Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive177

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:67.248.31.193 reported by User:NatGertler (Result:31 h.)[edit]

Page: National Organization for Marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.248.31.193 (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]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
User did enter discussion after the third revert, but just to post and immediately revert the fourth time. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am the user. I mistakenly violated the 3RR rule (once) after having lost count due to the tendentious and POV edits of NatGertler and other users. My fourth revert has already been undone by another user. I will keep better track next time.08:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.31.193 (talk)

User:Pelaisse reported by User:Soewinhan (Result: Both pages protected)[edit]

Page: Burmese–Siamese wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Campaignbox Burmese–Siamese Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pelaisse (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: Warning from User:Jim1138.

Request for discussion from me.

Warning from me.

Other long term edit-warrings[edit]

Whenever he gets a chance, he'll remove Burma related information at various articles (diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) despite being warned repeatedly that such edits are unacceptable. (There is a list of warnings from other users at his talk page ).

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

Comments:
User:Pelaisse tried to split Burmese–Siamese War (1594–1605) into two different wars. User:Hybernator and I think it is inappropriate since the two invasions were part of a single war. I have started a discussion at Talk:Burmese–Siamese wars. But User:Pelaisse does not participate and keeps reverting. This is not the first time. (Check out his talk page) He was blocked there times for copyright violations and attempts to push nationalist POV. He also removes Burma related information from various pages whenever he gets a chance. SWH talk 13:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Seanwal111111 reported by 93.107.94.93 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: John Tyndall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other articles
User being reported: Seanwal111111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Edit Warring



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] [28]


Comments:

I am reporting this user for long-term edit warring.


This user has been actively engaged in this behaviour, but does it subtlely and over a period of time under the pretence of IMOS to avoid unwanted admin attention and scrutiny it seems, surprisingly this user has not been warned about his recent behaviour and this mass-scale reverting on the same articles must be deterred, it is is disruptive and very fustrating, this behaviour warrants an edit restriction or more under Wikipedia:TROUBLES as these actions meet the neccessary criteria for it to fall under it. This user has been warned before but persists.

As you can see that is a long list. 93.107.94.93 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope that whoever closes this report will consider the possibility that 93.107.94.93 is a sock of User:Sheodred, who is currently blocked for long-term edit warring about Irish nationality. I've filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheodred. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:EW
    • "Reverting edits by banned users is not edit warring." (indef block is de facto ban)
  • WP:3RRNO
    • "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts."
  • Seanwal111111 reverted a number of questionable edits originally made under the false impression that they were sanctioned by MOS. Ma®©usBritish [chat] 18:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation - IP blocked as a block-evading sock. Swarm X 22:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Socking. How very disappointing :( GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Thefightmaster reported by User:Reyemile (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Unexpected hanging paradox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thefightmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [29]

  • 1st revert: [30]
  • 2nd revert: [31]
  • 3rd revert: [32]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

Reyemile (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned — Thefightmaster may be blocked if he keeps restoring material which includes a copyright notice. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:99.246.70.190 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: WikiLeaks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.246.70.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [34]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:

Three of those reverts were of an anti-spam bot. Was edit warring well past the warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:90.200.63.139 reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page:' Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 90.200.63.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 00:38, 16 January 2012 (edit summary: "rv")
  2. 15:15, 16 January 2012 (edit summary: "rv")
  3. 20:28, 16 January 2012 (edit summary: "rv unreferenced material")
  4. 21:35, 16 January 2012 (edit summary: "rv")
  • Diff of warning: here

—  Will Beback  talk  21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm X 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jdey123 reported by Rostz (talk) (Result: 48 hr block)[edit]

Page: Global warming controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jdey123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 16:10, 17 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 471873340 by Squiddy (talk) vandalism")
  2. 16:30, 17 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Temperature predictions */ Any removal of this cited entry will result in a complaint to the moderators.")
  3. 16:48, 17 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Temperature predictions */ The title of this article is Global warming controversy. Removing cited entries just because you disagree with them is irresponsible.")
  4. 16:53, 17 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Temperature predictions */ This is getting tiresome guys. Stop vandalising cited entries.")
  5. 17:07, 17 January 2012‎ (edit summary: "/* Temperature predictions */ Editor: Please block Dave Souza for repeated vandalism of this article.")
  6. 17:15, 17 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Temperature predictions: I have complied with all Wiki terms of use. Please desist from removing cited entries just because you disagree with them. This is not a political tool.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Rostz (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Obviously this is a new user who would be better off getting some mentoring. He has been reverted, for so far as I can see, with no real justification.[42]. And he did use the talk page,[43] also he was the first to do so (shame on experienced editors here). He also asked a user on the issue[44] at hand. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • reverted... with no real justification - you're wrong. See [45]. Feel free to join the talk there if you still disagree, after reading it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Another one: [46] Undid revision 471895647 by Dave souza (talk) Please ban this clown. He keeps removing cited entries. His last reason is citing a well known political website that promotes AGW ideology. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Vsmith (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff reported by 71.184.188.254 (Result: IP blocked)[edit]

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


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_standard&diff=471023841&oldid=471021433


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

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

Comments:

Repeated warnings against edit warring keep getting deleted from the gold standard talk page. I can't engage in conversation with someone whose only action action is to deleted the warnings. The only conversation to date with him involves him repeated twisting of wiki policy in order to get his way.


Link to edit revisions of talk page - So far he has deleted a 3RR warning on the page 4 times.71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Both editors need to discuss more, edit less. I'd requested protection to stop an edit war and neither editor did much in that 3-day period. The IP has been posting talk page sections calling out Somedifferentstuff by name which I've refactored and pointed them to WP:TALKNEW. The talk page revert war is over an edit-war notice that absolutely does not belong on the article talk page. The IP is making a WP:POINT without regard for other editors. I frankly don't care about the specific content anymore - went through it a while ago with the IP and they are utterly relentless and are not interested in compromise. These debates have happened before with them, and will continue to happen until the article is the way they want. I'd prefer not to see anyone else chased off by their tendentious habits. Ravensfire (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff deleted a similar warning on his talk page. As far as I know a person's talk page is his to do with as he pleases, and the deletion of the warning there precluded any attempt at conversation.
Ravensfire above seems to shift my complaint from Somedifferentstuff engaging in a edit war on the article, to him engaging in an edit war on whether he can be warned on the articles talk page. My complaint is that Somedifferentstuff engaged in an edit war on the article, refused to discuss the matter on his talk page by deleting the complaint there, and deleted a similar complaint on the article talk page, further indicating he had no wish to discuss anything there as well.71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked — 71.184.188.254 blocked one month for long-term warring on this article. The protection log shows that two months of semiprotection was used on 29 August to damp down a war in which the IP was the prime mover. The article's talk page does not reveal anyone who supports the IP's changes, but he makes them anyway. We should not have to put up with endless turmoil on an article due to a user who will not follow consensus. More details on the IP's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jonchapple and User:Wee Curry Monster reported by User:Jim Sweeney (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Falklands War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jonchapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Wee Curry Monster (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: [link]

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

Comments:

User:Incompetence reported by User:Mercy11 (Result: Stale)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: LINK


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
I have two comments:

(1) I attempted to engage in a civil resolution of the dispute via the Talk page. The disagreeing user, User Incompetence, did make comments in response to my invitation. However, a review of the "conversation" thrat transpired at the Talk page shows that his responses were not a genuine attempt to engage in a civil resolution but to "game the system" by nominally "engaging" in the discussion. A review of the 3 diff edits above shows he used each opportunity, not to discuss, but fire back with factless accussations, to openly and blatantly show-off his who-cares/my-way-or-the-highway attitude (failure to exercise good faith), to exaggerate his claims (such as, "It's been reverted by two different people so far, more than once each") and, more generally, to indiscriminatedly establish an environment non-conductive to discussion.

(2) The page was locked immediately after the disagreeing User Incompetence's third revert within 24 hours - an event which froze the article into displaying contents that was consistent with the disagreeing User Incompetence's preferred form of the article. This is contrary to policy, whereby disputes by disagreeing editors should first be resolved via discussion thru the Talk page and once a cosensus/agreement is reached, the article is changed, if necessary, to reflect the consensus or agreement. I informed the disagreeing user (HERE) that, per Wikipedia procedures, the article should stay the way it originally read until the disagreement was resolved, but he continued to revert my work (HERE).

One last Note:
I never had any objections to discuss a different version of the article - one that would had been agreeable to both of our concepts of how the article should read - but the user, from the start, created an environment that made it impossible to engage in rational and respectful conversation. Thanks.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale These edits were made two days ago; a block now would only be punitive. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

User:124.123.100.65 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Qawwali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.123.100.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [52]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion

Comments:
IP (not the same IP, but very likely the same person) has been adding this user on this article for months now, this is not a one time occurrence, but a drawn out thing, but they violated 3RR today. - SudoGhost 22:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: – Semiprotected six months. There is a long-term war by a fluctuating IP to add the name of a specific singer. Use the talk page to get consensus for this addition. Perhaps you could find news articles to demonstrate his importance. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Cali4529 reported by User:JetBlast (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Southwest Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Cali4529 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 05:21, 19 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 471987370 by Compdude123 (talk) before your discussion about this problem, this was in collapsable list so reverting. you agreeing with 1 user does not count as agreement")
  2. 13:08, 19 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 472026321 by JetBlast (talk) do u realize how long it is without it. It needs it.")
  3. 23:50, 19 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 472132357 by JetBlast (talk) it is certainly necessary so stop undoing it. If you have an objection go to the talk page")

JetBlast (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – 3RR was not broken. Suggest a discussion on the talk page. If reverts continue after a talk consensus is found, blocks are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
How was it not broken? Me reverted the same edit 3 times within 24 hours? --JetBlast (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:3RR, it takes four reverts to break the 3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Communist Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: 2008 Mumbai attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Soviet Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mewulwe (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: [link]

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

Comments:

User is slow edit warring over a wide range of articles, he has been warned by an administrator and others regarding this already [68] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines has been stalking my edits for a while, reverting almost automatically, articles he hasn't otherwise been editing. He has some nerve to complain about reverts, when he has not only done the same technically but also for no discernible reason and without as much as engaging in discussion even in edit summaries, ignoring clearly stated reasons. Communist Romania is most blatant, where he insists on putting a "Soviet satellite state" designation in the infobox, which is even controversial with regard to other Communist states, but positively nonsensical in regard to Romania which is well known for the independent policy it pursued. I would ask admins to admonish the user to stop this stalking behaviour. Mewulwe (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, Darkness Shines posted his dishonest "attempt to resolve dispute" just 20 minutes before posting this complaint! His behaviour is competely beyond the pale. In addition, he himself has now (unlike me) violated 3RR by reverting a 4th time in 24 hours on Communist Romania. Mewulwe (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Adding references is a revert now? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Adding "satellite state" is. Changing the reference doesn't make it less of a revert. Mewulwe (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I should also point out that User:Mewulwe has been edit warring on East Germany and he deleted several warnings from his talk page regarding this. Caden cool 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Caden is another troll who reverted on East Germany without discussing at all and then had the nerve to accuse me of reverting without "discussing with him." Mewulwe (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, you call me a vandal and the chap above a troll? Perhaps you ought read WP:NPA? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Sound advice, I'm sure, from someone who says "Do grow up" in his edit summaries. Mewulwe (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Mewulwe, you need to WP:AGF and stop being so WP:BITEY. Just because you disagree with an editor does not make them a "troll" or "vandal". You repeated reverting doesn't help, either. – Connormah (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Trollish or vandalistic behaviour makes them a troll or vandal, as is the case here, not a disagreement. And if you're against repeated reverting, I wonder why you do it.[69][70] Mewulwe (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you mean to link to an article in which you reached 3rr and were warned by an administrator over it? And stop with the PA's. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No, an article where Connormah reached 3rr even though he thinks now he has to admonish other users for doing the same thing. Pot, kettle. Same applies to you and PAs. Mewulwe (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
So you didn't reach 3R on Ansumane Mané, when you edit warred out references from academic publishing houses? Interesting. Also, I do not recall calling people trolls or vandals, do you have a link to this attack? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't claim either of that. I reached 3rr as much as him, but I didn't sanctimoniously accuse him of reverting. And I said you engage in personal attacks, like the completely uncalled-for "Do grow up" revert summary when it was you whose position was completely indefensible. Mewulwe (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh please. I find your attitude towards others is nothing but WP:BITEY and hostile. I did not reach 3RR on the page, I backed off after two. Your constant assumption of bad faith (i.e. calling editors that disagree with you trolls and vandals) is quite troubling to me. Anyways, I'm done commenting here. – Connormah (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, technically your first edit may not have been a revert, but you added the dubious date three times, and I removed it three times, I don't see how that gives you much credibility to come here and complain about my repeated reverts. Nor am I assuming bad faith, I am observing bad faith where it is unambiguously evident, as with Darkness Shines, which anyone carefully examining his behaviour will agree with. Mewulwe (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
@Mewulwe. You never discussed a single thing with me on East Germany. All you've done is revert, revert, revert. In fact you reverted 3 times in one day. Never did you ever give me a reason for your reverts. Calling me a troll is a personal attack. Calling other editors vandals are personal attacks. Furthermore, running around on East Germany calling User:Heonsi a sock is flat out unacceptable behavior. Where is your evidence that Heonsi is a sock? Proove it or drop it! Your behavior on Talk:East Germany and the RFC has been negative and filled with personal attacks. Caden cool 11:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
There he goes again. No, all I've done is not revert. I've been discussing at great length on the talk page, which you hadn't touched at all at the time you first complained of me not "discussing with you" (and even now only once to cast a meaningless "me-too" !vote). What, did you expect me to come to your user talk page for some personal invitation? Calling your behaviour trollish is just the facts. Here you are, explicitly complaining about my behaviour "on Talk:East Germany," where your behaviour consisted in not participating at all! And Heonsi is a new user who immediately joined ongoing edit wars (and is not participating in discussion either), that's screaming sockpuppet. This is not a personal attack either. Mewulwe (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I did participate on Talk:East Germany so lying about me is pointless. I've worked on East Germany on and off for years so please stop with the trolling accusations. Your edits were noticed and reverted by many others as you very well know. Your constant assumption of bad faith, POV pushing on East Germany, and your personal attacks is quite disturbing. I'm done commenting here.Caden cool 13:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
What you may have done years ago is hardly relevant. You have not taken part in the current discussion, as anyone can see by going to the talk page and searching "Caden" which only yields the aforementioned !vote. You are the one both lying and POV pushing. Mewulwe (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In fact, searching the entire edit history of the talk page you have never edited the page at all other than the one time mentioned. Pants on fire, I'd say. Mewulwe (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
He said he has edited the article on and off, not the talk page. Which he has BTW[71][72] Would you care to retract your accusations of him being a liar? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
He said "I did participate on Talk:East Germany". Which he hasn't. So, no. Mewulwe (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours to Mewulwe for personal attacks on this page: 'dishonest', 'liar' and 'troll'. An admin board is not a free-fire zone. Mewulwe was asked to withdraw the term 'liar' but he refused. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Mewulwe has been warned by me recently about edit warring - I gave him him a chance without blocking him, but it appears not to have any effect. His next block will be a lot longer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:FluffyRug reported by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: House of Prayer, Achill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 14:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Reverting to revision of 22:22, 13 January 2012 by FluffyRug:

  1. 18:15, 19 January 2012 (edit summary: "Adding Secondary Sources etc")
  2. 12:27, 20 January 2012 (edit summary: "Reliable Sources & Secondary Sources supplied")
  3. 13:24, 20 January 2012 (edit summary: "Possible Vandalism")
  4. 14:04, 20 January 2012 (edit summary: "Probable Vandalism with an agenda! Links are valid published and independently verified in accord with wikipedia policy.")

RA (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


UserFluffyRug - Discussions Thank you for this information which I was unaware of. My only aim has been to provide factual information and have endeavoured to follow the Wikipedia policies and have tried to open discussions with those involved in deleting my edits. As a new account holder with Wikipedia I stand corrected about reverting and will certainly follow the procedures, but stand by the accuracy of my edits. You may notice from my edits that every attempt was made to correct any policy mister meaner

FluffyRug (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR was brought to your attention with this edit, so that bird won't fly. RashersTierney (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. The user has received helpful advice but they seem to have ignored it. They make constant charges of vandalism in their edit summaries. They have defended themselves above but this does not seem to be a promise that they will follow policy in the future. I suggest that editors who have been working on this topic also check Gerard McGinnity where FluffyRug has made a large addition recently. This might be the same editor as User:StPhilomena but that account stopped editing in October. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:XCentristFiasco reported by Muboshgu (talk) (Result: 24 h.)[edit]

Page: Presidency of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 16:29, 20 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 472275437 by Muboshgu (talk) No Hostility, Brother. Discuss First, Change Second. Nothing Controversial about my Changes.")
  2. 16:34, 20 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 472276481 by Muboshgu (talk) You're the One who's "Editing Waring". We can settle this in the Discussion. ;)")
  3. 16:48, 20 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 472277072 by DD2K (talk) Sorry, I would rather face the banishment towards me because this edit is benefitial and the Wiki Code introduced before my edit, it was absolutely ridicious.")
  4. 16:54, 20 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 472279997 by Muboshgu (talk) You're such an Elitist. The Moderators will know I'm justified and you're not on this case.")

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

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

Please note that the article in question is on 1RR probation. —– Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
The article is under a 1rr restriction, the user has been informed and warned, but will not listen. The user also removed one of my comments from the article Talk page. Dave Dial (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Icairns reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result:Both blockeed )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [75]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Hockey vs Field Hockey

Comments:
Both editors discussed on my talk page. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked You're both edit warring, actually. Courcelles 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:86.145.213.70 and User:Mike Rosoft reported by User:Pilif12p (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Waste autoclave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 86.145.213.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff

By 86.145.213.70:

By Mike Rosoft:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP editor, Mike Rosoft

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, I just reverted once.

Comments:

  • The reason why I was repeatedly reverting the edit is that the user was adding complaints and other comments (even a legal threat) on the article contents within the article itself. See the unregistered user's talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking back at the article, I probably shouldn't have performed the last revert; this edit didn't contain the problematic material. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • IP Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Shirik.[81] Swarm X 03:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jakew reported by User:Gsonnenf (Result: Stale)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=472058353&oldid=471985473


All reverts are deletion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jakew&diff=472232430&oldid=472227159

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=472268096&oldid=472260304
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&diff=472230589&oldid=472226607

Comments: I was recently referred to this article during a discussion and noticed it was a bit heavy on pro-circumcision points. I added a few sources to provide more complete data and was met with a brick wall of revisions and an enormous amount of wiki lawyering that didn't apply to the situation. I tried discussing this with him and working with another editor to make sure the info got added in a way that made everyone happy, but alas it was reverted again. He also other uses content, specifically in the last link.

I checked the discussion board and it appears that at least 3 other users have had the same thing happen to them in the past several days and there are month of edit warring posts where he and another editor declares themselves the winner and revert. Looking at the 3RR archive, jakew has a history of edit warring then reporting people for fighting his revisions. It appears that there are 2 or 3 people, including him that are really trying to dominate the article to there own POV through false pretense of fake WP violations.

This is my first 3RR report so please excuse any mistakes.

Gsonnenf (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR violation. The first revert is dated 2012-01-19 13:34:02, while the 4th is dated 2012-01-20 15:50:45. Jakew (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

" Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation."Gsonnenf (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

        • I came here after a philosophy discussion I was having turned to circumcision. I found the article omitted quite a bit, so I attempted to fix this. My being here has nothing to do with the Reddit group. Though, if a group on Reddit decides the article is terribly bias and wishes to fix it, they are certainly welcome to add there voice and have it given equal weight to other editors even the zealous ones. As for my IP, I identified on the talk page that it was me. I stopped reverting after my third to be compliant with the rules. The 4th was not a revert, I removed the part that was criticized in the reversion comments but apparently he had more criticism for the content after that. Gsonnenf (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
          • It was a partial revert, of this edit by Jayjg. His edit summary read: '"evidence strongly suggests"? That's a Wikipedia editor's conclusion. Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Also, these are WP:PRIMARY sources, which should be avoided. See also WP:MEDRS and article talk page'. Your claim that you addressed his criticisms is incorrect, as your revert restored the primary source citations. Jakew (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
            • I removed the part that "stated evidence strongly suggests" in hopes this would satisfy the editor. Though this is a report about your 3RR violation. If you feel I have violated 3RR please file a report and continue your comments there. I'm sure you are familiar with the process.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Jayjg, some people have discussions in real life. If you would stop attacking my credibility with FUD I would appreciate it.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale — Both parties are urged to use the talk page to get consensus. The article has needed full protection many times in the past, and protection will be used again if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bali ultimate reported by User:WR Reader (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia Review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bali ultimate (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: [83]

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

Comments: Bali ultimate has been blocked for edit-warring in the past and so should know better, but as the first diff shows ("couldn't help myself"), he is adding the template that is currently under a deletion discussion for disruptive joke purposes only. He has a long history of going after the Article Rescue Squadron and its members (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colonel_Warden#Outside_view_by_Bali_ultimate for one of many examples.

  • - The first alleged revert is actually an addition. diff - That edit was the first addition of the template and Bali has three rescue template additions after that - I note the reverting has also stopped. Youreallycan 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
If "WR Reader" isn't a sock then I'm Peggy Flemming. Nice trip down memory lane with that year old RFC on Warden, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes - User:Jack_Merridew was involved in that discussion . I would just block him as a disruptive sockpuppet and be done with it - account has only edited on four separate days since its creation six months ago - first edit today was these two 3rr reports - why should we have suffer this disruptive trolling all the time. Youreallycan 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I would be very surprised if it was Jack. User:A Nobody or User:Benjiboi are far more likely. The recently active accounts to look at including this on are User:JoolsRun and User:CallawayRox. It could be some false flag troll by some other banned user. But i say leave 'em be. All great grist for the mill.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, there's something very henky about User:Northamerica1000. That one feels particularly like User:A Nobody.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I highly doubt that Northamerica1000 is A_Nobody. When I first saw Northamerica, I thought it was A Nobody also (who I am completely familiar with), and I compared their editing pattern. There's almost nothing similar between the two with editing sytle, editing tendersies (he would never nominate the rescue template for discussion in TFD and ignore most of it as an recent example) and even time zones, with the exception of the abuse of the rescue template and the inclusionism. I think Northamerica1000 is another banned user, but that discussion about sockpuppets belong in AN/I or SPI not here. Secret account 06:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – Bali's first addition of the rescue template was not a revert, as someone has pointed out. Since the AfD has closed with keep, the dispute is now over. It has occurred to some people that the submitter of this complaint, User:WR Reader, might be a sock. Deliberately pointy and unhelpful comments might be evidence for that. It is hard to consider this AfD comment by WR Reader to be good faith participation. Socks should not be filing 3RR reports. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

User:66.239.61.196 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 1 month)[edit]

Page: Stormfront (website) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 66.239.61.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:01, 20 January 2012 (edit summary: "removed emotional and biased POV text")
  2. 19:34, 21 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 472290495 by Mann jess (talk) removing POV to restore neutrality of article.")
  3. 23:24, 21 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 472481101 by Mann jess (talk) yes, stop edit warring. do not reverse the changes or you will be blocked.")

Diff of warning: [85]

Comments: No violation of 3rr. Ip has removed sourced content from the article now 3 times. I've directed him to WP:EW and WP:BRD, and invited him to an active discussion taking place on the talk page, but he's refused (even after warning), relying instead on edit warring. It appears to be a static ip, as behavior is identical spanning back to first edit in July 2009. He's received ample warnings on every article he's frequented. I usually restrain myself to 1rr, and I'm at 3 now, so I won't be reverting again. However, I believe he will continue to edit war to remove the sources on this and other articles unless he's blocked to prevent disruption. Thanks.

—  — Jess· Δ 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked — One month for long-term edit warring and POV-pushing. For this editor, MSNBC is a socialist channel. He has never left a comment on a talk page or given any hint that he is listening to others' opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Charlie150408 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24 h.)[edit]

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

User being reported: Charlie150408 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 01:12, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Updated images") first addition of the photograph
  2. 01:35, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472535214 by Jim1138 (talk)")
  3. 12:16, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472590321 by Bleakcomb (talk) change image back to updated imagine, old image was pre 'the gardens' (before 2007)")
  4. 12:25, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472600137 by Bidgee (talk) HATERS GONNA HATE X0X0")
  5. 12:34, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* City and suburbs */ added updated image, since y'all have such a problem with it x0") re-added the same photo but different section, however it is still seen as edit warring since they are adding the same content to the article
  6. 12:45, 22 January 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 472601944 by Bidgee (talk) HOW IS THAT VANDALISM? LOLOLOL, PATHETIC, HAVE ME BLOCKED, ILL JUST MAKE A NEW USERNAME X0X0X0X0X0X0X")
  • Diff of warning: here

Comments:
User refuses to use the talk page and has also threatened to sock if blocked. Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC) —Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:33, 22 January 2012 (edit summary: "rem attack site")
  2. 19:48, 22 January 2012 (edit summary: "add comment")
  3. 19:58, 22 January 2012 (edit summary: "remove chat thread from attack site - no benefit at all to the article - BLP")
  4. 20:02, 22 January 2012 (edit summary: "Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - states, External links to locations that are not considered WP:RS's should not be posted on article talkpages and can be removed by other users. -")
  • Diff of warning: here

These edits involve repeated removal of content from the posts of other editors -- something that is becoming a habit with this editor. Note that WP:TPO indicates an editor should "normally stop if others object". Even if this user thinks he is interpreting policy correctly, it doesn't justify edit-warring beyond 3RR.

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly an attack site against a living person and is not a not reliable source that is of no benefit to the article. That link is to a chat thread or a list of "letters" from the public with personal attacks from all and sundry. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - states, External links to locations that are not considered WP:RS's should not be posted on article talkpages and can be removed by other users. - Its been replaced twice now by Heironymous_Rowe , his only two edits today are to replace this attack link. The exact same edit pattern he repeated on the 14 Jan in this thread. I will leave it there and look for some discussion and consensus to remove Youreallycan 20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, the alleged merits of the reverts don't justify edit-warring, particularly when WP:TPO advises caution and stopping when others object. By the way, it's hard to see a category in WP:TPO that would cover (and thus justify) this removal. But again that's a separate issue; the issue here is obvious edit-warring, carried on beyond a 3RR warning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Its an attack site - its being kept out of the article for BLP reasons and it has no place on the talkpage either, especially a letters to the editors chat thread. Youreallycan 20:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case at hand, WP:BLP absolutely and clearly applies, as the OP has been told by others in the ppast. "Objecting" to mandatory removal of BLP violating content does not estop the removal of such content. The frothy mixture being purveyed by some does not belong on any BLP or on any article talk page subject to WP:BLP, and the use of the frothy mixture repeatedly is even less welcome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's a BLP violation is a matter of consensus, and if others revert the removal it's a pretty obvious sign that there is no consensus that it's a BLP violation. WP:3RR itself counsels against relying on a "BLP" exemption in view of such considerations ("What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption"). User:Youreallycan fancies himself specially authorized to make BLP judgments all on his own, but in fact this is a matter of judgment and consensus formation among interested editors. In this context edit-warring is, shall we say, unwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
If it's a BLP matter, then the material should stay out, and those wishing to include it can go to BLP/N, no? Franamax (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
@Nomoskedasticity - Not really -If a user in good faith considers a link a violation of BLP he is in his rights to remove it - experienced users , like yourself, rather than warring the external back in, should take that good faith removal on board and not replace it and move to discussion. Youreallycan 21:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Enforcing BLP is exempted from 3-rr. And I'd also encourage all editors wishing to restore the link to stop reverting and start a BLPN thread. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the link in question, acting in an administrative capacity. Further discussion should occur at a noticeboard. Franamax (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bouron and User:Tirgil34 reported by User:Bouron (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Scythian languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bouron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Tirgil34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff

User Bouron
User Tirgil34


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93] [94] User talk:Bouron#Scythian_Language

Comments:
This is my first edit war report. Before this edit war all my opponents tried to solve conflicts on the talk page. So I didn't expect my opponent would revert me 3rd time. I had no hope that I can have constructive dialogue with User:Tirgil34 when I decided to report the edit war. What about reverts by me. I totally agree that 3rd revert from me violated rules of Wikipedia. But now I know that multiple reverting make nothing useful. I also promise not to participate in edit wars again. Please take into account the fact that I reverted to consensus version and my suggestions to discuss the changes on discussion page.--Bouron (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale