Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive189

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:FrankAndProust reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FrankAndProust (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: Talk:Bitcoin#External link

Comments:
To deal with the spam that was being inserted into the article's External Links section, I replaced the section with a DMOZ link per Wikipedia:SPAM#Dealing with spam. User:FrankAndProust apparently didn't like that his external link was removed, so he's responded by continuously spamming the page with his link, despite identical links already present on the DMOZ link, and despite an attempted compromise by placing an alternative but identical purpose link in the article. The editor is attempting to promote his website through external link spamming, which is vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES: Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. - SudoGhost 09:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand what the problem was. The link that Frank posted was to the wrong page on the site, and was therefore fairly useless to the casual user. I have fixed this, so now the link goes to a more useful page. When you see the right page, its use is immediately obvious.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you do understand the problem, since you see DMOZ as "that link site that should be removed". I can see where the confusion would be if you don't understand what DMOZ is or haven't read Wikipedia:SPAM#Dealing with spam. - SudoGhost 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
SudoGhost, I can't believe you keep insisting on this. My intentions matched my actions, and they are clear. I tried to keep the status quo up, because the link I proposed fulfills the requirements of WP:ELYES. And as I already said in the Bitcoin Talk page, I don't know the owner or have any affiliation with that website. It just gives complete real-time information of the Bitcoin network and it also provides historical charts which are appropriate and necessary for the article.
There is no point in discussing this further. Please let the administrators give the final answer. All that needs to be known are in the Wikipedia logs. --FrankAndProust (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You tried to keep a "status quo", by spamming your link? You inserted your link, and it was reverted. Edit warring to keep your spam in the article is the opposite of a status quo. If it was truly a "status quo" you were interested in, you'd have reverted it back to the pre-DMOZ version. Instead, you inserted only your link, even when an identical-in-purpose link was used as a compromise. Nothing short of this not-significant link being in the article suffices, even when identical links are offered to be used (and are already present in DMOZ). When your bottom line is "my link need in the article" no matter what, even changing your arguments and contradicting yourself when those reasons are refuted, that is spamming. - SudoGhost 15:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose the following to try and solve this issue. Let's roll back to the status quo before all these edits and counter-edits started. This is the version I am referring to: Also, let's start a new section in the Bitcoin talk page and let's all of us propose which external links are proper and which are not. How do you feel about this? --FrankAndProust (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That belongs on the talk page, not AN3. - SudoGhost 09:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:SudoGhost has made an offensive edit summary - "Rv external link spamming. It is vandalism and will be reverted. Establish a consensus for inclusion. WP:SPAM#Dealing with spam replaces *all the links*, not *all the links except for spammed links*" in his edit of 15:44, 2 July 2012. Describing good faith edits by other people trying to resolve this dispute as vandalism is not OK.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:VANDTYPES: "adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning." If you have an issue with the way that's worded, discuss it at WP:VANDALISM. The edit was not directed at you modifying the link, but at the editor who inserted the link again, and again, and again. - SudoGhost 09:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected — Five days. Regarding the link, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. There is also an external links noticeboard. The link to http://blockchain.info does not appear to be conventional spam as mentioned in the WP:VANDAL policy. It seems intended to assist the reader by showing them the worldwide stream of bitcoin transactions as they happen. It is up to the consensus of editors whether the link should remain. FrankAndProust does *not* have a pattern of adding this link to multiple articles. It seems he has been adding content at Bitcoin since February. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Arcandam reported by User:Bidgee (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Justin Bieber on Twitter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arcandam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [7]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:LauraHale#WP:POINT snd User talk:Hawkeye7#Revert

Comments:
Arcandam is alleged (in the edit summaries) that I was canvassed, I was not asked to revert by anyone. Bidgee (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not necessary. See Laura's talkpage for more info about the canvassing. Without canvassing it would be 1 vs 1 (meaning only 3 links instead of 6). Arcandam (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't ask anyone to revert. I'm not clear where the canvassing accusations are coming from. --LauraHale (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to provide explicit instructions for it to be canvassing. You must've read your own talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Again where was I canvassed? I was not asked to revert your edits by any editor, such allegations are false and bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
On your talkpage. I repeat: You don't have to provide explicit instructions for it to be canvassing. Arcandam (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Bidgee: It is probably not a good idea to tell me to fuck off. Arcandam (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
And editsummaries like "Don't fucking remove my comment's on another editor's talk page" don't help either. Arcandam (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec)That is only a notification of the AfD (which I've yet to support or oppose) in which a number of other editors got, I only noticed the dispute on my watchlist after the bad faith comments you made on LauraHale and Hawkeye7's talk page. Cease the false allegations. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You removed my comment from another editor's talk page and making false allegations, what am I meant to say? There is no policy stating we can't swear. sigh Bidgee (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
We had an editconflict, duh. Something went wrong and my reply was there but your message wasn't. You should probably take a look at your own comments and list the things you accused me of. Then you should take a look at WP:NPA. Arcandam (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish, you can't remove another editor's comment in an edit conflict, Wiki software prevents it. Bidgee (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. That means you have to go back and copy-paste the text. While doing that I must've missed that sentence. Are you trying to make people believe it was intentional? Even though my reply to the comment that disappeared was there? Funny. Arcandam (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Arcandam, you are a very quick study for someone who's been here for such a short time. I've been here for over 4 years, and I can tell that you know a lot more than many new editors already. Is this, by any chance, your first account? Doc talk 06:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No, of course not. Look at my earliest contribs. Arcandam (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The two edits in March of this year? You didn't truly start editing until April 26th of this year. Am I missing something? That's not long ago for someone of your knowledge. Doc talk 06:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
What I mean is: people who are new don't welcome themselves. People who are new don't use AWB when they've made less than 100 edits. Arcandam (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching the events at the Justin Bieber on Twitter article today with some dismay. While there are always going to be possible improvements, the approach demonstrated by Arcandam is inappropriate, condescending, and unlikely to convince (let alone encourage) other editors. Arcandam's edits have included the following inappropriate edit summaries: "canvassing", "Laura canvassed Bidgee to come here", "I wish this was a joke", "worst article ever", "omfg", "oh please", "how super-duper interdasting", and (the bizarre) "basically anyone who is someone has received one or more death threats. I am 25 and I am not famous and I have received several, even onwiki". When faced with dissent, Arcandam's approach has been to assume bad faith in accusations of canvassing; and then to violate 5RR. It should be obvious to Arcandam that the Justin Bieber on Twitter article is not an article on a civil war, technical medical procedure, or esoteric financial indicator, and accordingly it should be allowed a little leeway in including (sourced) material that is likely to be relevant to the readers it is bound to attract (at the rate of almost 500 visits per day). Could someone here please attempt to demonstrate to Arcandam that: having a condescending attitude to editing at WP is a sure-fire way to repel and discourage other editors, and that when faced with (inevitable) dissent, the appropriate procedure to resolving disputes is on the article's talk page (and not via the revert button). GFHandel   06:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You may want to check the actual edits, not just the editsummaries. You'll see I improved the article. Also it would be a bit more fair if you would've looked at both parties instead of just one. Arcandam (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It would've been better if you mentioned this. Arcandam (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone logged out to revert again. Fine, have it your way. I am not going to ask my cabal to support me. Arcandam (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
@Bidgee: saying stuff like: "Are you dumb or just playing dumb?" is not helpful. Arcandam (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice try in taking this EWR off topic, you very well know why I said it, since you claimed that my reverts were from canvassing but then tried to deny it. Bidgee (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't do that again. I was drinking Coca Cola when I read your message and I laughed so hard that I needed to clean my monitor and keyboard before I could type this comment. Hats off to you for having a sense of humor, I appreciate that. Arcandam (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • All of this chatter is superfluous to the clear fact that Arcandam reverted five times within half an hour... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Most of the text here is offtopic, indeed. Maybe you should've mentioned this in your edit, so people can understand why you wrote what you wrote. You were trolling a user that was feeling down, I reverted you. Arcandam (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting that an Admin (User:John) whom is involved ([15][16]) is willing to allow Arcandam off the hook. Someone who hasn't had any part in the article and the AfD should take the action needed. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Arcandam has indicated they will not continue to edit-war. Any block now would be punitive. On the other hand, there are other users (see just above) whose conduct probably needs to be examined. I will obviously leave this to someone else to close. Bidgee, AN3 is not meant to be a "hook" but an aid to collegial editing. --John (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: No action, since Arcandam has promised to stop. It does not seem that this particular war is continuing. The last edits by Arcandam, Bidgee or LauraHale are all more than 24 hours ago. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Arcandam‎ reported by User:LauraHale (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Justin Bieber on Twitter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arcandam‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [17] This was good version.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
This appears to read to me like the user will continue to engage in edit warring over the article. As this happened AFTER they promised an admin they would work more collaboratively, and as the user has cast non-good faith aspirations on another user for their WP:GAN review with out providing any evidence to support this claim, can some one look into their editing and again warn them? --LauraHale (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You are pretty desperate to get revenge. Do you have a difflink that shows I ever promised an admin I "would work more collaboratively"? I never promised that and no admin ever asked me that. I think you just made that up. Do you have a difflink that actually says I "will continue to engage in edit warring over the article" instead of one that appears to read that to you, but to no one else? I think you just made that up too. I tried to give you the chance to explain yourself in a constructive discussion without any personal attacks, but unfortunately that was a waste of my time. Your response to my post on your talkpage proves that communication between us is rather useless. I would like to ask you to stay off my talkpage until you feel ready for a constructive discussion, I'll return the favor. Arcandam (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. A careful observer would notice the quote about the GA review was written by user John.
Please redact the revenge statement. This is not a WP:AGF statement. I am not seeking any form of revenge and you have zero diffs to support this claim. This diff cited by john appears to indicate that you would avoid edit warring, which broadly construed means "work more collaboratively", which is the purpose of Wikipedia. I promise to stay off your talk page, having only ever made 1 edit to it, to warn you of 3RR. Anyway, I patiently await the redaction. --LauraHale (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Why should I redact that statement? Please read WP:DUCK and reread your own comment above dated 12:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC).
You may want to start by redacting the following claims you made, I will patiently await the redaction:
"I am not seeking any form of revenge and you have zero diffs to support this claim." (Actually I just posted a diff that proves just that)
"promised an admin they would work more collaboratively" (This never happened, and no admin has ever asked me this)
"has cast non-good faith aspirations on another user for their WP:GAN review with out providing any evidence to support this claim" (You are talking about someone else, and you are falsely accusing that person)
It would also be a good idea to stop claiming I am not acting in good faith.
When you've done all that please respond to the most recent message I left on your talkpage by leaving a message here, I have watchlisted this page. Arcandam (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
p.s. Please follow WP:BRD from now on. You made very bold changes on 30 June 2012‎ and 1 July 2012‎. You have been reverted. Now you have to discuss. Instead you chose to editwar. John (who is an admin) didn't really like the article, but Fluffernutter (who is also an admin) did some major copyediting before I saw this article for the first time. Lets see what Fluffernutter had to say about it: "(copyediting before my eyes pop out. come on guys. missing words and everything, and this is a FAC??)" & "more ce. seriously, guys?" & "more ce. Seriously, it horrifies me that this passed a) a quick look-over and b) GA".
I don't see what Fluffernutter's comments about a content issue, have to do with your edit warring? Why would comments by someone else on article content, justify you making the multiple reverts listed in this report? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
GFHandel said I used "inappropriate edit summaries" in an edit made on 06:42, 2 July 2012 one section above this one. Fluffernutter made a proposed rewrite BTW which is 50k instead of 91k. Arcandam (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. Arcandam has stopped reverting. See also the closure of the report above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:94.169.156.204 reported by User:Jeffwang (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Danaus genutia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.169.156.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [25]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Comments:

  • Vandalism; I was using igloo so I did not notice I violated 3RR by accident. --J (t) 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 31 hours for vandalism. Consider reporting this kind of a problem at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ansob reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: List of sovereign states by date of formation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ansob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Believe the two previous blocks were sufficient warning...

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't discussed or edited either article in recent history.

Comments:
Note: Joe Decker full-protected List of sovereign states on July 1, which may be why Ansob didn't revert on both articles. Note that this is an edit warring report, not a 3RR report.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Result: Two weeks. It seems this user's only purpose for being on Wikipedia is to edit war about the status of Bosnia-Herzegovina, according to his personal theory. This is his third block in seven days. It is unclear whether his presence here is a net benefit to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:AngBent reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: warned)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [32]

  1. 3 July 13:16, blanket revert to this version from almost a year ago, removing over 10,000 bytes of text from multiple intermediate edits
  2. 3 July 15:00 (same rv)
  3. 3 July 16:55 (same rv)
  4. 3 July 17:57

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] (warned now, but I saw this situation only when the 3RR violation was already complete

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Not from me; I'm not involved in this dispute.)

Comments:
A particularly disruptive form of revert-warring: blanket reverts to very old versions, without indicating what in the intermediate versions the editor actually objects to; vague handwaving edit summaries claiming "POV" and "per consensus", but no actual participation in any talkpage discussion. These blanket reverts are a persistent pattern with this editor: same kind of conduct quite recently on Goumenissa ([34]) and Byzantine Iconoclasm ([35]). Even a brief look at the editor's contribution history will confirm he has a long history of contentious editing and revert-warring; prior block in August 2011 related to this ANI thread. Unfortunately I can't find any official WP:ARBMAC warning yet, but I recommend a block well longer than the customary 24 hrs in this case.

The other party involved in this edit war, Jingiby (talk · contribs), who also has quite a long history of disruption, has gone up to but not beyond 3R at the time of this writing. Fut.Perf. 21:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I admit it wasn't a perfect handling of the situation from my part, but Jingiby (talk · contribs) is responsible for the edit warring, by constantly stalking not only me, but many others. I just don't allow cyber-bullying. I always try to builf consensus, but unfortunately can't tolerate infantile nationalistic POV, or the deletion of referenced info, as Jingiby (talk · contribs) does. AngBent (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned - closing this as stale, but the editor is warned of likely sanctions if misbehavior continues. Statements above about fending off a POV-pusher show worrisome signs of WP:MPOV and Angbent is encouraged to read that article and shape up accordingly or face sanctions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Mark Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


  • 1st revert: [36]
  • 2nd revert: [37]
  • 3rd revert: [38]
  • 4th revert: [diff]

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

Comments:
No violation of 3rr. This user has a long history of combative edit warring. Check his talk page history. Recently off a 1-week block for warring. In response to my EW warning, he removed the warning and reinstated his change to the article.

The different between EW and 3rr have been explained to the user repeatedly, but he still can't or won't understand the difference, and nearly half his edits are edit warring without discussion.   — Jess· Δ 22:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it that you accuse me of edit warring after one revert, but you think it's okay to make three reverts yourself without edit warring? Why did you [me for violating 3rr] after only two reverts? Two is less than three. And why is it okay for you to add original research but it's not okay for me to revert it? Read WP:BURDEN. If you want to add material, the onus is on you to cite it. You can't accuse me of edit warring if you're going to ignore policies that apply to you. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The "first revert" you list isn't a revert. It's my initial edit. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As I, and others, have explained repeatedly, "edit warring" is not the same as "the 3 revert rule". You can edit war without violating the 3rr. I warned you for "edit warring". I even went so far as to explain this in detail on your talk page after the warning, but you removed that too. Then you templated me and came here to complain that you hadn't violated 3rr. Please calm down, listen, and take your concerns to the article talk page. I've already posted there. You have a substantial history of edit warring, and it needs to stop.   — Jess· Δ 22:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mark Phillips.". That looks like a 3rr warning to me. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you read the difference between edit-warring and WP:3RR? You know that you can be blocked for edit-warring after a single edit? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been a while for me, but wouldn't edit warring include reverting against the consensus of many other users, running up to 3rr as if it ain't no thing, and then reporting other users if they run up to 3rr? I think it would. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". How can a single edit count as repeated? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected - One week, by User:Bwilkins. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mann jess reported by User:89.100.207.51 (Result: protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [40]

  • 1st revert: [41]
  • 2nd revert: [42]
  • 3rd revert: [43]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments: User is repeatedly readding original research to the article

89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:3RR states that the other user has to make more than three reverts. You're about as guilty as Mann Jess, and as other editors have reverted you and none have supported you on the talk page, you've also been ignoring WP:BRD. Running up to 3 reverts and then reporting someone else for reaching 3rr does not make you right in this. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Ehm... I didn't "Run up to 3 reverts and then report someone else for reaching 3rr". He reached three reverts before I did. And accused me of edit warring after my first revert. And accused me of breaching 3rr after my second revert. I can't assume a lot of good faith on his part. He's been ignoring WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN.89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: Page already protected one week. See above report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:98.234.134.32 reported by User:Jprg1966 (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: Martyre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.234.134.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [46]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

User has been warned about precisely this problem before in just the last couple of weeks: diff --Jprg1966 (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined - there was almost no misbehavior here, except by perhaps Jprg1966. Adding a reference is always encouraged, and vandalism templates are only meant for vandalism. Please be careful to stop biting the newbies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Always seems more important at the time. Mea culpa. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Swifty reported by User:Bgwhite (Result: 24h block)[edit]

Page: Tomorrow (The Cranberries song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Swifty (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: [58]

Comments:

Do to edit patterns, I suspect the editor reverted the article three previous times as IP editor 174.102.31.108. Last edit summary was, "I am going to ANI everyone who is has been reverting this." Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I stepped in because what was being reverted was wrong! There is nothing wrong with page strolling and seeing a conflict and I'd like to point this out and I'd appreciate it if Bgwhite would take it there. Thank you. Swifty*talk 08:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I was the 4th editor to revert you. A discussion was also taking place. No reason to revert somebody 5-8 times. Your conditions are not on your user page or talk page. Please make them visible so others can see. The Worm is aware of this discussion. I'll leave it upto the Worm on what to do with this discussion. You've also put up a retired sign. Bgwhite (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking into things further, I've blocked Swifty for 24 hours for edit warring. I do not believe he is the same as the IP, partially AGF, partially due to Swifty's editing habits not matching an in depth comparison. I can elaborate more if required, but I think I've said enough there. As to the subject of the edit war, whether or not a link is spam, I agree with Bgwhite's interpretation on his talk page - not only does a link's content matter, but also it's position on the page. I'll unprotect the page in question now. Remember, please do try and discuss things on the talk page. WormTT(talk) 10:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Canoe1967 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Rob De Luca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Canoe1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [59]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
BLPN Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wiki_image_policy_collides_with_guidelines_for_biographies_of_living_persons_.28or_at_least_with_their_personal_rights.29

User talk discussion: [66]

Add: Note editor is attempting to claim a BLP exemption and made the fourth revert after another editor and myself stated it did not apply. --NeilN talk to me 05:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

5th revert: [67] --NeilN talk to me 05:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - NeilN states that he and "another editor" said BLP did not apply here. I see NeilN, myself, MilborneOne] and perhaps one or two others either saying the claim it is a BLP issue is absurd or asking as yet unanswered questions as to how the image can be libelous, unsourced, etc. Canoe1967's claim is that the subject has communicated to him that the photo does not match his current image. Whether or not this is true is, AFAIK, unknown and immaterial. Canoe1967 has refused to address questions as to how this is a BLP issue and is clearly edit warring against a clearly articulated consensus. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

6th revert: [68] --NeilN talk to me 06:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Blocked for 48h. This would have been a simple 24h, but the 6th revert (after more than 1 3RR warning) and the comment on his talkpage about the editors that have been reverting the changes were not acceptable (as was claiming a spurious exemption from 3RR in the first place). Black Kite (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Vibhijain reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Pages protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: link

  • 1st revert: 1st
  • 2nd revert: 2nd
  • 3rd revert: 3rd

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


Page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: diff

  • 1st revert: 1st
  • 2nd revert: 2nd
  • 3rd revert: 3rd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]


Page: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: diff

  • 1st revert: 1st

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]


Page: User talk:Smsarmad (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: Partially previous version

  • 1st revert: 1st
  • 2nd revert: 2nd


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Comments:
Editor edit warring on multiple pages, and on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 reverted probably without even reading the related talk page discussion and the source cited that the content he was adding was massively POV, source falsification. And also edit warred on my talk page. --SMS Talk 14:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As of I Protest, first diff is of 30 June, the second one of 1 July, and the remaining of today. The thing was editors were reverting without discussing on the talk page. Same is the case with Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. As of User talk:Smsarmad, you termed one's claims as false, just because the discussion was getting his way. This page is not for content disputes. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm on 1RR and the editor is also clearly baiting my restriction, first following to an article he never edited before and reverting my edit and then reverting again often without good reason or discussion (in atleast one case failing to follow BRD). Also at SMS's user page, an editor is allowed to close discussions on his own user page.. ironically Vibhijain changed the heading of a 3RR warning on his own talkpage once before to "false warning" even where there were diffs of hard evidence. [73]. It is funny that he objected at SMS's talk page closure and editwarred on it which could merely be taken as a categorization of discussion on false claims. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
@Vibhjain: How were they "not discussing" on the talk page? I'm looking at the talk page, and I sure see discussion. If, by "not talking", you mean "they didn't come up with a conclusion which I felt was viable," then you need a severe correction in what the term "not talking" actually means. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, as a note, please do not let this page become a proxy for this edit war stupidity. I will personally hat or remove discussion if it turns into unproductive bickering. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @TopGun Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War is on my watchlist. And there is already a discussion at I Protest, which is there before you started editing there after your block got finished. As of the talk page, one may have the right to close his talk page discussion, but he/she does not possesses the right to term someone' claims as false, that too without any proof. @MTO The issue is they are reverting, without the discussion getting over. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    Are you seriously that unself-aware? Do you not see you're doing exactly the same thing? Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    Observe it again. I have reverted only when an editor has put or removed the controversial part of the article. I have taken the revision at the time of the start of discussion as the stable revision. Also I will like to ask TopGun that he has been making controversial edits, citing the B of WP:BRD, and when the page watchers revert him, he cries foul and says hounding. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Comment - I've locked all three pages for a day. I will leave this open, and any other admin is free (and even encouraged) to take corrective action, give out warnings (on top of the protection), seek a larger solution for the problem on another board, etc. as they see fit for the situation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. It is the right thing to do at this time. Also, I don't see any 3RR violation, so why is this being kept opened? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    Because there was still edit warring. 3RR is not a license to revert at will up to three times per day: it is a bright red line that will definitely get you blocked, though you might deserve and get a block for less. Also, on your part, unhatting a discussion on a user talk page closed by that user is not acceptable at all, and edit warring to do it is beyond the pale. At very very most you should have changed the section title (although frankly not that either): certainly not unhatted the section. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Since blocks are preventative and not punitive and considering that no further disruption is possible, as the three pages have been protected, there is nothing here warranting a block. That said and to everyone: stop the blockshopping. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:173.0.254.242 reported by User:Cresix (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Mabel Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.0.254.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Article before reverts: [74]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mabel Simmons#Reversions
Cresix (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Cresix admitted on the talkpage here [81], that material from my edit was accurate and his reversion was inaccurate due to being unsourced. Basically, he argues that information from my edit is interpretation. Basically, what I did was remove inaccurate characterization of Madea as "argumentative" (which is equally interpretative) to "overreactive" because the entire article describes her as going overboard. One section even talks about her murdering her husbands. So I basically tell Cresiz that his same arguments can be made for trying to reinstate "argumentative" and that my characterization simply restates the same thing the rest of the article has stated into single words. I tell him that describing someone who's willing to go to jail and use guns for perceived offenses as "Argumentative" is not an accurate description. Mind you, I had to initiate this talkpage discussion because Cresix decided to revert 7 edits with no edit summary. That's what he's left out in the above! 173.0.254.242 (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is edit warring, not what is the "correct" interpretation of what should be in the article. You should not edit war even if you think you are right, especially after you are warned. And BTW, I admitted that one small part of your many changes is correct. Now, let an admin decide this. Cresix (talk)
Well, if the issue here is mainly edit warring and avoiding an edit war, why did you revert so much material without even bothering to make an edit summary or attempt a discussion on the talkpage? It's like asking for an edit war. If I'm all about avoiding an edit war as you so claim to be, I'd at least make an edit summary or attempt a discussion on the article talkpage before I made such an expansive reversion. 173.0.254.242 (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me be more specific: the issue here is violating 3RR. Now, again, let an admin decide this. This is not the place for you to try to bicker with me. If you have comments for me, make them on my talk page. Cresix (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not bickering. I'm just defending myself. Gee whiz! I will go to your talkpage then. 173.0.254.242 (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Ugh! Cresix told me to come to his talkpage to discuss the edit warring issue and now he's deleting my comments and ignoring me, then he comes to my talkpage and tells me that I will be getting blocked by an admin and not to remove his comments. 173.0.254.242 (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Cresix doesn't have to talk to you on his Talk page if he doesn't wish to, and he never said he would. He only said you could comment there. You did, and he removed your comments. At the same time, after you removed the 3RR warning from your Talk page, Cresix had no right to revert you. You can remove such warnings from your Talk page if you wish, although it is understood that in so doing you've read them. Finally, although it's not my call, your conduct looks like edit-warring to me. The best place for you to state your position is to return to the article Talk page and discuss the issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I understand your points, Bbb23. The only reason I restored the 3RR warning (something I wouldn't have done on a registered editors' talk page) was because of the possibility that another person might edit with that IP (such as with a dynamic IP or a business with multiple users), so that person would realize what is going on. But, as I said, I understand why you would express a concern about that. Thanks for you comments. Cresix (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually doesn't Cresix have a right to revert my talkpage considering he was giving me a warning. That's why I've left it on my talkpage. I was of the impression that because it was a warning, I had no right to remove it until an admin saw it. At least this is what he led me to believe anyway by stating: "Do not remove this until an admin takes action". 173.0.254.242 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: No action, since the dispute has stopped at least temporarily. Nobody has reverted on July 5. All parties are urged to use the article talk page to get consensus on what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:80.133.26.183 reported by User:BullRangifer (Result: Page semied)[edit]

Pages:

User being reported: 80.133.26.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

We're dealing with an IP who changes IPs and continues the edit warring. I have warned all four incarnations and am reporting the last one. See the edit histories for the articles.

Articles' edit histories show plainly what's happening. See just the last few edits.

I have requested protection for the articles.

All IPs have been warned. See their talk pages.

The IP has violated 3RR and been warned. I am not reverting their last edit but will leave that to the admin who protects the articles. This should force the IP to discuss on the articles' talk pages. They have been advised to create an account so that further accusations of sockpuppetry can be avoided.

See: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 80.133.57.193

Editor is not responding to warnings or requests to discuss on article talk pages. Per BRD they need to start a discussion on the articles' talk pages, as I have instructed them. I'll respond to such discussions. I am not reverting their last edit. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ornaith reported by User:Martinvl (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Kilometres per hour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ornaith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [82]


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

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

Comments:

This user is a newbie who seems to have an attitude problem. He refuses to accept that by changing key words (in this instance replacing the word "symbol" by the word "abbreviation", he is misrepresenting the source text). When I explained that his explanation was in fact WP:OR, he seemed scornful of my suggestion. When I threatened him with a 3RR, he gave the response "Heavy-handed threats do not impress me". In short, if he is to make any contributions to Wikipedia, he needs to undergo an attitude change.

For the record an "abbreviation" is a shorthand of a piece of text made up by removing letters from the text - for example "VAT" for "Value Added Tax" and "IVA" for "Imposta sul valore Aggiunto" (Italian for the same thing) are abbreviations because they change with language, however km/h is a symbol because it is the same in both English and Italian, even though the Italian for "kilometres per hour" is "chilometri all'ora" (no "k" and no "h"). Martinvl (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is full of misleading and ambiguous statements, frankly verging on the dishonest (in common with some of your article edit summaries I might add).
  • You assert that I replaced the word "symbol". I did not. I put the use of that word into context, including the word "symbol" in the sentence. No source text was misrepresented - my edit was to an unsourced summary, in the lede section, of the referenced text further down the article.
  • You didn't "explain" it was WP:OR, you asserted that it was, with no reasoned explanation, and threw in a threat om my talk page to get me banned (which you did not describe as a 3RR warning either).
I suggest that it is you with the "attitude problem". Your attitude appears to be that you own the article content, and you can veto any improvements or wording clarifications that I make.
You refused to engage in reasoned discussion over my changes to the (your?) wording, and you persistently used misleading edit summaries to attempt to disguise your actions. Do you remember these:
  • [89] - The removal of my picture caption and the vanishing "kph" statement.
  • [90] - The removal of my picture caption again and the vanishing "kph" statement again.
For the record we could add that over about the same period which, incidentally, was more than 24 hours, you made the following 4 reversions:
I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to collaborate and reach a mutually agreed text; not try to wear your opponent down with a single-minded determination to see your will prevail, and uncompromising attitude accompanied by threats of banning, bad-minded comments and refusal to engage in reasoned discussion. In this [95] exchange I invited you to participate in a reasoned discussion and attempt to reach an amicable compromise wording, I explained how your condemnation of my edits was flawed, yet each time you took no notice and continued with your attacks and your campaign to eradicate my work. Ornaith (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not pushing my wording, I am pushing the wording of the source document, nothing more and nothing less yet you insist on a wording that changes the meaning of the sentence without any citation whatsoever to back up your changes. Moreover, in the event it being impossible to reach a mutually agreed text, the original text stays. Martinvl (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: Article protected one week. It is possible that User:Ornaith is adding unsourced material to the article, but both parties deserve edit warring blocks and it doesn't seem useful to block both. Surely there is a forum where you can get outside input for this dispute. See WP:DR for some options. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:24.99.68.123 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Block, semi)[edit]

Page: Melungeon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.99.68.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [96] (note this is several days ago


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

Comments:
This has been going on for over a week, with 4 editors reverting the IP. See also efforts on IP's talk page, WP:RSN, and the IP's continual attacks on other editors saying they are vandals and violating our TOS. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP has also added "this is a cease and desist" on another editor's talk page, see [103]. That looks pretty close to a legal threat. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Another revert by the user: [104]
  • Another revert by the user: [105]
  • Another revert by the user: [106]
  • Another "Cease and desist" from the user: [107]
  • A level 3 warning to the user: [108]
  • A level 4 warning to the user: [109]
The number of other editors involved has increased. The user's edit summaries (when present) and remarks on other user talk pages seem rather hostile, offended, and confrontational. The user has been asked, repeatedly and politely, to discuss the subject on the article talk page, but has not done so – preferring instead to comment on other user talk pages and continue revert actions. The user seems to feel personally offended by the article content and is trying to correct some perceived wrong. (I have no clear understanding or opinion on the substance of the user's concerns.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
A discussion of the same user's actions is also found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat.3F and some serious way beyond 3RR edit warring. Shearonink (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
A third "Cease and desist" from the user: [110]. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: IP blocked one week and article semiprotected by User:Bwilkins, as explained at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Evlekis reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: No block; final warning given)[edit]

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



Previous version reverted to: [111]



Comments:


Evlekis has been around wikipedia since 2005. Lately he's been involved in many disputes culminating in a 1RR violation on Kosovo. His main disputes are with User:Majuru (who reported him) regarding the addition of Serbo-Croat spellings on bio articles of personalities born in the former Yugoslav state. This incident is a similar one, where Evlekis was edit-warring with an IP over spellings, geographical names and citizenship issues. The first revert of Evlekis against the IP had to do with Ukrainian boxer Alexander Dimitrenko. The IP changed Dimitrenko's citizenship from German to Ukrainian and Evlekis reverted him immediately. Of course Evlekis reverted him without any fact checking (even the substantial wiki article on Dimitrenko mentioned the citizenship change), but the IP was correct as at the time of the match (2008) Dimitrenko was still a Ukrainian citizen as he gained German citizenship in 2010[112]. The rest of the reverts had to do as his 1RR violation with Kosovo-related issues/disputes (including the revert of a dubious-discuss tag where he was basically asked by me to provide some references about source use of the spelling he had added). That being said I've noticed that this particular user claims on reports against him that when editing he isn't aware that his edits are violating any policy(User:Bwilkins seems to have noticed that too[113]), which I personally find disruptive since he's been around since 2005 and has been involved in way too many ARBMAC disputes. Given the recent violations on ARBMAC-related topics ARBMAC-related restrictions are required in addition to the procedural block regarding the 3RR violations. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the IP was a disruptive user whose only purpose was to raid Wikipedia by stylising a number of articles in accordance with a POV sentiment in that one's country of birth should be Kosovo regardless of the time he was born and with absolutely no regard for the controversy this particular entity causes when presenting it in a sovereign manner. Frankly, we get hundreds of such opportunists per month; they know they cannot achieve a consensus to have historical accuracy replaced by modern-day entities so they try their luck by abusing the editing privileges they have on pages which are not protected. It is patently obvious that when an editor attacks such articles and ignores the template warnings issued to him whilst he is in the process of edit-warring himself, he is obviously not editing in good faith. To that end, all other edits submitted during those minutes can be positively attributed to the same user and when they too are radical changes of details such as nationality, dates of birth, other statistics and all without an edit summary, any user is justified in reverting those edits. Now if Zjarri himself changes Italy for Norway on a random article, I will have absolutely no problem with that and would not even challenge the edit and this is because I know his is a genuine account. The IP ignored the maximum four warnings, I reported him and User:Materialscientist ruled the warnings fair, assessed the situation himself and blocked the user in his tracks. Please note that there was no appeal by the IP following the block, no replies to the warnings and no attempt at communication during his spree. This in itself is revealing. Meanwhile, if Zjarri has observed that one or two contributions by the disruptive IP were appropriate I will not contest his editing of those articles. Regarding Majuru-Ottomanist (not sure if this is one user), this is someone we know to have edited in previous guises (consult User:WhiteWriter for more information there), I cannot help it if another tendentious editor has come on the scene and attempted to derail conventions and assume the role of the apologist versus solid facts. If Zjarri refers to the Republic of Kosovo edits then we were both at fault but my final contribution there was a good faith removal of my last contribution and was carried out in accordance with Ottomanist's request. Please note that Ottomanist too has been reported for his own behaviour on Greeks and Talk:Greeks, again adding inappropriate and controversial matter and using it to introduce ill-founded statements on the article in which he attempts to deny a link between modern and ancient Greeks. Concerning Slavic spellings on subjects born in Yugoslavia and successor states, again this has been discussed time and time again and is carried out in accordance with wider conventions where-by you would have your name presented in Russian if born in Russia, Greek if born in Greece, Arabic if born within the Arab world, Hebrew if born in the State of Israel and so on. To be honest, these sit comfortably and cause no harm to anybody; they do not disturb the article and their inclusion proffers factual biographical information concerning their identity within their homeland. Further to this, I have been involved in discussions with multiple users on this matter since 2007 and consensus has been reached. I recently located these talks and if an admin wishes to examine them, I shall gladly provide them with my next post. I should also stress that the talks also concluded exactly how these should be applied, where they would sit, what forms we would use for which periods and the like. Please be aware however that resistence to Slavic spellings on subjects born in Yugoslavia has only, repeat only come from Albanian editors, and never from persons representing the other ethnicities of the former Yugoslavia (such as the Hungarians of Vojvodina all of whom have their names given in Serbian). Yes there have been cases where editors such as Zjarri (at present) have jumped up and down in protest of this but so far, no editor has produced a valid argument as to why local official language names should not be used. The only apology for an argument has been "oh he is not ethnically one of those to use that language". Such arguments are negligible and cannot be taken into consideration. Each article should be judged on its merits and valid arguments for removal of the Slavic spelling would be that new information has been gleaned that prove the individual was not born where the former source said and has never lived in the country and other such examples. Obviously I cannot remove the Persian names for Kurds born in Iran, just as other editors cannot go taking out the Russian spellings of subjects born there "simply because he is Chechen", it doesn't matter, his parents gave birth to him in Russia or the Soviet Union, not in the U.S.. Finally, I have been looking into this "Kosovo 1RR" business and have even realised with greater certainty exactly why it was not clear to me that this restriction is in place and again, I shall reveal this if asked to do so when questioned. I ask all admins to consider whether Zjarri's request is fair and I assure each one that I am a good-faith editor; I believe Zjarri and other affiliates want me out of the way so they can pursue their goals of POV-pushing in such a way that the contributions go unchecked. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You made five reverts in less than 24 hours i.e. 3RR. Four them had to do with content disputes and one was plainly wrong (which you didn't bother checking). You violated 1RR on Kosovo a few days ago and now you're claiming that your current 3RR violation and report have to do with other users wanting you out of the way (even though I've even defended your position in the past when you were reported[114]). Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I think, Zjarri, you have confused yourself somewhat. It appears that only this edit pertains to the Germany/Ukraine business, there was no edit war because the IP himself did not return to the issue. Meanwhile, my own pretext for deeming the edits inappropriate was unequivocal: a series of radical amendments of long-standing details and with no sources to support the claim made and not even a comment in the summary. When I saw the editor making other disruptive edits, it was not as if I could assume "well this one is all right", after all, dozens of established editors have contributed to the page and you'd think by now one would have provided the correct nationality. The remainder were cases of me cancelling non-constructive editing whereby the same user had been blanking the country of birth on the same article. Note that there was no breach of edit-war policy in that there were three each from both users, the fourth is when the action comes into question. I am confident that my actions would have been deemed acceptable in light of this development. Interestingly, that I believe is what has annoyed Zjarri so perhaps he should raise the issue with the admin who took the measure. In six and a half years of editing I have never known an established editor make such an emotional outcry in defence of a short-lived IP, hundreds of which come, see, get blocked then leave every single day. I question now whether Zjarri knows more about this "account" than he is revealing, I would ask that admins inspect this closely. Meanwhile, it appears that Zjarri is jumping up and down in protest because my edits are not in agreement with his. Save for the minor breach of 1RR on Republic of Kosovo which has been fixed and is soon to be closed, he has not provided a case of 3RR infringement - because there was only the second, third and fourth pertaining to one edit, you cannot class the first as being related, it was another issue. The admin who blocked the IP will have already assessed this prior to blocking the anonymous user anyhow. So it is clear that Zjarri is doing nothing more than sobbing over nothing. The fifth is also unrelated. Same article yes but not a cancellation of the same content. You claimed the Serbo-Croat spelling was dubious, in other words, you believe it to be spelt differently in that language. If so, you know what to do - change it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You're getting into NPA violations, so it'd be prudent to not continue such comments.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment added above since last remark from Zjarri. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no NPA - "sobbing over nothing" = complaining about nothing. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Observations for admins[edit]

Obviously we do not break people's messages. So I'll start afresh, Zjarri made the following remark:

  • "The IP changed Dimitrenko's citizenship from German to Ukrainian and Evlekis reverted him immediately. Of course Evlekis reverted him without any fact checking" -- Zjarri then cites the following-

According to this reliable source, I was correct in my revert. I think this is the only allegation of not "fact-checking" and you can see, the accusation has been refuted. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

How were you correct (did you read the source? It says nothing about his citizenship in 2008 unlike[115]). A revert can't become less of a revert. 5 reverts/less than 24 hours can't become anything less than that.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Please be aware that we primarily use English sources and I in turn do not speak German. Please also provde a citation where the IP produced this source to support your claim that I "reverted without fact-checking"because at the moment, this is a lost cause, I provided a source which proved my revert was correct. You may or may not know that some people are multi-national and hold several passports. This may have been a case where more than one nationality is required but without a reliable English language source to prove the IP's statement, coupled with an extant source already supporting the existing nationality being taken out, any editor would have done as I did. On principle, it is the current nationality that takes precedence, and the infofox certainly doesn't have a "2008 citizenship" caption. In cases where persons have represented other nations, the requirement is to list these things individually (e.g. France 2002-2008, Italy 2008-2011, Bhutan 2011-present), and nothing of this nature happened. Concerning my reverts, I believe the number of times I cancelled another editor's contributions yesterday was nearer to 50. Are you going to report me for this? The five you mention simply concern the same page but they were not the "same revert". Only three were on one matter. The top of this very page explains that it needs to go beyond three to breach the policy and even there they have no strict rules. Obviously if a user vandalises a page (ie. replacing all content with "hahahaha") and then restores his vandalised version, he may be blocked there and then; content disupte is what is given the "three life" allowance and some may argue that this is what it was. But whilst 3RR was not breached for one single issue, it has already been ascertained that the user that was being reverted was indeed making non-constructive edits in that he was blanking biographical information, QED. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
...An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. (Btw replacing a valid geographical definition with another equally valid one is hardly non-contructive but a matter of content/MOS dispute).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
In that case, you're up to two and the final one will now be put straight. There was no MOS issue, it was blatant disruptive editing. All the guidelines call for historical accuracy, Kosovo as a sovereign body is controversial anyhow, but ultimately we had a situation in which an editor was blanking the country of birth - so where is the "content" issue? If the edits were so constructive, why did the IP not stop and begin reasoning when it was brought to his attention FOUR times? The matter is dead and buried, it was dealt with when the admin blocked the IP and he explained his reasoning in the information post. If you have a problem with my edits, it must mean you believe in the wisdom of the IPs edits. If this is so, should you not be taking this up with User:Materialscientist? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to summarise Zjarri's grievance:

The editor's complaint is wholly invalid. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Please stop - this is getting us nowhere. Yesterday Evlekis did violate 3RR (none of the reverts were blatant vandalism). However, that was about 24 hours ago so I'm not sure that a block right now will be helpful (and the edit war has calmed since). Having said that, if there are any further 3RR violations (on that page or anywhere else), I will block the user - consider this a final warning. I will also watch Luan Krasniqi and protect/block if necessary. ZjarriRrethues, I can see you have some issues with the long-term editing of Evlekis; if you want to deal with them, raise them at WP:ANI or WP:RFCU where a proper discussion with the community can be had. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 22:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Stale)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [116]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Talk page topic
diff showing opening of topic
diff advising editor of Talk page topic

Comments: Even if you don't count the first edit as a revert, the editor has exceeded 3 reverts. As shown above, I did everything to warn and advise editor of the problem. The editor did participate in the Talk page discussion but then stopped without reaching any consensus for inclusion of the material and went back to reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23's accusation links 5 revisions. The first is the initial edit that added a new section. I don't see how this can be described as a revert. The second one was the first revert, I reverted collect's blanket revert of my edit. The third was my second revert, I reverted Bbb23's blanket revert of my edit. The fourth was my third revert, I reverted Bbb23's second deletion of the new section.
So Bbb23's contention rests on the fifth revert...
The fifth is no revert at all. The only change I made is the addition of two references to articles. As per the discussion in the article's talk page I added links to media articles discussing Rubio's appearance on the daily show showing the notability of his appearance, and the notability of the things he said on the show.
Not only is Bbb23 hostile with reverting, Bbb23's also overeager to get innocent editors blocked.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:3RR says the editor must revert more than three times, not be reverted more than three times. This is unusual for Bbb23 from my experience. TeeTylerToe, you should assume good faith though, and not accuse editors of maliciously wanting to get editors blocked for no reason, especially when edit warring has been a problem for you before. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My response is technical and complex, but bottom line is TTT has been edit-warring despite being advised to stop and discuss, even if he hasn't performed more than 3 reverts. The addition of the material initially by TTT, for some, fits the definition of a revert - for some, it doesn't. The 5th revert is more complicated. It counts as a revert technically because there was an intervening edit. However, that last sequence was confusing because I think that Fat&Happy mistakenly restored the wrong version and then corrected that after TTT added the last part. So, in a sense TTT's last two edits could be construed as only one revert, not two (I didn't realize that until after TTT posted the above response). As I said, we're still left with edit-warring, no matter how the sequence is interpreted, and an unwillingness to find consensus on the material. The hostility and "innocent editors" accusations are just silly and distracting.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Adding references does not meet the definition of revert laid out in the 3rr page. I would like to ask what definition Bbb23 is holding me to.
Now I'm being attacked for "accusing myself" of being innocent of something that I'm demonstrably innocent of...
As for the accusation of edit warring, how is there supposed to be productive discussion on the talk page of a section that was never part of the article more than an hour or so? Assuming that Bbb23 and I have to agree on some fraction of the section to be reinstated so that people can discuss it, Bbb23's stated proposal in the talk page discussion is that the content of the section on the daily show interview should be integrated into the article, and that the statement that there was a contradiction in two statements rubio made in the interview should be removed. That said, how can this be discussed productively if the article shows no indication of any form of it?
And regarding Ian.thomson's comment about the "problem"s in my past, what burden do I carry for defending edits made in good faith from hostile reverts by editors that were made in demonstrable bad faith, particularly when in each case I was vindicated? Not only did the revert overeager editors harm the articles in question, but they wasted their own time, my time, and they created a fair amount of conflict, when all they needed was the restraint to add a citation needed tag, instead of revert an edit hostily, showing that they did not treat my edits in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talkcontribs) 21:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is single-minded repeated insertion of material into a WP:BLP which has been removed by multiple other editors. Noted this as I was adding another edit war warning on TTT. This is not exactly a close call. Collect (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not a close call at all. The accusation is patently false.
When editors such as Collector, Bbb23, and Fat&Happy blank even additions they partially agree with they exclude not only the majority of wikipedia users, but also wikipedia editors from the process. Let's say I hadn't reverted the first blank by Collector. Then it would just be Collector and I arguing. Collector would be arguing that it was too long, it had too many quotes, and that it contained too much information. I would be arguing that Collector is wrong on each count. I have participated in the discussion of how best to present the information, and I have edited the section in question to reflect that but Bbb23 is more interested in creating conflict than coming to a consensus about the article. Now editors such as DBigXray are attacking me ignorantly for something I didn't do.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. It is 24 hours since Tee TylerToe's last edit at Marco Rubio which makes this case technically stale. If the reverting has stopped, no action appears to be needed. If he reverts again, admin action is possible. Regardless of whether he crossed the line of 3RR, TTT appears not to have consensus for adding a specific block of material. If he still thinks it belongs, he should convince others on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I generally dislike stale results here, but in this instance, I think the result was well-considered and wise. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh good, the system is broken and Bbb23 is a serial accuser. I guess what's important is that Bbb23 didn't lose at another game of wikipedia, although now even the things there was consensus on won't be added to the article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Lexico reported by User:Phoenix7777<