Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Wheres Dan reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Tribe of Dan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wheres Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Pretty the bottom half of Talk:Tribe of Dan, especially Talk:Tribe of Dan#Recent edits.

Comments:
User has a history of using bad sources and has had this explained in various ways in various talk pages and edit summaries. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:JaMikePA reported by User:CRRaysHead90 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Toronto Blue Jays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JaMikePA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  1. 18:31, 18 November 2011 (edit summary: "blogs are not reliable sources per WP")
  2. 18:41, 18 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Baseball Hall of Famers */")
  3. 02:06, 19 November 2011 (edit summary: "fixing colors to accurate use. WP makes no exception about types of blogs; blogs are not reliable sources, period.")
  4. 16:37, 19 November 2011 (edit summary: "Try learning WP's rules before editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources")
  5. 19:53, 20 November 2011 (edit summary: "What we have here is a failure to follow the rules. WP has "no blog" policy in most cases.")


I don't think I'm putting this at the right place, AN confuses me. Anyway, JaMikePA, refuses to build consensus and would rather revert repeatedly. Recently, the Miami Marlins and and Toronto Blue Jays had a makeover of their logos and uniforms. As such the article for the two was updated. I updated the the colors using a graphic design industry trusted blog. Determined he was right he's revert me at least 20 times of the past 6 days saying blogs cannot be reliable sources and citing this failed proposal. As the blog is reliable, I and other have reverted him every time and asked him a couple times to stop and if disputes the reliability to start a discussion on the talk page. He hasn't, instead he's continued to revert and redo the colors. And just today he warned me on my talk page using that same failed proposal. I would like someone to either tell him to stop or block him for disruptive edit warring. Thanks.

I have issued sever informal warnings and requests via edit summary.

I've tried to get him to talk it out, but he refuses and continues to revert without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRRaysHead90 (talkcontribs)

Comments:

CCRays is just as guilty for undoing my edits, especially when his don't conform to WP's general prohibition of blogs as sources. He uses his own interpretation of the policy to edit-war. Yet, the blog in question is not associated with Major League Baseball.JaMikePA (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the list of diffs provided by the submitter with the complete set as generated by the 3RR helper tool, including the edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that the blog needs to be associated with MLB to be reliable to cite. Reputation should suffice. And please get my name right, it's "CRRays" not "CCRays". CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 22:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
If it's possible, I'd just like to withdraw this report and just move on. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am declining this report. Both pages have been fully protected, and blocking would only be punitive - the sooner consensus is established, the better. Blocking will only delay it. WilliamH (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:AgentPolkaDot reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: indef)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [3]

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (created new page, cannot be a diff)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:

I am uninvolved in this edit war. BLP needs to be considered here, but there are civility problems. Worthy of note is that all of these reverts occured within the same 40 minutes.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, BLP can be a factor in this, but since reliable sources have already named the officer believed to be involved, I don't think that can apply here. Also, incivility and 5 reverts in an hour is pretty much always going to end up one way. Blocked for 31h. Black Kite (t) 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) The user has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. See ANI thread.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Worstcook reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 31h)[edit]

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


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

  • 1st revert: [10] -20:27, 18 November 2011
  • 2nd revert: [11] - 20:42, 18 November 2011
  • 3rd revert: [12] - 15:28, 19 November 2011
  • 4th revert: [13] - 19 November 2011
  • In addition, an apparent IP sockpuppet: [14] 06:23, 19 November 2011


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Project Accessory#The Elimination Table, Talk:Project Accessory#Improvements to the Article.

Note: The discussion above is my attempt to build the narrative portion of the article, and is not related to the 3RR case at all; the discussion took place several days before the dispute above. I stepped away from the article for a few days to take a breather, and to give Worstcook and her friends the opportunity to (hopefully) write the narrative I recommended. Instead, I came back to find a series of inflammatory and selective reverts of content that is easily sourced to the episode, as is done with numerous elimination-style reality show articles all over Wikipedia. Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
The editor has a history of edit-warring, and rather than engage in substantive discussion on the article talk page, he gives minimal and defensive responses. Multiple editors have reverted him and have tried discussion. His latest volley of reverts have occurred with no discussion by him, despite requests in edit summaries for him to discuss his edits.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  • While I have had my issues with Worstcook, who I believe treats Wikipedia as a fan page, and a pace to keep elimination tables, rather than being a serious editor, I have real issues with the selective nature of this 3RR claim. Yes, it's clear Worstcook violated 3RR on this article; with that I have no dispute. However, there are two problems that are being overlooked, I believe. Worstcook has consistently IP edited with one IP: 205.209.83.211, geolocated in Rockland, ME. Here, she is being accused of editing with another one, 155.47.192.82, which geolocates to Wheaton College in Massachusetts. While I suppose it's possible it's the same person, I have my doubts, and the evidence backs me up. Worstcook has been completely consistent about the use of an IP in the past, the original IP has been silent since the sockpuppet case against Worstcook, and most importantly, the new IP editor's edit history and Worstcook's are extensive, show concurrent editing and are far more different than alike, and that's apparently solely on cursory examination. Moreover, Worstcook demonstrates very poor command of basic English spelling and grammar, inconsistent with someone who would be attending a small selective religious college like Wheaton. I don't think there's any substantiation to believe Worstcook is socking using IP 155.47.192.82. Having been once been falsely accused of IP editing from Oklahoma while I was on the west coast by an admin who took no time to conduct even the most rudimentary investigation, I'm sensitive to the ease with which such accusations may be made and accepted.
  • Even more troubling is the selective nature of this accusation. Again, I recognize Worstcook's offense, but it takes two to edit war, and Worstcook didn't start this one. User:Sparthorse made five reverts between 04:11 and 23:45 on November 18. His was the original revert, and he exchanged most of the reverts cited above with Worstcook, before Tenebrae stepped in. Yet, I see no 3RR complaint against him, and no good reason why he was not reported for 3RR when Worstcook was. There isn't even a 3RR warning on his talk page. It defies understanding why only Worstcook was cited, not both editors. I believe this case demands some careful scrutiny. Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Worstcook did technically violate WP:3RR and that's the main reason for this noticeboard to exist. I've semiprotected the article to shut down any possible socking, and invited Worstcook to respond here. Worstcook does seem to be editing like a single-minded fan, and it is understandable that this might set off the instincts of regular editors to feel as though abuse was occurring. You are correct that Sparthorse has made four reverts also, and his actions should be considered by the closer. I will notify Sparthorse that his edits are being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to EdJohnston for notifying me about the discussion. Yes, I did violate WP:3RR (making four reverts on the article), so I will accept any sanctions arising from this. 3RR is an important policy and I violated it. I will note that my intention was to remove unsourced material from the article, but accept without qualification that I should not have continued to revert the article to that state. Sparthorse (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
No question that Worstcook violated 3RR, which I acknowledge twice above. But in all fairness, so did Sparthorse, who I applaud for recognizing as much and taking his/her lumps, should there be any. My big concern was that this report was one-sided with no apparent reason why, and as such, unfair, which I felt should be pointed out. I do believe Worstcook is a long-term problem editor who loves, loves, loves those elimination tables, but with rare exceptions, doesn't give a hoot about the rules, procedures or the best interests of the articles in which the tables appear, and demonstrates a complete lack of willingness to abide by policy, improve her editing or do anything but keep up those tables. But in this case, as goes Worstcook, so goes Sparthorse, and the end result should reflect that. Drmargi (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I, too, admire Sparthorse's forthrightness, and perhaps I should have included both. However, it had seemed to me he was trying to revert a habitual edit-warrior who was not responding to requests for substantive discussion and for proper documentation, and stubbornly insisting on reinserting an uncited table.
Of course elimination tables are an important, perhaps even critically necessary, part of competition reality-show articles. The issue isn't tables per se — it's having tables that are supported by the primary-source plot descriptions. That is what Worstcook refused to provide, and all that Sparthouse was asking for. And reverts for blatant vandalism or, in the case, blatant policy violation can be exceptions to 3RR.
I respect Drmargi, a responsible and meticulous editor, and clearly one with great empathy and caring for other editors. I do understand why he she might feel this, but I don't believe it's unfair to look at the larger nature and the habitual behavior of problematic editors. Worstcook could have brought a 3RR case against Sparthorse herself; no one was preventing her from doing so. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Tenabrae, thank you for the clarification. Absent what you've just told me, this appeared to be quite arbitrary. With an explanation, your choice makes far more sense. However, while I agree that vandalism allows us to revert without being accountable for 3RR, I don't believe blatant policy violations do as well; Wikipedia has other remedies in those instances. Rather, while I do agree, and have said in very emphatic terms, that the article needs a fully developed narrative describing the show and the judging procedures, I don't think using the assertion that the content is unsourced is the way to get that accomplished, particularly given, as I said on the talk page, that there is too well established a precedent for sourcing with the episodes to not have it apply in this case. All that did was inflame the situation, and create an edit war that didn't need to have happened. Instead, we need to think in terms of all or nothing: either the article is brought up to standard, or it's recommended for deletion. Reverting it to a stub will accomplish nothing, just galvanize Worstcook and other IP editors who see the inconsistency from one article to another. (Oh, and for the sake of the permanent record, I'm a she-type, not a he-type.) Drmargi (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Result: 31 hours to Worstcook for long-term edit warring. Worstcook's refusal to discuss is noted. Drmargi's large revert while the 3RR report was open is also noted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:76.118.227.161 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.118.227.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Blue Army (Poland)#Civilian Atrocities

Comments:


Fifth revert: [22].Faustian (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also concerned about this editor. HAving made a large number of edits to the article Polish Armed Forces, adding about 8kb of new and referenced text, this editor arrived out of the blue, claimed he had earlier edited the page, and reverted to an earlier version which halved the coverage on the page. His complaints can be see at Talk:Polish Armed Forces, but the only one he's insisted on changing is removing a Communist-era Polish army picture and substituting a whole bunch of pictures previous and since 1990. Looking at the page history of Blue Army, I've reverted him here as he seemed to remove any mention of the atrocities the Blue Army committed. From the evidence I have seen, I am worried that this editor is determined to present only one, positive, view of the history of the Polish military, omitting mention of any periods that might seem less honourable. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours T. Canens (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
He's switched IPs: [23].Faustian (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Page semiprotected three days by T. Canens. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:27.122.16.74 reported by User:Geo Swan (Result: 2 months)[edit]

Page: Guantanamo Review Task Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 27.122.16.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: prior to repeated blanking

  • 1st revert: [24] 14:33, 2011 November 18
  • 2nd revert: [25] 02:00, 2011 November 20
  • 3rd revert: [26] 08:20, 2011 November 20
  • 4th revert: [27] 08:48, 2011 November 20


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

This is not an instance of the official 3RR warning. I have used that tag so infrequently I couldn't recall it, so I voiced my concern without using the template, but I think I did an OK job, without the template.

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

I haven't tried to further address the IP's article blankings, as, after they made two more page blankings, another contributor addressed the blankings quite competently.

Comments:

User:Iqinn was placed under a permanent block on 2011-08-24. The style of User:27.122.16.74's reply to my warning is remarkably similar to the typical response User:Iqinn would offer to good faith expressions of concern. Specifically, Iqinn, rather than offer a meaningful response, would turn the expression of concern on its head -- without regard to whether it made any sense at all to do so.

Here are some instances [29], [30], [31]

I am concerned that this may not be a coincidence, and that 27.122.16.74 is User:Iqinn trying to evade their block.

It seems to me that the style of the comments 27.122.16.74 left on Talk:Guantanamo Review Task Force are also typical of Iqinn's style:

  1. [32] -- an immediate accusation another contributor is "disruptive" merely for voicing concerns over 27's edits;
  2. [33] -- evasive;
  3. [34] -- evasive;
  4. [35] -- repetitious and evasive;

I think there is a three month window for using the underlying IP address to determine if an IP contribution comes from a contributor who has gone inactive, or who has been blocked. If this is correct there are only a few days during which sockpuppetry can be determined. Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for recent edits made by the IP 27.122.16.74 at Guantanamo Review Task Force as generated by the 3RR helper tool, including edit summaries:
  1. 19:33, 18 November 2011 (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect because the sources have been misinterpreted and mischaracterized, just have a look at the Washington post article")
  2. 07:00, 20 November 2011 (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect because the sources have been misinterpreted and mischaracterized, just have a look at the Washington post article")
  3. 13:20, 20 November 2011 (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect ~ misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources [[36]]")
  4. 13:48, 20 November 2011 (edit summary: "blank the page and redirect ~ misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources [User_talk:Geo_Swan#misinterpretation_and_mischaracterization_of_sources] please do reply there")
  5. 13:56, 20 November 2011 (edit summary: "misinterpretation and mischaracterization of sources please do reply here [User_talk:Geo_Swan#misinterpretation_and_mischaracterization_of_sources] please do discuss instead of reverting")
All the times in my list are given in UTC. The fifth edit by the IP, the one at 13:56 UTC, is new since this report was filed by Geo Swan. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Blocked as a proxy for 2 months, not by me. Swarm X 22:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Aprock (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: List of Pan Am episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lhb1239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Below is a list of four sets of edits over the span of four hours where Lhb1239 reverts content just added by three different editors.

  • 0th revert: 01:23, 19 November 2011 [37] 4 edits, "returning...", "rewording...", "returning...", "return..."
  • 1st revert: 01:42, 19 November 2011 [38] "Reverted good faith edits by Television fan (talk)..."
  • 2nd revert: 03:56, 19 November 2011 [39] "Reverted 1 edit by 99.19.56.28 (talk)..."
  • 3rd revert: 05:36, 19 November 2011 [40] "Reverted good faith edits by Gujuguy (talk)..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:16, 19 November 2011 [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [42], [43]

Comments:

I am an entirely uninvolved editor here, and wouldn't normally bring such a report, especially since it's a couple day old. But this user was blocked less than a week ago for edit warring in the same topic area [44], so it's clear that the 48 hour block was not effective in managing the disruptive behavior.

aprock (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The list of diffs above is a successive grouping of edits that was marked mainly by a group of us trying to pare down a TV show episode summary to an allowable number of words. At least one of the edits was a reversion due to a copy vio from an IP editor who has been persistent in adding verbatim episode summaries plagiarized from online sources. There was an editor edit warring at the above article, but it wasn't me and I asked the other editor to please stop edit warring on their talk page. Frankly, I am stunned by this report. I don't think I've ever even heard of the editor making this report until earlier tonight when I reverted his additions to the following article because it was too close to the original wording in the source given and a WP:COPYVIO. (See this diff) This report, in my opinion, is retaliation for reverting his edit. For what it's worth, I think the number of days having passed between above listed edits occurring and this filing is a bit of a clue to the witch-hunt nature behind this report. Lhb1239 (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your poorly thought out revert prompted my looking into your editing behavior. As noted above, I'm generally disinclined to make these sort of reports. Had it not been for the fact that you were continuing to serially revert other users in the face of a warning less than a week after your previous block in the same topic area, I would not have made the report. Instead of thinking of this as a witch hunt, think of it as an attempt to reign in your disruptive behavior. aprock (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Edits were nearly three days ago. Swarm X 21:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Yworo reported by User:Sheodred (Result: No violation )[edit]

Page: Peter O'Toole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: CS Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st edit: [45]
  • 2nd edit: [46]
  • 3rd edit: [47]
  • 4th edit: [48]
  • 5th edit: [http://[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Yworo]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[[49]]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_O'Toole

Comments:
He has been continously been warned on his talk page and article pages for his editing and personal attacks, but he continues with the behaviour and editing without consequence, and deleted the discussions from his talk pages he even tried to delete the discussion on the CS Lewis talk pages. Editors are becoming convinced that it is blatant POV pushing. Sheodred (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC) -->


WP:BOOMERANG, anyone? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wwwaa1234 reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Natalie Wood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wwwaa1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [50]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]; [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:

User is possibly a sock or is using an unannounced alternate account. Has so far only edited the Wood article and seems to know a lot about undue weight for only being here for a few days. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Lhb1239(Result: 31h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: Juli Inkster


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

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

Comments:

  • Comment: All of the above edit warring was done during and after the same editor had placed the following personal attacks on the talk page of editor he had the dispute with:

He has also been reported to the Wikikette board here.

Two editors, crunch and the above one, keep editing out the following


LPGA Tour playoff record (6-4)

No. Year Tournament Opponent(s) Result
1 1984 Nabisco Dinah Shore United States Pat Bradley Won with par on first extra hole
2 1986 Lady Keystone Open United States Cindy Hill, United States Debbie Massey Won with par on first extra hole
3 1988 Crestar Classic United States Rosie Jones, United States Betsy King
United States Nancy Lopez,
Won with eagle on first extra hole
4 1988 Atlantic City Classic United States Beth Daniel Won with par on first extra hole
5 1992 Nabisco Dinah Shore United States Dottie Mochrie Lost to par on first extra hole
6 1992 U.S. Women's Open United States Patty Sheehan Lost 18-hole playoff (Sheehan:72, Inkster:74)
7 1997 Samsung World Championship of Women's Golf Sweden Helen Alfredsson, United States Kelly Robbins Won with birdie on first extra hole
8 2000 LPGA Championship Italy Stefania Croce Won with par on second extra hole
9 2007 SemGroup Championship South Korea Mi-Hyun Kim Lost to par on first extra hole
10 2008 SemGroup Championship United States Paula Creamer Lost to birdie on second extra hole

That wasn't in the player's article Until the last day[70] and for the citations, they aren't done in win boxes. Crunch knows that, why isn't a citation added here when he edited a win box here[71] when that box was just added[72] today? That edit he did was done before the Inkster reverts.[73] I'm being consistent, putting in legit material, and people are reverting without looking at what they're doing and or at the same time conveniently forgetting their own edit histories.- William 02:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor making the case against me really is so wrong and he keeps making incorrect statements which I challenged on his talk page. Look at his first listing of me violating 3RR

Carefully study that edit. Do you see I put in new information aka a playoff results chart that's seen in golfer articles from Tiger Woods down to Marty Fleckman. I can list 30 edits similar to this one where I put in playoff boxes for golfers. I'll list every single one of them, including this one[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beth_Daniel&oldid=461638402} where Crunch wrongly reverted my work. Ask editor Tewapack, who have had run-ins with, if what Crunch did was right or wrong? His answer seems apparent, he made structural fixes to my edit but left it up.

When editors accuse me of 3rr for violations after a warning and falsely accuse me of a reversion that never happened., I get a very strong opinion of people arranging a kangaroo court. Especially when you consider this editor's own actions of deleting the playoff box himself and then accusing me of 3rr on his talk page after I was warned. That didn't happen, check my history.

He called me a fool for correcting mistakes. I called him an imbecile for repeatedly not looking at what he is doing and repeating the same mistakes. One time is a accident, 4 times(3 of which happened in a very short time span) is a clear pattern.- William 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked — 31 hours. Editor has reverted four times in 24 hours. (The edit history shows him removing 5810 bytes from the article four times since November 20). He was asked to promise to stop warring and apologize for personal attacks, on his talk page. Neither occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

User:96.32.129.220 reported by User:Ute in DC (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Backyard Brawl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.32.129.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [75]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85], [86]

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. IP blocked by JamesBWatson for "Disruptive editing: over a prolonged period". Minima© (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Emerson 07 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: History of the French line of succession (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Emerson 07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Slow but persistent edit-warring on several articles, just below 3RR:

On History of the French line of succession

On Line of succession to the French throne (Legitimist)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

Comments:

Emerson 07 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account [89] who has been persistently pushing for a fringe-within-the-fringe political position on French royalism. He persistently misuses talk pages for arguing the "TRUTH" of his agenda ([90], [91], [92], [93] [94]), uses disruptive WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS tactics to push his views ([95], [96], [97]), and has upheld a slow but persistent revert-war over several related articles. Fut.Perf. 11:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — Also, clearly edited while logged out after being warned of edit warring on the main account. --slakrtalk / 05:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Blusts reported by User:Jhortman (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Talk:Glücksgas Stadium (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blusts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: orig revision by Jhortman

  • Original edit/addition of machine-translated material: diff
  • 1st revert: diff


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None (see comments)

Comments:

This user currently only has 1 revert on this round, but has a long history of edit warring on Glücksgas Stadium and Talk:Glücksgas Stadium. he adds the same machine-translated, unsourced content over and over, then engages in a revert war without any discussion when his edits are changed in any way. He also randomly deletes items on the Talk page. He has been blocked multiple times for this behavior in the past, so I am reporting it again in the hopes of nipping this in the bud.

You are dealing with a sock of User:Fox53, aka Kay Körner, who keeps reappearing uner differnt user accounts from time to time, gets blocked and reappears again after a break. He tends to edit the same group of pages, associated with East Germany, especially the SV Dynamo. Most of the times nowadays he behaves himself, compare to the old times at least. If he gets blocked on this account he will just come back on another. Calistemon (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dominus Vobisdu reported by User:Robertcurrey (Result: Self ban for a week accepted)[edit]

Page: Scorpio (astrology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

The editor has a history of blanking astrology-related content, proposing that the subject has no authorities and arguing that “Deletion is the best option when it is reasonable to expect that adequate sourcing will never be found”. [98]

Other editors have responded that the sources used are not problematic in reporting what astrologers or those who write about the subject believe. [99]

He refuses to allow attempts to improve content in the section on the mythology on Scorpio (astrology), and is constantly reverting information that is well known, widely reported and reliably sourced. His edits leave the page with only a brief inclusion of poor quality content, which is disputed for its accuracy and lacks reliable references.

The editor has been warned that his attitude is antagonistic and has a history of causing offense to other editors working on pages related to astrology, by his insistence that the subject is “complete and utter fraudulent bullshit” and its sources are as worthless as “used-ass-wipe”.

11 Nov
16 Nov
11 Nov
16 Nov

He has been asked to specify what sources he objects to and why, but refuses to do this, while claiming in his edit summaries that other editors should ‘see talk’. Robert Currey talk 08:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I appear to have lost count. Changes were made to two sections of the article, and I didn't realize the latter also reverts reverted material that I had already reverted in my first reversion. The latter three reverts were made in response to an ip hopper that reverted 5 times with no discussion on talk page. I reverted three times and stopped, thinking that I had reached my limit at that point.
FWIW, this is my first time I've been brought to #RRN. I'm very careful about not exceeding 3RR. I offer a voluntary self-ban from the article for the period of a week.
As to the charge that I have not discussed this on the talk page, there is a discussion about this section on progress on talk page concerning sourcing and other issues, and a clear consensus that the section would not be added until adequately sourced. I spent a good bit of my own time finding additional sources and posted them in that discussion.
As for calling astrology "bullshit", the language was perhaps a bit colorful, but accuarate and does not cross the civility boundary in my opinion. No personal attacks were made. Nevertheless, I stopped using colorful language when I was asked to by the editors involved a week ago. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The sudden appearance of several reverting anons on that page is disturbing. Semi? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. I was going to request one myself but didn't have time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked'Result:' "I offer a voluntary self-ban from the article for the period of a week." This offer is accepted (since there appears to be an apology as well, and its a first offence). Violations of the self ban should be brought back here. I have semi-protected the article for 3 days only. --BozMo talk 13:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Natty4bumpo reported by User:Weazie (Result: blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Natty4bumpo (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: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:
These are a cluster of partial reverts. But demonstrate a pattern to prefer edits/reverts rather than discussing on talk page. --Weazie (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Niel Mokerjee reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Bāngāli BRAMHāN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niel Mokerjee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [112]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117], [118], [119]

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

A new editor, who created a page for a subject that already has an existing article Bengali Brahmins. Another editor than myself redirected their preferred name, full of unorthodox capitalizations to say the least, and informed them at their talk. The offending editor worked at the actual article for a bit, until it became clear that they couldn't use their alternate spelling in the article[120]. User has yet to acknowledge a talkpage or edit summary message and are edit warring to keep the duplicate article with their preferred naming. Heiro 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Their alternate spelling seems to be to push this religiously based Facebook page or group, which seems to be the only use of this spelling (besides us now) according to Google. Heiro 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fatima.new reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: page deleted)[edit]

Page: Ahmed elSeyoufi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fatima.new (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: [125]

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

It's not a content dispute. Maybe this is the wrong place to report it? User is edit-warring with the bot over removal of speedy deletion template.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Page deleted and salted as copyvio. No need to block at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:174.99.127.20 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: )[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.99.127.20 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 174.99.127.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 22:19, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Comments by other users */ It is entirely inappropriate to refactor other's comments on any talk page. Please stop.")
  2. 22:26, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "/* Comments by other users */ r")
  3. 22:29, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322532 by Yworo (talk)")
  4. 22:35, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322918 by Yworo (talk)")

Also broke 3RR on a second page, Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse:

  1. 22:31, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322671 by Yworo (talk)")
  2. 22:34, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462322900 by Yworo (talk)")
  3. 22:46, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462324224 by Yworo (talk)")
  4. 22:53, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 462325398 by Yworo (talk)")
  5. 23:02, 24 November 2011 (Undid revision 462326313 by Sjones23 (talk))
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Comment: User repeatedly undoing striking of their personal attacks.

Yworo (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Admin: I'm not trying to make excuses for myself, but I would ask that you also look at Yworo's reverts on the same page. He imposes his interpretation of "personal attacks" (even though he has made several of them himself today), and claims that he is allowed to repeatedly strike my comments on a talk page. In fact, I won't be surprised if he removes my comments I am making right now. If I'm guilty of edit warring, he is equally guilty. And that's not to mention his history of incivility to IPs and newly registered editors. Thanks. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Striking of personal attacks is explicitly allowed. You were informed of this but did not read up on it. You're clearly in the wrong here. Yworo (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

First, they were not personal attacks. I was simply responding to your own false accusations and personal attacks on me on a page in which I am allowed to defend myself. Secondly, you reverted as much or more than I did. Both of us (and that includes you, Yworo) need to leave things alone and let an admin decide this. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you reverted four times on two different pages one page and five times on another. I have not reverted four times on any page. Yworo (talk) Yworo (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yworo, let the admin do the math. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No. My math is correct and you can stop ordering me around right now. Enjoy your upcoming month long block. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You need to stop screwing around with other editors' comments. If the IP is a sock, have him dealt with as such. But don't try to alter his comments. Just add comments of your own demonstrating that he's incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:CentristFiasco reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CentristFiasco (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: [131]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Reverted_a_POV_edit

Comments: This user is very excited to rewrite the lede to reflect what he thinks is true about the world. He's not excited to add sources, or to discuss the article in any form but his preferred form. I have reverted him only once - there is no apparent support for his bold edit (well, twice, but I assumed one of his reverts was mistaken)


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:CentristFiasco reported by User:Becritical (Result: ) (merged to heading above, resolved

Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CentristFiasco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [132]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]

Comments:


User:Wwwaa1234 reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Natalie Wood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wwwaa1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [140]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]; [149]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [150]

Comments:

  • NOTE: This was never dealt with and was archived. I am bringing this out from the archives so a decision can be made one way or the other. I don't know if it slipped through the cracks or was intentionally ignored - if I wrong bringing it back out for review, my apologies. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User is possibly a sock or is using an unannounced alternate account. Has so far only edited the Wood article and seems to know a lot about undue weight for only being here for a few days. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale User has not edited in 3 days; blocks are preventative and not punative. Sockpuppetry problems should be investigated via WP:SPI. Jayron32 04:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Webwires reported by User:Hollyckuhno (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [151]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160]

Comments:

  • Comment: This user acts as if he/she is the only one that could improve the article. Guess what, this user reverted my edits just because for his opinion his version is better. I thought wikipedia is a collaborative program? - Hollyckuhno (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Wifione Message 13:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:36, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 462229191 by Packerfansam: stable versaion - brd. using TW")
  2. 19:12, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Jayjg (talk): This weight as regards his jewisn ness or lack of it was discussed over length andf I am in my rights to brd it - the talkpage is whewre youy should make your cas...")
  3. 19:32, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Plot Spoiler (talk): Please do no t tag team - the stable version was discussed at lenfghth - BRD is on the talkpage. using TW")
  4. 19:49, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Plot Spoiler (talk): Please stop tag teaming - BRD - well discussed content - the talkpage is where you should make your case. using TW")
  5. 20:01, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nomoskedasticity (talk): No - WP;BRD is ihn action- on the talkpage - stop tag teaming without discussion. using TW")
  6. 20:24, 24 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Jayjg (talk): Under discussion - on the talk page - yes you. using TW")

Surely this is as clear as it needs to be -- 5 6 separate reverts in the space of four and a half hours. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Time of warning to editor (as prescribed)? Discussions on article talk page concerning the material (which seem quite notable by their absence)? Absent such, and considering that there are BLP issues involved, I fear that the evidence is less than compelling that sanctions are needed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting Rob was unaware that he was edit-warring? I held off when it was only 4 reverts -- but by the time it's 5 6 it's not plausible that his "finger slipped". Oh, and the "BLP issues" is a canard (look it up) -- not even Rob is claiming it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
And now that there is an additional revert after this report was filed, surely the question of a warning is moot. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
There are no "BLP issues involved" here, since the material itself is unchanged, merely re-organized. Please review the actual changes. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • - reply - This is a tag teaming report. This user reporting has made three edits today - one to revert against me - one to make this report and one to tell me about it. Another of the tag teamers - User:Plot spoilers never having any interest or edits at all to Ed Miliband his edit history clearly shows he is a tag team reverter. I have repeatedly, to no avail requested talkpage discussion but none of them have posted a single post - the content that User:Jayjg is desirous of altering was discussed over length and its totally normal to request WP:BRD on the talkpage. With the lack of discussion - I requested full protection on RFPP but it as yet was not actioned. I am the only person that worked to raise the Ed Miliband article to GA status - here is my report at RFPP - full protect request. Here is the Ed Miliband talkpage history, as you will see not a single one of them has posted there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Jay, if someone was to define your behaviour in terms of your ARBCOM sanctions and called it "a persistent behavioural pattern", how would you feel? Yours isn't and neither is Robs. Clearly he's going through a tough time, how about you lay off?101.118.18.102 (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
If someone wants to change an article, it is for them to explain why, if reverted. Given the lengthy previous discussions on this issue, all involved should be aware of the need for dialogue - this inappropriate tag-teaming seems more harmful to Wikipedia in the long run than a single violation of WP:3RR. Sadly though, some contributors clearly think pushing their agendas more important than Wikipedia content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) 6RR violations, reliance on an essay to claim a "right" to revert uncontroversial copyedits without any rationale whatsoever, and false accusations of "tag-teaming" and "pushing an agenda", are far more "harmful to Wikipedia in the long run" than any corrective action meted out to Off2riorob here. The last issue of the false accusations also applies directly to you, Andy - and please don't use my pointing that out as an excuse to call editors here "idiots" or tell them to go fuck themselves. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming once again how committed you are to pursuing your agenda, and how little concern you have for the actual issues here. Now explain to me where I was wrong to state that the correct response to a reverted edit is talk-page dialogue, initiated by t