Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive181

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Starmanres reported by Dave Dial (talk) (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Starmanres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 16:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:33, 14 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Fake Birth Certificate Updates")
  2. 15:38, 14 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 481863551 by Ravensfire (talk)")
  3. 15:41, 14 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 481864326 by DD2K (talk)")
  4. 15:53, 14 March 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 481864844 by Ravensfire (talk)")
  • I don't see any reason to keep this editor here; they're pushing a fringe theory in a particularly tendentious manner and wasting everyone else's time. I'm blocking indefinitely, which here means until he agrees not to edit anything related to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Persephone19 reported by User:IRWolfie- (Result: Block)[edit]

Page: Quantum mind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Persephone19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#User:Persephone19

I started a previous ANI where I was directed to DRN. DRN [8] redirecting me back to ANI as the user is still edit warring without discussion. No administrators in ANI commented on it [9]. But the user is still edit warring [10]. The consensus is that material is undue by Persephone19 insists on re-inserting the material against consensus, repeatedly inserting it. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The WP:SPA has not exceeded 3RR in a 24 hour period but consistently re-inserts the material (up to around 7-8 times already), when he is fully aware that it is against consensus, over several days with no sign of stopping. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The user is still edit warring: [11]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Quantum_mind#Bad_Style

Comments:Blocked for edit-warring: seems a pretty clear-cut case. There is probably more to do here (COI, etc), but that's not for this board. Perhaps a block will be helpful--it will certainly cease disruption for the next 31 hours. Please re-report or bring to ANI if behavior persists. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Hopefully he stops with the re-inserting. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Nickeroo reported by User:121.209.216.75 (Result: 121.209.216.75 blocked for egregious BLP-warring, article semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yumi Stynes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nickeroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [Don't know what should go here]

Extended content

(cur | prev) 12:36, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎ . . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482017462 by Nickeroo (talk) Correcting the valdalisim to original work) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:35, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482017277 by 121.209.216.75 (talk) vandalism) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:33, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎ . . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482016896 by Nickeroo (talk) Nothing to say?) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:30, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482016524 by 121.209.216.75 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:26, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎ . . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482016241 by Nickeroo (talk) Nothing to say?) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:23, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482016080 by 121.209.216.75 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:22, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎ . . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482015840 by Nickeroo (talk) Create your own work, don't destroy other's work) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:20, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482015630 by 121.209.216.75 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:18, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎ . . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482015259 by Nickeroo (talk) This only makes me more resolved to keep the issue alive Maybe I should start changing the pages of the advertisers to let people know who supports) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:15, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎ . . (Axe the Circle have no interest in Yumi Stynes except to be noticed. Their page is irrelevant to Yumi Stynes Wikipedia page.) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:10, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎ . . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482014158 by Nickeroo (talk) So Yumi can dish it out, but when it blows up in her face, she and her supporters have to destroy someone else's work?) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:05, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎ . . (spamming by members of "Axe the Circle" to entice hatred) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:02, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎ . . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482013332 by Nickeroo (talk) The issue is still alive and well thank you very much - and will continue to be.) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:57, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎ . . (Comments removed that entice hatred over an issue that is done and dusted) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:52, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎ . . (8,737 bytes) (+774)‎ . . (Undid revision 482012205 by Nickeroo (talk) As soon as they apologise (properly) and give their ill-gotten gains away, we're gone.) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:48, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,963 bytes) (-774)‎ . . (This is continually being added by a group who is more after notoriety and less after Yumi Stynes. It's wrong to celebrate them here.) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:33, 15 March 2012‎ 121.209.216.75 (talk)‎ . . (8,737 bytes) (+773)‎ . . (Undid revision 482009813 by Nickeroo (talk) AxeTheCircle are a positive action group and are concerned with fighting passive aggressive hatred and those who mock decent guys.) (undo) (cur | prev) 11:27, 15 March 2012‎ Nickeroo (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,964 bytes) (-773)‎ . . (Deleted paragraph added by a group "axe the circle" who is only concerned with enticing passive aggressive hatred.) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] How do you do that?

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

Comments:

121.209.216.75 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can an administrator please block User:121.209.216.75 for persistent BLP violations on the Yumi Stynes article. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Reporter blocked, apparently part of an organized campaign against the article's subject. Nickeroo is a new user and I'll counsel them on how they might better handle this, but they deserve credit for trying to deal with the BLP violations. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated ~ thanks! Afterwriting (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrej N. B. reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Stale, reporter warned)[edit]

Page: Austrians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrej N. B. (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: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18] [19]

Comments:

Apologies, this was in part due to my clumsiness. I've only just noticed that I accidentally rolled back two edits, my intention only being to revert the second. (In fact I'd effectively noted on Andrej N. B.'s talk page that the first of these two edits may be supportable, whilst indicating why another user may have reverted it the first time he (Andrej) had made it.) My edit summary identification as vandalous, intended for the second edit, was based on the repetition of the edit summary "See discussion page", which I had earlier queried as being a misrepresentation of that talk page and thus it's repetition as disruptive. If, as indicated, I'm incorrect to regard this as vandalism, I apologise and will take heed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Not a big deal, I've done that before myself; if that happens, make a dummy edit and say in the edit summary that you hit the wrong button. That will help eliminate confusion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Mentious reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Kitáb-i-Aqdas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mentious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [20]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of one week. --Chris (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Phoenix79 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Bose Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Phoenix79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • 1st revert: [23] 05:40, March 13, 2012 (Removing lawsuit information from the lead section)
  • 2nd revert: [24] 10:59, March 13, 2012 (Removing lawsuit information from the article body)
  • 3rd revert: [25] 04:45, March 15, 2012 (Removing lawsuit information from the lead section)
  • 4th revert: [26] 06:51, March 16, 2012 (Removing lawsuit information from the lead section and article body)

Diff of edit warring warning: [27] 14:17, March 15, 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

This is about the continuation of long-term edit warring at Bose Corporation, with Phoenix79 constantly removing well-cited, accurate but negative information about the company. A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Bose Corporation, with reversion diffs going back six years. The most recent examples of edit warring are listed above. Note that Phoenix79's revert #4 followed 12 hours after he was warned about edit warring, and after he took part in the discussion at COIN and the article talk page. He was fully aware that this reversion would be contentious.

At COIN, removing lawsuit information was identified as one of the major edit warring focuses of Phoenix79. Here are lawsuit-removal diffs going back five years:

  • [29] 21:58, March 28, 2007 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against Consumer Reports)
  • [30] 02:19, March 29, 2007 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against Consumer Reports)
  • [31] 02:21, May 4, 2007 (Removal of Bose's "reputation for litigiousness", cited to Funding Universe)
  • [32] 21:49, July 31, 2007 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against CEDIA)
  • [33] 08:50, September 9, 2007 (Removal of the word "unsuccessfully" in describing a Bose lawsuit)
  • [34] 09:31, October 15, 2007 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against CEDIA)
  • [35] 07:58, February 7, 2009 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against The Enquirer)
  • [36] 05:14, October 4, 2009 (Removal of information about reviewers who have a "fear of [Bose] lawsuits")
  • [37] 01:36, December 29, 2011 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against CEDIA)
  • [38] 06:10, December 31, 2011 (Removal of Bose lawsuit against CEDIA)
  • [39] 03:44, January 1, 2012 (Removal of the word "litigious", cited to Digital Trends. Removal of Bose lawsuit against CEDIA and Eforcity)
  • [40] 05:18, January 2, 2012 (Removal of the word "litigious". Removal of Bose lawsuit against Thiel, Harman, QSC, CEDIA and Eforcity)

This editor must be made to understand that lawsuit information is an important element of the article about the corporation. Phoenix79 must stop his removals and long-term edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Cleaver post the edit war template and then distract me with the COI template. No I didnt even see your comment there and was unaware that you even replied to me. If I did I would have responded to it. Frankly I have been trying to start a conversion with little success on the talk page for a while and even posted this 07:13, 16 March 2012. The conversation we were having was about something different, and I have only had 3 edits btw 08:57, 16 March 2012‎ 14:17, 15 March 2012 13:09, 13 March 2012 you cant say I violated 3RR while I was editing as another user I dont even know added a template 10:37, 13 March 2012 then say I violated 3RR. That is just showing Bad faith. As for the other ones you cant bring up addition that violate WP:V and include that here! -- Phoenix (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not trying to prove that you violated 3RR, I am trying to prove that you have been edit-warring over a long period of time, which you have. Regarding March 13, your two edits were five hours apart, so of course they are considered separately. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the WP:COIN discussion is not going to resolve this. A better idea could be a WP:Request for comment at Talk:Bose Corporation. This would require someone to propose how the lawsuit issues ought to be mentioned in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a good idea (smacks forehead), and I have implemented the first step with an RfC about one aspect of the issue. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Now at Talk:Bose Corporation#RfC: Bose as a "litigious" company. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Forevertrue21 reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Rachel Corrie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Forevertrue21 (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: [46][47]

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

Comments:
The first of five reverts was from an IP, but it is pretty clearly the same person. This new editor (probable sock) violated 3rr and the 1rr rule as applied to articles pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:70.34.171.50 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Blue Water Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.34.171.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [48]

  • 1st revert: [49]
  • 2nd revert: [50]
  • 3rd revert: []
  • 4th revert: []


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previously gave warning at [51] last December.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See multiple warnings on user talk page.

Comments:
This IP is continuing to add the name "Laurel Robinson"to the Blue Water Bridge article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. If this is vandalism (as your edit summary when reverting suggests) then AIV is the proper venue. If this IP is even edit warring then it's happening at a glacial pace. I don't think a block is warranted at the moment. --Chris (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:GSorby reported by User:George Ho (Result: page protected)[edit]

Page: List of EastEnders characters (1985)#Reg Cox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GSorby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

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


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

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

Comments:
I'm running out of time, and GSorby hates me. What can I do? Well, WP:EE are against adding back two images of Reg Cox, and I nominated both of them for deletion. What else can I say? --George Ho (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Right now, Raintheone removed these images as unnecessary, and I'm made the violator of 3RR. Great, I'm their worst enemy. I can't warn Raintheone and GSorby any more. What else can I do? --George Ho (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
George Ho, I have made 3 reverts, not four. You're now wasting other people's time. GSorbyPing 00:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected You can, perhaps, try to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and persuade the other editors that your position is the correct one. Reverting back and forth and having an "edit summary" argument is a sure way for several editors to get blocked, even without a 3RR violation I've protected the article for the weekend to encourage a discussion. If you come to a conclusion before then, please let me know or request an unprotect at WP:RFPP. Kuru (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is unnecessary about removing these images. The list entry does not need these. These images were deleted a few years back - when the subject was merged to a list. You opened an unnecessary deletion review, instead of doing to REFUND. Fastily asked why you did so on your talk page. The strange thing is - upon their restoration - you nominated them for deletion. These actions do confuse me. What is more worrying, is the fact you have added these images to the list - even though you have nominated them for deletion. If you believe they should be deleted, why waste time adding them to the list? You seem stuck on adding them back to the list, reverting those who have clearly stated they hold no purpose to the project. It is quite clear that there was a consensus forming here and despite this fact, you still added them.
I do not even see how GSorby broke 3r either - when he was following consensus and did not surpass three reverts. Which is why you have not provided difference above - because there are only three - not four. You also seem to think this is personal - even claiming that you are the wikiproject's "worst enemy". Taking all this into account, I can only see this as an attempt by you to cause a drama. We as a group, on the wikiproject, and I think this is fair to say, sometimes we do not all agree on a subject matter from the start. However - We do discuss and work together to problem solve and find a solution best for the involved articles. Now you were not even willing to take part in that discussion - if you feel hard done to - I regret that, but please remember that Wikipedia thrives on collaboration.
As I write this - you have made a request that the article be fully protected - under the condition that the images are added back.
You have had numerous warnings about not following the rules, and as a result you were blocked from editing. When you were unblocked as part of the mentorship scheme - you said that you would take on board all advice. I'm a little disheartened that mentors have not noticed that you have become highly disruptive once again.Rain the 1 01:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I voted keep in FFD. I nominated them for FFD because... I feel disapproval about these images. I did DRV because I felt that you may disapprove them if I do REFUND first. I don't know how you may feel when Reg Cox images would be restored, so I did DRV first. Then I did FFD because you disapprove them. --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Please note the content discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not here. Kuru (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Denton0826 reported by User:Loonymonkey (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: New Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Denton0826 (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: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See note below.

Comments:
Consensus on talk page is long-established that this is false information, not reliably sourced, and violates WP:BLP. Editor keeps re-adding it and yelling WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in edit summary. --Loonymonkey ([[User

Open and shut case here, this is fringe material about the US president and the editor has vowed to continue[58] after being warned about 3RR.[59] I would leave alone rather than edit war myself but there is a BLP concern, and the content is clearly inappropriate for the encyclopedia. In any event I'll leave any further removals to others. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear 3RR; concur that fringe BLP claims require extraordinary sources. Kuru (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:DavisJune reported by User:Grapple X (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: The Dark Knight Rises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DavisJune (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [60]

  • This edit ([61]) is where the information is first added, the next few edits from here are generally unconstructive ones pushing the "American" nature of the film, but are not the subject of the revert war.
  • 1st revert: [62]
  • 2nd revert: [63]
  • 3rd revert: [64]
  • 4th revert: [65]
  • 5th revert: [66]
  • 6th revert: [67]
  • 7th revert: [68]
  • 8th revert: [69]
  • 9th revert: [70]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71] (Warning was given by another user before I was able to)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72] (full discussion where a number of editors have begun to form consensus (again) on the issue, outweighing DavisJune's sole position)

Comments: For what it's worth, this is a common problem faced by WP:FILM, so it would be helpful not only to this article but to others like it to stamp out this kind of problem quickly. GRAPPLE X 03:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment from uninvolved editor - this editor also seems to have a rather combative habit of inappropriately templating other editors: [73], [74], [75]. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment from involved editor : User believes all disagreements are personal attacks, has used the words "abhorrent" and "tyrant" during discourse, deletes warnings while handing them out to others for "vandalism". Refuses to genuinely discuss or stop what he is doing. I'd be willing to discuss things with him/her but is just genuinely unreasonable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Selecciones de la Vida reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Pisco Sour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Selecciones de la Vida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [76]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82] Diff of notification to resolve dispute on user talk page: [83]


Comments: I have been working arduously to turn the Pisco Sour article into a GA-class article.

As the diffs above show, User:Selecciones de la Vida has deleted several of my improvements and claims that I am the one that is deleting "reliable sources". However, it is obvious that I am the one who has done improvements to the article. I have warned the user both on his talk page and the article's talk page that his behavior is disruptive per WP:POINT, and asked him to follow WP:BRD to discuss changes in the article. He did not listen.

  • Therefore, I request the following:
  1. Administrator to restore article to my last improvement: [86]
  2. Administrator to temporarily block Selecciones de la Vida for edit warring.
  3. Administrator to not block me as I have taken the correct (and even more) steps to prevent an edit war.
  4. Administrator to ask Selecciones de la Vida to submit case to arbitration if he desires to make any major changes; or at least get a third opinion (or...at least discuss it in the talk page).
  5. Administrator to temporarily protect the page to my last version which (as demonstrated above) was a major improvement to the article.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)



  • To help out the administrator, I recently restored my text and included the reference to the "Pisco Sour" yatch which the other user claimed I was deleting on purpose (I had not seen it before). This is done in WP:AGF. I have also responded to the user in the Talk:Pisco Sour page and mentioned this 3RR situation in his talk page. Following procedure.--MarshalN20 | Talk 06:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear-cut 3RR violation on both sides. --Chris (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Equazcion reported by User:Encyclopedist J (Result: no violation )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [87]

Comments:
This user has accused me of socketpuppetry and I have responded to his case, and though the investigation is still in the process he tried to justify his actions by reverting my contribution as well other contributors, who contributed before me, to a much earlier revision. This is an unfair revision and completely unjustified especially since his summary was a personal attack on me when he or she should of dealt with their problems through my talk page.

*Comment from a mostly uninvolved editor (I haven't actively edited the page for months, but keep a general eye on the talk page). This user seems to be leading the charge in a series of edit wars. His most recent revision appears to have replaced the long-standing "Ballerina" main image for OWS with some kind of Marxist banner. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation One revert of a sock. Kuru (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Xytfvwskdnuimi reported by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Talk:Republic of China (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:41, 17 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
  2. 18:48, 17 March 2012 (edit summary: "rv pov pushing")
  3. 18:53, 17 March 2012 (edit summary: "rv pov pushing to original unaltered version")
  4. 19:06, 17 March 2012 (edit summary: "rv pov pushing to original unaltered version")
  5. one more
  • Diff of warning: here

Summary of reverts: Continued re-insertion of requested move discussion material after its archival by a closing administrator. —GotR Talk 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Some editors Talk and others are trying to delete support votes and then promptly close the talk page in order to push their modified version of the talk page vote when the majority consensus is in Support of the move. 49 Support vs 44 Oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xytfvwskdnuimi (talkcontribs) 19:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

DO NOT continue a dispute (or lie) here. GotR Talk 19:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
One more revert added.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked  for a period of indefinitely by Drmies for being a sock. GotR Talk 19:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the above editor was telling the truth. The vote was indeed 49 supporting the move and only 44 opposing, so in accordance with our policies, a majority consensus rules, sorry if your not happy guys. Don't Worry Be Happy! Make Love Not War! Peace! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarrettJohnathanJacobs (talkcontribs) 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • This one blocked as well. I'm going to semi-protect that talk page for a week: this is getting ridiculous. If any admin feels this is more than necessary, you are welcome to revert me. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:Canuckian89 (Result: Decline, for now)[edit]

Page: Manitoba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikkimaria (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: [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:

User:Nikkimaria and myself (User:Canuckian89) are engaged in an edit war on Manitoba over the date format of the references. I wanted to report myself and the other user here because I thought the both of us were just going to continue with our reverts. We have discussed the subject of our edit war on the talk page. The diffs I listed above are from today, while the diffs not from today are about a week old, but I still think we could use some outside help to resolve our differences. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 01:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Canuckian, this really isn't the proper forum to debate this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. As you both seem willing to discuss, I am not going to issue any blocks right now. Please follow dispute resolution procedures and cease reverting each other. --Chris (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikiisunbiased reported by User:Widefox (Result: A day)[edit]

Page: Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikiisunbiased (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: 3RR #1 3RR #2 (persistent edit warring - collating other issues e.g. WP:OWN, and persistent edit warring despite 3RR

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

Comments:

Persistent edit warring, despite multiple warnings 3RR, and others today.

User:93.96.148.42 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Zionist political violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.96.148.42 (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: User_talk:93.96.148.42#WP:ARBPIA,User_talk:93.96.148.42#Broken_1RR.


Comments:
This article is clearly under WP:ARBPIA Its not the first time that user breaks the 1RR recently [[97]],[[98]].The user refuse to revert also its not a new user. He is active in the area for a long time so he should know what articles belong to the area and what are not. His disregard of policies is pretty blatant. He should recieve a warning about a sanctions too.--Shrike (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:119.237.156.246, User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: IP blocked)[edit]

Page: Talk:Demographics of Greater China (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) and others
User being reported: 119.237.156.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Brief narrative version: they are reverting each other across multiple pages, often with inappropriate or misleading edit summaries and sometimes undoing other users edits along the way.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99] (thanks) [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This I think is the best venue

Comments:

--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat reverts whatever I edit for no reason.[101] For this particular talk page, he keeps deleting the evidence that I submitted at 15:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[102] because (from what I guess) it contradicts his position. I had previously reported him to WP:AN/I and to User talk:Mark Arsten. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The IP reported me to WP:ANI more than 24 hours ago, so this is forum shopping. It was agreed on ANI that this is a sock. Socks don't deserve 3RR and are exempt from reverting. Block the IP and give this a rest. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm blocking the IP for being an incredibly obvious sock of Instantnood, and I'll mass-rollback all the edits it's made. Since Instantnood is banned, SchmuckyTheCat has not violated 3RR because he was reverting a banned user. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Fama_Clamosa reported by User:Taylornate (Result: declinedboth blocked)[edit]

Page: Abductor pollicis longus muscle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fama_Clamosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [103]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Also on user talk with no response: [110]

Comments:
This is not a 3RR violation, but intervention is clearly needed because Fama Clamosa explicitly refuses discussion[111][112]

About two months ago, I merged about ten articles into one. Fama Clamosa is now reverting my redirects. I initially forgot to redirect Abductor pollicis longus muscle and so I completed it recently. I think because of this he saw it as easier to attack, but he is now reverting redirects on nine articles (listed here), has even blanked the recipient article without stating a reason [113], and has falsely reported me for vandalism[114]. He has not posted any discussion with his latest round of reverts.--Taylornate (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How is that supposed to work if he refuses to communicate? Don't most edit wars involve a dispute of some kind? I'm confused.--Taylornate (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any refusal to discuss. I see two people vehemently disagreeing on the talk page (you pointing to what you claim is a consensus on another talk page, which does not appear to be strong consensus to me). Try WP:RFC first, or try WP:M if that fails; my guess is you two can come to an agreement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I did dispute this with another user but Fama Clamosa explicitly refused to participate and he is the one reverting now. I thought I gave two diffs showing his refusal, but it looks like I made a mistake on one of them. Here they are again:[115][116]--Taylornate (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Please open an RFC or try mediation. Your consensus is not as elusive as you might think: I see at least one other editor who has reverted you: User:Arcadian. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
RFC and mediation are not applicable if both sides aren't willing to participate. Arcadian is refusing to discuss as well, even marking his reverts as minor, and Fama Clamosa is calling me a vandal in edit summaries. If this is not an edit war, what is?--Taylornate (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
For quick context, see this. Taylornate is fighting three different editors here, and has already been instructed that he needs to review Wikipedia:Merging, both before he started this process and after. --Arcadian (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I am familiar with Wikipedia:Merging, my merge was in-line with it, and I've referenced it multiple times in the course of discussion that you are ignoring. The only point relevant to this board is that the editors that disagree with my merge are reverting while refusing to discuss. I won't list here the editors that agree with me because it's irrelevant.--Taylornate (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, I am not comfortable your above use of the word instructed. Do you feel you are in a position to issue instructions to me rather than discuss as a peer?--Taylornate (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────Fama Clamosa continues to revert[117] and continues to explicitly refuse discussion[118].--Taylornate (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Please take a closer look at the history pages before re-reverting an admin. There is one user that is trying to redirect pages out of existence, and three users (including an admin) trying to stop the destruction of information by restoring the individual muscle pages. If Taylornate really wants to engage in a radical new approach to medical content, s/he would need to generate a far greater consensus before doing so. To the degree that a consensus exists, it is for the preservation of the anatomic content.--Arcadian (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Whether or not the merge should have taken place, and support for or against it, is irrelevant to this board. What is relevant is that even after a block Arcadian continues to revert, to mark the reverts as minor, to refuse to discuss, and believing that as an administrator he has special status in this dispute.--Taylornate (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
        • A few things to note here: 1) Revert warring isn't the proper answer in any case, 2) There is clearly no consensus for the merge- Taylornate is unfortunately just wrong about this - and I note he still hasn't filed an RFC or mediation case and 3) being an administrator doesn't give someone extra clout in a dispute, and using the automatic rollback tool to revert war while engaging in an absolute bare minimum of discussion is terribly unacceptable - unacceptable to the extent that if it continues, he will be on the hook for sanctions according to the last paragraph in the lede of WP:ROLLBACK (I don't say this to shame or threaten him, more as a genuine warning). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
          • RFC or mediation is obviously the next step, but the first step is getting the opposition to participate in discussion. If they refuse to communicate at all then RFC/mediation is pointless. Anyway, that's my interpretation of it. If you can point out specifically how it could be useful in this situation then I will file.--Taylornate (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

───────────────── I am reopening this case, archived here, because Fama Clamosa is now disrupting the RFC by putting strikethrough tags around it.[119][120] The most recent occurrence[121] was after a very specific warning.[122]--Taylornate (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Header (result: Page protected)[edit]

Slow editwar by a user wanting to unilaterally change noticeboard rules, without waiting for consensus to emerge. Not 3RR, but persistent over several days. 86.** IP (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Full protection? Have you actually checked the edits? It was last touched two days ago, the change I put in was suggested by somebody else at the noticeboard and the person coming here reverted the change without discussion and didn't leave a reason and didn't comment on the discussion on the noticeboard and still doesn't. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Have_put_a_bit_in_the_header_about_informing_interested_editors. The only comment the OP put there was in this last comment I put there and you can see my response too:
By the way I also get the impression that some of the people are here just to help fringe products or aid industry by ensuring Wikipedia does not have an article about them giving a fairly neutral perspective by ensuring the articles are deleted or made unreadable. Don't you ever wonder if you are being used in that way? Dmcq (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I really don't think that attacking other users helps your case in the least. 86.** IP (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
How about actually giving a reason for your reversion? And who am I attacking that you'd like to defend? Dmcq (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
My point at that noticeboard is that I think it is malfunctioning, the above is not the worst way but just an additional worry about it. I have been met by IDONTLIKEIT about a proposal that editors coming there consider placing a note about a discussion on the talk page of the article being discussed but that doing that is not mandatory. I can see that sometimes people want a quiet discussion for advice on a noticeboard but unfortunately I think this one goes in for mobbing in AfDs and other group activities after discussion without the interested editors knowing anything before an AfD is placed. The problem is that it is hard to change peoples minds after they have come to a decision and without editors who know something about an article an informed discussion can go badly wrong. I believe a bit of extra encouragement to openness might get the noticeboard back to working a bit better. Dmcq (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Super. This sounds like an excellent conversation to be having on the talk page of the page in question. Once you have developed a consensus for your changes, you can request unprotection. Kuru (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I object to an accusation of edit warring being upheld against me on the basis of that evidence. Dmcq (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

76.97.19.69 reported by User:Necrat (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page: Cops_(TV_series)
User being reported: IP User User_talk:76.97.19.69


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

  • 1st revert: [123] 13 March, 2012
  • 2nd revert: [124] 15 March, 2012
  • 3rd revert: [125] 15 March, 2012
  • 4th revert: [126] 16 March, 2012
  • 5th revert: [127] 19 March, 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128] User was warned on his talk page that his continual reverting will result in his violating WP:3RR rules and may even constitute vandalisim.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:76.97.19.69 Several people have tried, however the op in question refused to cooperate.

Comments: User continues to re-add the same, unsourced, material to this page despite being blocked twice by administrators for doing so, and having his edits reverted by seven different Wikipedia editors including an administrator. The anonymous editor posted a comment on his own talk page that "some asshole kept changing back to in correct then had a crybaby tantrum and tried to censor that paragraph altogether. Grow up, admit you are wrong and leave correct information correct.", which is a seperate violation of the WP:CIVILITY policy as well. I will also note that after the first revert, I stepped back and made no more further edits on the article.
NECRATSpeak to me 02:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I started watching this article after I noticed that it is an unwatched but frequently target of disruption. The real lame war started in August 2011 when multiples IPs started to edit-war about a single word "cover's vs coverage" 76.92.254.119 (talk · contribs) (who, given the numbers is the same person) and 174.55.170.180 (talk · contribs). Multiples sources (reliables or not) gave that the word "cover's" is what was screened. The edit-war stopped along with this disruptive edit (being reverted later), but the edit-warring resumed again in February. Necrat intelligently removed the text, as it is irrelevant, unsourced, and has no encyclopedic value; but 76.97 is the only person that has constantly been consantly in this, s/he has started to abuse on this triviality, taken the decision to violate multiple polices and guidelines, even when he has been told to discuss this first. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Highlocal reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: A day)[edit]

Page: Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Highlocal (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: None, but there are no intentions to do so by Highlocal (he has never used a talkpage). Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Comments:

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


Previous version reverted to: [129]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Comments:Edit warrior started reverting several days ago. He has reverted edits corrected by 3 different editors, including myself. Another user has already warned him, but warrior is obviously ignoring everything. His contribution record shows that he only returns to the article to revert and shows no sign of civil response or willing to change behavior. User also might be a sockpuppet.

User:67.168.135.45 reported by User:Widefox (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Letter Never Sent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.168.135.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: [136] (207.237.208.153 not 67.168.135.45)
  • 2nd revert: [137] (to film)
  • 3rd revert: [138] (")
  • 4th revert: [139] (")
  • 5th revert: [140] (film to top, blanked entries, against MOSDAB)
  • 6th revert: [141] (")
  • 7th revert: [142] (")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143] [144] (other warnings given by me and 1 other editor)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145] [146] User talk:67.168.135.45 User talk:207.237.208.153

Comments:

  • Note: Me and another editor's initial roles here were to revert vandalism (I had engaged with editor to persuade away from editing course by the time 2nd anti-vandal editor arrived)
  • multiple warnings (2x 3RR, several vandalism)
  • advice given but ignored = 1. create account, 2. change film title (to match redir)
  • NPOV violation (promotion of film = changing redir, film to top of DAB, removing other entries)
  • Edit warring for these ends
  • not creating account or doing other things as suggested (both on user talk page, and talk page)
  • WP:DE aggressive allegation not collaboration [147], Personal attack/WP:AGF [148] Widefox (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Additionally, reporting editor's rollback right temporarily removed pending clarification. Wifione Message 13:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:71.86.45.130 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: American Idol (season 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.86.45.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [149]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [159]

Comments: Continuous replacing a finalist (Elise Testone) on "Saved" to "Bottom 3 (F)" as was saved by judge Jennifer Lopez in March 8 results of that show. ApprenticeFan work 17:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of two days. I've read the discussion where consensus was supposedly reached, and neither side of this dispute is meeting WP:V. Whether one or another thing happened, this should be provable with sourcing, and right now there is only opinion. The IP is not engaging in discussion, and that's certainly not good. Hopefully protection will push the involved editors toward the talk page. --Chris (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Historylover4 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Number of the Beast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Historylover4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 10:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 13:50, 20 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* As Muhammad */ Important info with the main Greek spelling of Mohammed, Mocament ???????? important to show with the "gematria" numerology of this spelling as well")
  2. 13:56, 20 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* As Muhammad */")