time of one week is per John's disruptive intent (as per "added back the mention of the Shakers and the Oneida community mentioned in the Ostlings book; my version is also better written" in the edit summary, noting the part where John says that his version is 'written better'), knowing of previous such blocks, and violation of restrictions. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:3dhardway and user:71.164.122.172 and user:71.164.122.226 reported by User:Labor Watch (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Ray Jefferson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3dhardway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 71.164.122.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 71.164.122.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 71.164.105.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [160]