Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive219

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Martinvl reported by User:212.183.128.233 (Result: sock)[edit]

Page: History of the metric system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

This user has a long history of edit warring, including in this article and including being blocked previously for it, and is well aware that it is not the way Wikipedia works. He is quick to accuse others of wrongdoings, particularly if they are challenging his agenda, but never sees his own warring actions as wrong - and seems unable to learn. 212.183.128.233 (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:212.183.128.233 is a suspected sockpuppet of User:DeFacto. The current SPI against him has been open for six days. Will an Admin please confirm what others have already written - namely that DeFacto is using IPs in the ranges 212.183.128.* and 212.183.140.* to disrupt Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Blocked reporting IP as a sock. Fut.Perf. 09:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Both the reporter and the reportee seem to have violated 3RR. Zerotalk 13:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User: Janicar reported by User:Verdia25 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Azerbaijani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Janicar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 188.245.108.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=564888589

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:37, 20 July 2013 by‎ Janicar
  2. 08:21, 21 July 2013 by‎ Janicar
  3. 10:54, 21 July 2013‎ by Janicar
  4. 11:25, 21 July 2013 by 188.245.108.195


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. talk page Janicar
  2. talk page 188.245.108.195

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [7]
  2. [8] (link to the section)

Comments:

I asked the other party to resolve this matter on the talk page and react to my arguments and counterarguments that I gave there, but they were not willing to do so. Instead, the other party continues to use their references as an argument that it should be 'turkic people', to which I already gave a counterargument on my three reverts (on 22:16, 20 July 2013; on 09:36, 21 July 2013‎ and on 11:05, 21 July 2013‎, on the history page): there are references that use ‘turkic speaking people’ as well. Also, I suspect that the last revert done by 188.245.108.195 is the user Janicar logged off, but I am not sure. Verdia25 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The "diff" links you gave are not diff links but previous version links. Copy the URL from the "prev" link beside the edition in the history list. Zerotalk 13:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I adjusted it. The 'prev' button of the talk page of the user with the IP address was unclickable so that one is still a link.Verdia25 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Daufer (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Right now vandalizing through random reverts (of my latest edits on them) multiple articles that I've been recently working on.

Examples:

Everywhere it's his/her first edit there, he/she caming only to vandalize my work randomly. It all began with some dubious edits on the Italian resistance (he/she was removing text while adding random images), but now it's obviously trolling through reverting stuff completely at random.

Intervention plzkthx. --Niemti (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Also lol. It's just pathetic. --Niemti (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, provided another admin doesn't swoop in and overturn my decision. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Zmaher reported by User:NeilN (Result:already protected)[edit]

Page
Red Dawn (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zmaher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 21:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC) ""
  4. 21:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Red Dawn (2012 film). using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Multiple warnings including [9] NeilN talk to me 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Full protected by another admin, so at this point, a block would not be preventative. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:EnochBethany reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: I reverted an unrelated wording change

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. reverts
  2. again
  3. again
  4. introduces new wording

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning by Snowded

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is only the start of the discussion

Comments:I think User:Snowded has been more than considerate with this user in regards to this POV-pushing edit war. Based on a cursory glance at this user's contributions, this isn't their first time creating heartburn on wiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Hmm, this isn't a technical 3RR vio, as two of those diffs presented are consecutive, and thus count as one revert. I am, however, concerned about the edit warring here. I'm not convinced we're at the point of needing a block yet, but I think we could easily get there. Would be interested other admins' opinions, so not going to mark this closed now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree that the sequence of edits to Catholic Church doesn't seem blockworthy by itself. Some of the other edits of this user are concerning though. I'd suggest proposing sanctions at ANI instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what appears to me to be dishonesty. I made one revert. Editing is not reverting. If I make an edit and someone reverts it, then I revert it once, that is not repetitive reverting. I note that apparently some Roman Catholics are determined to perpetrate a violation of NPOV even if it requires dishonesty. How does it come to be that my one revert is edit warring, but the 2 reverts of the RCCers is not edit-warring? All I want is NPOV in this article. It is an obvious violation of NPOV for Roman Catholics to insist in calling the Roman Catholic Church "The Church." (EnochBethany (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

User:Dylan Hunt reported by User:Dominus Vobisdu (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Human Genome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dylan Hunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]
  5. [15]
  6. [16]
  7. [17]
  8. [18]
  9. [19]
  10. [20]
  11. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just blocked a few days ago for edit warring on this article.

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

Fresh off a block for editwarring on this article [23], editor continues to insert OR and synth against consensus of three other editors, reverting eleven times in the last three days, violating 3rr several times. Response is basically WP:IDHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is not about consensus on content, but the false impression that I am questioning the status of the concept of the human genome (what the other editors consider trivial philosophizing). As a result, they have called my quotes from primary and secondary sources "OR". Many other Wikipedia articles have a "history of the term" section or otherwise providing historical concept. Users Dominus Vobisdu, Boghog, and Agricolae have engaged in destructive edit-warring instead of making constructive changes.Dylan Hunt (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This issue here is that you were edit warring against consensus. Whether your edits are correct or not, you cannot continually revert other users. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bigdou reported by User:Drm310 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. [28]
  5. [29]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

User is creating an article identically named to his username, which is entirely promotional in nature. As of the filing of this report he has reverted speedy deletion templates five times. Username has been reported to WP:UAA already but his editing continues unabated. --Drm310 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:108.27.79.130 reported by User:Kude90 (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Revolution (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.27.79.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments: Several users have been reverting this unwanted addition. It doesn't make sense to add. We've tried talking to him, by adding a message to his talk page, and the article talk page, with no response. Instead, he simply re-adds the section. Currently, he waits just long enough to subvert the 3RR rule. This is disruptive, and it has to stop.
Kude90 (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:JLUKACS1 reported by User:Lesser Cartographies (Result: One week)[edit]

Page: John D. Lukacs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JLUKACS1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:21, 21 July 2013‎
  2. 22:31, 21 July 2013‎
  3. 23:38, 21 July 2013‎
  4. 23:50, 21 July 2013‎
  5. 00:28, 22 July 2013‎
  6. 03:19, 22 July 2013
  7. 16:27, 22 July 2013‎

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

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

Comments:

Editor just came off of a 24-hour block that had been extended for 70 hours for block evasion.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Black60dragon reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Template:Money in the Bank winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Black60dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC) "fine even though YOU should discuss before reverting it. Its called the RAW All Starr MITB and then the SmackDown World title MITB"
  2. 23:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC) "They represent the brands and we are currently discussing it"
  3. 20:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC) "Its still the RAW and SmackDown briefcases respectively. If we have WM then we have RAW and SD. Lets discuss if you think differently"
  4. 14:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC) "just because you dont like me, dont side with an IP. They were originally the RAW and SmackDown cases as only the stars are on it. Technically its the All Star and the other one. If the titles switched, then it wouldnt be correct, which is why it doesnt"
  5. 15:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565152515 by 24.187.49.254 (talk)"
  6. 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC) "More IP Vandalism. It is the RAW and SmackDown MITB not World and WWE. We list years not Mania's which are already linked"
  7. 20:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC) "Its the RAW and SmackDown cases. If the titles switched brands then it wouldnt be right as the cases arent just for those titles but the brand it represents"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Template:Money in the Bank winners. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Money in the Bank cases.
Comments:

Continues to push point of view and WP:OR, reverted again after warning about 3RR. STATic message me! 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to warn this user, as I have several times in the past, about disruptive editing and deliberately introducing factual errors (he was also pretty adamant about adding a pay-per-view template to an event he knows is not a PPV today). Then I noticed this. Not sure if I should bother posting the warnings, or if this counts. Anyway, I wish he'd stop, preferably on his own will. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

You failed to mention Im the one who requested discussion. The last time I changed it, it didnt Include RAW or SmackDown, despite being correct, I add "all-star" because if were being picky, thats it correct name. Were discussing the edits on the WP, no to do it here. Besides I added the Hardcore Justice/Destination X Templates. It doesnt matter if there PPV or not there still Hardcore Justice and Destination X BlackDragon 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If I failed to mention it, you failed to read even the very first sentence in the attempt to resolve the problem. The reason you got a notification was because I mentioned your exact username, alongside the exact words "requested discussion". I'm not saying this to argue or insult, but as constructive criticism: You have to start paying closer attention to other editors and the facts, opinion and logic they offer. It's better to learn than to need to be right, if you want to have a productive and enjoyable time on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, July 23, 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK reverts of Iraq war (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

Can anyone do anything about all the CJK reverts on the Iraq war? I thought there was a 3 revert limit, he has done at least 9. Here are the last three, each undone by a different editor.

(cur | prev) 02:09, 21 July 2013‎ CJK (talk | contribs)‎ . . (244,466 bytes) (+16,061)‎ . . (Restoring my wrongfully deleted contributions) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 15:03, 20 July 2013‎ CJK (talk | contribs)‎ . . (244,466 bytes) (+16,032)‎ . . (Restoring my edits which have not been contested for days) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:17, 8 July 2013‎ CJK (talk | contribs)‎ . . (244,466 bytes) (+16,580)‎ . . (restoring my blanked edits) (undo | thank)

These are all reverts of the WP:Consensus version of the article to a version supported by CJK alone. Please see talk page under heading “WP:Consensus – CJK’s edits contain original research and move article to a less NPOV” for more details. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


So CJK can continue to do two 16000+ character reverts every twenty four hours the article is unlocked, and there is nothing the other editors can do except continue to undo his reverts? Truthwillneverdie (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of twelve hours. Sorry, Mark Arsten (talk · contribs), but you're probably not aware of the history of the article. Over the past month or two, CJK has been engaging in a slow-motion edit war pretty much whenever he has the opportunity to do so (when it's not protected). We need to start somewhere with stopping this increasingly disruptive pattern. Twelve hours is hopefully sufficient to get the message across. -- tariqabjotu 18:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Reverts are continuing after the block. Undoing CJK revert #10 now. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. It takes two to edit war. Even if you feel someone's being disruptive, that doesn't justify taking part in an edit war with them. Though I suppose you both should already understand this in light of your recent blocks for edit warring, so it appears another block is necessary at this point. Keep in mind this is an exceptionally lenient block considering both of your recent history, but any future edit warring will surely result in longer blocks from this point. Swarm X 19:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:94.194.155.125 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
BBC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
94.194.155.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565233950 by Trlovejoy (talk)"
  2. 20:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565231908 by Trlovejoy (talk)- view: http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=iain+duncan+smith+bbc&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&redir_esc=&ei=kEXsUfjyFquf7AbVg4EY#q=ia"
  3. 20:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565231466 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
  4. 20:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565183501 by McSly (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. BBC (HG)"
  2. 20:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on BBC. (TW)"
  3. 20:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC) "Level 4 warning re. BBC (HG)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This is not fair, i've engaged with the administrator and he simply seeks to block me for no reason. I cite the following source: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293639/Iain-Duncan-Smiths-fury-BBC-adopting-language-Labour-calling-benefit-cut-bedroom-tax.html) A Uk Government Minster, in the UK's most read newspaper making claims against the BBC to support my post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Whether your changes were ideal or not, you continued edit warring after being warned not to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Not a fair or justified decision, I engaged with the talk pages, Trovejoy effectively started the edit war, refused to engage and then mis-represented the position above. As such he was the one undertaking the editing war and should be banned as result. Also please note the additional page within the main frame of criticism supports my argument for the summary edit I submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Edgth reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Bahá'í Faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edgth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [42]


Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565423997 by Jeff3000 (talk) so now that you lose the argument, you come up with this ´consensus version´ reason. alrighty, based on the talk page, there is no consensus at all"
  2. 03:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565410133 by Jeff3000 (talk) if it was then our other article would say unity of humankind, not humanity as it currently does. see Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity"
  3. 00:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "see talk"
  4. 17:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC) "humankind is an unknown word to most readers"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 03:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "/* "Man" vs "Human" */ ce"
  2. 03:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "/* "Man" vs "Human" */ replied"


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

  1. 03:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bahá'í Faith. (TWTW)"


Comments: Three different editors have commented on the talk page stating that humankind is appropriate, but this editor, and their IP account Special:Contributions/190.235.46.44 have been removing the word "Humankind" on multiple pages.

Also edit-warring on Mythology as sock 190.235.46.44 (talk · contribs). Warned multiple times about 3RR keeps blanking his talkpage. Disruptive editing. See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edgth. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Editor notified of this report but subsequently blanked the notices: [44]. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sock IP also attempted to blank my discussion about their edit-warring on talk Mythology. Please see my comments at the SPI: [45]. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Editor Edgth repeatedly (at least 6 times within 48 hrs) reverted good-faith edits even going so far as to falsely claim consensus for excluding "humankind". The article is the victim of edit-warring. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Gu1dry reported by User:DrSeehas (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Sony Xperia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gu1dry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 06:23, 23 July 2013 hidden revert
  2. 08:19, 23 July 2013
  3. 08:37, 23 July 2013
  4. 08:42, 23 July 2013

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments: User:Gu1dry removed my edits on User talk:Gu1dry without answering.
(If it is important for the 4th revert): The first revert was a hidden revert. User:Gu1dry also repaired thankworthily a dead link in the same edit. Prove for the hidden revert: The blanks which I removed are again in their place after the hidden revert.

--DrSeehas (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Rccachicago reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Indef )[edit]

Page
Roberto Clemente Community Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rccachicago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "IB"
  2. 03:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "IB INFO"
  3. 02:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Mission"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. Roberto Clemente Community Academy (HG)"
  2. 03:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. Roberto Clemente Community Academy (HG)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked as a promotional/spam-only account. Tiptoety talk 03:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:Thargor Orlando (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: March Against Monsanto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Complex case, see diffs.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]
  5. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, user has been blocked numerous times for edit warring before.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: one of many throughout the page

Comments:

User was previously blocked for two weeks for edit warring at a different article. Plenty of NPA and editorial policy guideline problems as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think that Thargor's hands aren't completely clean here, either, but not to the point of 3RR. I've tried to point this out to Viriditas: [54], [55], [56]. I've also tried to get full protection at WP:RFPP. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am deeply disappointed by the behavior of User:Viriditas on the March Against Monsanto page, where he or she claims "consensus" to justify edit warring where no such consensus exists. I would suggest a temporary topic ban to help the editor cool off and consider some changes. If this doesn't happen or doesn't work, ANI would be appropriate to combat the long-term pattern of abuse that goes way beyond 3RR. SpectraValor (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have stayed away from this topic due to my strong feelings about paid editing, which I understand to be a factor here. Usually I am at the forefront of those urging sanctions on those with vios of 3RR, etc., but this is a complex case that merits deep study and includes possible socking by pro-Monsanto forces. Viriditas is on the cutting edge of pointing out some issues that are clouded by POV editing, and rather than issue a knee-jerk block or make statements about "long-term pattern of abuse" I suggest an in-depth conversation about the points Viriditas is attempting to make, which in my view are important in regards to the future of our popular volunteer encyclopedia. I do agree that this may not be the venue for that, because at its core this is a content dispute with implications for Wikipedia's future. Jusdafax 00:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Jusdafax, you know me well enough to know that I am not a paid shill for Monsanto or for anyone else. I don't think that any of the other editors currently at the page are paid editors either. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it. But I agree with you that this is probably the wrong place to resolve the problems. The page has, thankfully and at my request, been full-protected, so further reverting is no longer an issue, for the time being at least. But Viriditas certainly is being a WP:DICK acting in ways that are making it much more difficult for everyone else to find a consensus, and I really can't say it any plainer than that. I suspect this dispute is going to find its way up the dispute resolution ladder. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • But you don't seem above name calling. Come on Tryptofish, do you really think that elevated your argument here? Seriously?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
        • (ec) Of course not you Trypto, but whatever your feelings about Viriditas I ask you not to descend into name-calling. I think his methods, including his willingness to be blocked, are useful to draw attention to some big-ticket issues, and it is not clear to me that we really understand the motivations of every editor on that page. What I am saying is that instead of another block, that we listen to him with an open mind, which may be difficult due to the heated rhetoric already bandied about. Frankly I believe it is possible that there are some WP:COI concerns among others, though I cheerfully confess I couldn't point to anything specific due to the fact that I am uninvolved in the page. Let me just say that I believe Viriditas to have integrity, if that means anything to you coming from me, and I am sorry that you two are at odds. Jusdafax 01:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I can't help but agree with Jusdafax in more than just spirit. I don't want to get into too much here but if you can't support your side of the issue in a manner that is respectful and neutral, many will doubt the strength of the argument.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I agree with Mark Arsten's decision below, because the report here was indeed premature with respect to 3RR, and, as was my own position all along, the right way to deal with the situation was page protection. Were it not for the fact that I care about what Jusdafax thinks, I would not even bother to say what I am going to say here now. I didn't name-call, but linked to a meta essay about user conduct, and this is a noticeboard about user conduct. If you want to see real name-calling, look at the talk page in question, where I've gone out of my way to treat Viriditas fairly, and been on the receiving end of name-calling as my reward. Even granting that my wording here was flawed, it's intellectually lazy to focus on that, to the exclusion of the overall facts. Of course, any kind of POV pushing, including paid advocacy, is bad, but there's a world of difference between being on the "cutting edge" of watching out for that POV pushing, and simply tossing around unjustified aspersions in order to gain the upper hand in a POV dispute. There is no integrity in the latter, and WP:RGW is no excuse. I don't think this noticeboard is the place to continue this discussion further, but I would welcome anyone who wants to discuss anything more about this to contact me on my user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
              • Wikipedia has deleted that "Don't be a dick" page. It has always been the consensus of the community that linking to that page as you did, does indeed constitute name calling and a personal attack. Nice job of calling editors here "intellectually lazy" because they noted that. Jeesh.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
                • You are welcome to continue this discussion at my user talk. But I stand by what I said: I don't think it's intellectually lazy to note it, but I do think it's intellectually lazy to focus on it exclusively, as though that's the important thing here, apparently without any knowledge of what is actually happening at the page in question. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I'm not going to block Viriditas here, since 1. the page has been protected from editing so there's not threat of immediate disruption, and 2. it doesn't look to me like he technically broke 3RR (consecutive edits count as one revert). Concerns about a history of edit warring or paid editing are probably best dealt with in a different venue (WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U, etc). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:174.24.217.65 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
List of Theodore Tugboat characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
174.24.217.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 04:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC) to 04:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    1. 04:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Other visitors */"
    2. 04:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Other visitors */"
  2. 04:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Other visitors */"
  3. 04:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Other visitors */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Message re. List of Theodore Tugboat characters (HG)"
  2. 05:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Theodore Tugboat characters. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation/Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Please re-report if the user keeps reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:72.197.11.126 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page
The Fosters (2013 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
72.197.11.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
  2. 05:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Premise */"
  3. 05:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
  4. 05:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Message re. The Fosters (2013 TV series) (HG)"
  2. 05:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. The Fosters (2013 TV series) (HG)"
  3. 05:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. The Fosters (2013 TV series) (HG)"
  4. 05:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Level 4 warning re. The Fosters (2013 TV series) (HG)"
  5. 05:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Fosters (2013 TV series). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours In the future, straightforward vandalism like this can be reported to WP:AIV for a faster response. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:86.19.115.227 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Mehmet Oz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
86.19.115.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565427617 by Afterwriting (talk)"
  2. 21:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565496783 by Afterwriting (talk)"
  3. 23:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565533447 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk)"
  4. 05:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565544666 by Emarsee (talk) Constant vandalism by certain users instead of editing"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mehmet Oz. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Discussion: [57], [58] NeilN talk to me 06:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:EuropeanHistory2011 reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Constantin-François Chassebœuf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
EuropeanHistory2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 2013-07-24 11:56:08 "Undid revision 565635246 by FreeRangeFrog (talk) This is the UKExpat under another pseudonym.Why would anyone desperately repeat reverting articles because there aren't any biographies?"
  2. 16:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565633894 by Ukexpat (talk) You do not work for wikipedia, who are you? There are many articles on Wikipedia that you have been reverting. Stop now. Last warning."
  3. 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565633360 by Ukexpat (talk) If you continue to revert articles on wikipedia,you will be banned from the website. You are desperately repeating your actions. Enough is enough."
  4. 16:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565632622 by Ukexpat (talk) Enough is enough, I am contacting Wikipedia now because you are cyber-stalking and removing articles from the internet for unnecessary reasons."
  5. 16:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565629578 by Ukexpat (talk)Dear UkExpat,can you stop reverting articles on wikipedia?There are many articles that don't have bibliographical information or any statements."
  6. 15:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "See also"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:Ukexpat warned user here §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to the above - rational discussion attempted.--ukexpat (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Katiebaumstein reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Charlie Walk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Katiebaumstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 17:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC) ""
  4. 13:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC) to 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    1. 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Charlie Walk. (TW)"
  2. 18:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Your edits at Charlie Walk */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "+COI tag"
Comments:

User with COI has repeatedly attempted to replace the current bio (such as it is) with promotional copy, as well as removing sourced negative information about the subject. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz reported by User:Hoppingalong (Result: )[edit]

Page: Northeastern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59] and several other versions shown below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  • 5th - Removing material added by another editor.
    • This was just a terrible addition, making the caption so ridiculously convoluted, and needed to be removed. I will admit this is a revert, but a totally necessary one.
  • 4th - Edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by Hoppingalong (talk). (TW))"
    • This is a revert. As were both edits that you performed here and here.
  • 3rd - Changing the longstanding hatnote to remove particular mention.
    • "Longstanding"? The mention of the Census Bureau in the hatnote was less than 6 months old, and consensus is that this article is not just about the Census Bureau region. This is just editing, fits no definition that I've ever seen for a revert.
  • 2nd - Edit summary: "Reverted edits by 63.66.64.245 (talk) to last version by Maher-shalal-hashbaz" -- I actually agree with this edit, but it is still a revert.
    • While the action taken on this particular edit was technically a revert, my very next edit was incorporating the ill-advised addition into a better spot in the article. You said yourself you agreed with the revert, so it really doesn't enter into this so-called "edit war". I wouldn't go so far as to say it was clear vandalism, but it was definitely not a constructive edit that I reverted.
  • 1st - Changing some text and removing a Reliable Source.
    • I didn't remove a reliable source. In fact, I specifically mentioned the reliable source in the edit summary. It was left in the article where it belonged. I did take it away from a sentence that said something that wasn't at all supported by the reference. All the geography textbooks referenced in the article use a definition other than Census Bureau.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60] where s/he was warned about ten days ago after reverting a fourth time back then.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61], [62], & [63], although the last several sections of Talk:Northeastern United States have been attempts, too.

Hoppingalong (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually really glad that this user has raised this issue here, because I think it will help clarify and hopefully resolve what I believe is a woefully inadequate understanding of WP:3RR. I hope that other editors will carefully evaluate the editing pattern in the links above, and then look at the editing patterns over the last year of the editor who reported this, and weigh which one's edits (A) have greater merit, and (B) are within wikipedia standards. I think it's important to note this discussion on the user talk page as well. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
So which of the 5 was not a revert? The two you marked as reverts, the deletion of a Reliable Source, the removal of text, or the change in the hatnote to remove mention of the Census Bureau? Hoppingalong (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I've responded to each one inline above, and just as before, you clearly have not a clue about what constitutes a "revert" in this context. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
So you admit to three, though say one of them doesn't really count because it didn't revert me. Of course, whether it was me or a random IP (who was misguided but clearly not a vandal), doesn't matter. Then, the only question is whether either of the other two is a revert: this one (3rd), which you call "just editing" because the text you removed was less than six months old, or this one (1st), which you say was not the removal of a Reliable Source (but you say you "did take it away from a sentence"), as well as remove the phrase "textbooks and general". Neither of those are as significant as your three other very significant reverts, but both are edits "that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Hoppingalong (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Whether Maher-shalal-hashbaz is blocked or not, would an Administrator mind taking a look at the edits listed and comment on whether they are "reverts"? Just guidance there might help both of us. It seems clear enough to me that they are, but Maher-shalal-hashbaz notes s/he is just as certain they are not. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Vuzor (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Dimensionaut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Genesis (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimensionaut&oldid=565505417

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_%28band%29&oldid=565520629

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=565536292

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=565536391
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=565538241
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimensionaut&oldid=565525252
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimensionaut&oldid=565530195
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_%28band%29&oldid=565529920
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_%28band%29&oldid=565524465

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=565541697

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=565538131

Comments:
User Winkelvi has been reverting every contribution I and other users (i.e. Spanglej) have made to numerous pages including the Dimensionaut and Genesis (band) pages, and has done so for several months, reverting each new piece of content I add to pages without ever asking for consensus regarding whether the reversions are appropriate or not. Rather, said user decides in most cases to simply revert with an authoritarian approach, forcing me and other contributors to require asking for consensus to add new content to the pages, slowing down the building process of these pages considerably. Any attempt to restore the lost material is accused by Winkelvi of being "edit warring" despite said user having provoked his/her fellow editors by removing content without any sort of agreement or consensus. We have several times, thus, asked for consensus to add material, and in each case multiple users have agreed that the content in question has been appropriate to add, though Winkelvi has often removed the material altogether (going against consensus) before asking, using harsh language towards said user's peers and, in the past, even arguing that WP:CONSENSUS is not a valid excuse to add material. Due to Winkelvi's insistence on removing material, consensus was even required for the article Dimensionaut to be created. This backwardness and insistence on removing material without even inquiring about consensus has made it impossible to contribute to these pages.

Example below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dimensionaut#More_on_reviews

Editing with this user has been difficult, and little progress is made on these pages because every piece of information seems to require consensus or would be otherwise reverted by Winkelvi. I would much rather we try to reach consensus when deciding whether to remove material rather than when adding material. Though I provide justifications for keeping the material, Winkelvi has simply reverted the material. Upon trying to discuss this method of editing with Winkelvi on said user's talk page, my comments have been removed from the page and I have been threatened. This user wishes not to cooperate, and is unwilling to listen to a fellow user's comments. Said user points fingers at others for "edit warring" despite starting many of these edit wars, has made several threats, and has attempted to undermine the contributions of other users. Working with this user is very difficult. Winkelvi's edits have only prevented the progression of several articles, including Dimensionaut, Sound of Contact, amongst others. This ongoing hostility caused by Winkelvi has made the development of these pages very difficult, and said user's justifications for removing material without consensus are invalid. Winkelvi accuses me of "making bad edits," though I have contributed nearly all of the content on said pages while Winkelvi has been responsible for trying to remove it and challenge it -- said user's justifications for reverting is that my edits are "bad" and "contribute nothing," though nearly all of the content on these pages has been the product of my research and gathering of sources. I have even had to correct Winkelvi's revisions due to grammatical errors caused by said user's changes, rendering the "bad edit" argument quite invalid. Many of said user's accusations, as a result, are hypocritical. This process is frustrating and makes working with this user quite impossible. Something must be done, as said user contributed nothing to these pages and has only attempted to remove its content time and time again. Vuzor (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: User:Winkelvi has been reported before for breaking the three-revert rule (5 edits within 24 hours). That case was settled: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=561690390#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:Vuzor_.28Result:_No_action.29 Vuzor (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment
It would appear User:Vuzor has come to this noticeboard for the reason(s) stated here [64] in an edit summary: "Censorship of my messages to you? This is in regards to your insistence on edit warring and accusations of me as the instigator of the edit wars. If I can not respond, I have every reason to report your actions." I had asked him to stop posting to my talk page and instead take issues and disagreements over article edits to the article talk page. He then ignored my request, reverted my removal of his comments, and left the above edit summary. This seems like harassment to me.
It further appears that Vuzor believes he has a right to edit articles as he sees fit and without regard for MOS and editing collegially. This conclusion is based on his own words found here [65]: "I have contributed nearly everything to these articles in addition to much of the research involved...if I did not contribute to these pages, there would frankly be nothing at all." This certainly seems to indicate he has ownership issues.
He admits his intentions of continuing to edit war here [66], stating, "reverting either one more time would place you at the three-edit limit for the article in question. As you have instigated this tug-of-war, we each have three opportunities to revert, and they will ultimately result in the content remaining lest you edit a fourth time." It seems clear to me with the words, "we each have three opportunities to revert", he would have continued reverting if I had not stopped reverting myself. This certainly seems to indicate he is using a battleground mentality and if fine with disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point.
While he has suggested we get other opinions and discuss on article talk pages, he did not do so, opting instead to harass me on my talk page by continuing to post and edit war there and after I had asked him not to.
Last point: Reverting Vuzor's edits had nothing to do with edit warring. I have no intention of reverting further. -- Winkelvi 23:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Winkelvi has always seemed intent on manipulating my words. He/she has done this in the past as well. Winkelvi has here claimed "ownership issues" as his/her defense, though he/she has taken the comment out of context. My comment was in response to his/her accusations of my edits being "bad." He/she said, " I'm reverting and changing your edits because... they are just really bad edits that don't enhance the article at all."[67] The "bad edits" in question added additional information to the article with a new source. [68]
Winkelvi removed the new source, and removed the additional information. When asked why, he/she stated "they are just really bad edits that don't enhance the article at all."[69] He/she claims I do not edit collegially, but this seems to be his/her own opinion. I have already outlined his/her disregard for WP:CONSENSUS in the past and his/her insistence on editing every page. His/her authoritarian control of such articles suggests he/she has ownership issues, as I have many, many times asked for consensus and have worked with other users while User:Winkelvi refuses to cooperate. If anything, Winkelvi seems to have a sense of ownership of these articles and has reverted with a sense of entitlement while everyone else, myself included, has had to work around it to add content, even as miniscule as a sentence about an upcoming world tour (with a new source included). More damage is done to these articles than good, as material is often removed while new material is prevented from being added. Winkelvi has multiple times been confrontational and has used abusive language towards other editors as well. This is a battleground mentality, taken from [70]:
Reverting all of it? Really? Looks like the start of an edit war to me. WP:UNDUE as well as comparison to other similar album articles most definitely addresses and refutes your edit summary, Spanglej. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
We do not have consensus on this. Consensus is required. It seems neither Vuzor or I agree with your perceptions on this. Span (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Editors who aren't getting their way and start edit warring love to use the excuse: "we need consensus in order to make changes". Never expected an experienced editor like you to use such a lame, bullshit excuse and engage in edit warring. Aren't you a part of the Wikipedia kindness campaign or olive branch society or something like that? So much for expectations and thinking too highly of someone based on their experience and user page trinkets. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
[71]
Winkelvi immediately concludes after User:Spanglej reverted his/her edits was that an edit war was being started. That is a battleground mentality, consistent with Winkelvi's hostility towards other editors.
In regards to "harassment," it's quite clear my initial comment on User:Winkelvi's page asked said user not to make any further reversions so that we could ask for an opinion regarding whether to remove the new content. I was accused of making "really bad edits" -- an accusation made simply to provoke another user. Considering past circumstances in which consensus had been reached on multiple occasions to add new material, the constant grammatical errors made by Winkelvi in numerous revisions, and the content myself and other editors have added to these pages (while Winkelvi served only to remove such content), this comment came out of the blue, had no basis to be made, and was unnecessary. This was simply an attack, consistent with Winkelvi's ongoing hostile approach to communicating with his/her fellow editors.
The previous report (viewable here: [72]) was regarding User:Winkelvi's entitlement to revert without consensus and aggressive removal of content. Said user violated the three-revert rule, making five reversions that time within a twenty-four hour span. The same issue of liberally removing content is being brought up again. This has become a recurring issue and may only continue to occur unless action is taken. Vuzor (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Both users are warned that if I see even a hint of edit warring on either of these two articles in the near future, the warrior(s) will be blocked. Both of you are edit warring, particlarly at Dimensionaut. The only reason I'm not blocking both of you is because the warring ceased for the moment. One special warning for Winkelvi. In the last report against you in late June, the main reason you weren't blocked was because you promised to stop. Here, too, you promise to stop. That kind of promise becomes less credible when you break it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
If you would, help me understand specifically what you are saying, Bbb23: I'm never to revert at all at either article ever again? -- Winkelvi 04:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That might be a good idea, but it's not what I'm saying. I intentionally made my warning a bit vague hoping both of you would exercise some judgment. But if you insist on parameters, I'd say you shouldn't revert the articles for one week. After that, I wouldn't revert more than once in a 24-hour period say for another three weeks. After that, I would indefinitely not revert more than twice in a 24-hour period. The goal is that you should be discussing content disputes on the article talk pages and seeking consensus, not battling in the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand why you wouldn't want to be more than vague in this situation, and I appreciate your candid answer and suggestions, Bbb23. -- Winkelvi 03:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
One suggestion I made in my report is that Winkelvi request consensus for the removal of content if he/she feels there is an issue that must be addressed. I encourage collaboration and invite more editors to work on these pages. If we discuss on the talk pages the removal of certain content, and other editors agree that something should be amended or removed, then that should be more than fair to everyone involved; it discourages reverting for the sake of reverting or making changes (such as to the grammatical structure of sentences) when unnecessary. If the removal of an item in an article is important enough to bring to attention, then it should be addressed on the talk page and be voted on. If it isn't important enough to involve everyone in a discussion about its removal, then I think it can be left alone. That prevents a lot of controversial or unnecessary reversions from occurring -- if something is important enough to remove (and at least one person disagrees), talk about it and vote; if not, leave it alone. Punctuation, I think, is something everyone would agree on, so such changes aren't going to be disputed. That's one example in which conflict is not to be expected. If there is a dispute, though, I recommend that the page contain the disputed content until (and unless) voted to be removed.
I think the addition of content should be encouraged, and for one person to remove it due to his/her own opinion would be unfair to those who contribute content to any article. I feel too many changes are made for the sake of making changes; I have had to amend some of Winkelvi's amendments because have contained grammatical errors or have changed the meaning of sentences, thus making the initial amendments redundant. I feel if Winkelvi wishes to remove or change content then it can be removed or changed through the process of discussion on the talk pages and through a subsequent vote for WP:CONSENSUS. This way, reverting also becomes less contentious as a majority would decide whether the disputed aspects of an article would remain or be removed. That would seem a lot fairer to everyone involved in the development of these pages. If removing something from the article improves its quality (and at least one other user disagrees), the reversion should be voted on. I think that's one way we can work together to eliminate edit warring and to validate one's decision to remove content when appropriate. Vuzor (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:1.115.192.198 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: )[edit]

Page
List of Watch Tower Society publications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
1.115.192.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 03:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 03:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC) ""
Dif