Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive225

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Anarchistdy reported by User:GSK (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Avatar (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Anarchistdy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575700498 by Flyer22 (talk) see talk page"
  2. 07:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575693834 by GSK (talk) Either both or neither get referenced: See MOS"
  3. 07:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Both need to be listed"
  4. 06:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "False"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Avatar (2009 film). (TW)"
  2. 07:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Avatar (2009 film). (TW)"
  3. 07:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Avatar (2009 film). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Tried to resolve on the user's talk page, but the user refused to comment. GSK 09:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

GSK beat me to this report by only a few seconds or one or two minutes. I was typing up a report on this matter as well. I was going to include this diff of the fifth revert by Anarchistdy. Yes, Anarchistd reverted five times, not four. There is that fifth one, plus the four before that.[1][2][3][4] And as for trying to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, I was going to include this diff by Anarchistdy, with the following statement: Anarchistdy was asked to take the matter to the article talk page by two editors; Anarchistdy only decided to do so after reverting for a fifth time. Flyer22 (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Also note that I warned Anarchistdy that he might be reported to this noticeboard and very likely temporarily blocked (something else I was going to include in my report here). Flyer22 (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I offered a truce only to be more or less threatened with a block. Since offering a truce is the best positive course of action at this point, and since it was shot down quickly, I have to wonder if collaboration with this user is even possible anymore. GSK 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't threaten a block, I was just awaring you that what you're doing is considered harassment. If you look at some of the stuff you wrote on my talk page, then it's clear who the confrontational person is here. You failed to link the comment I accepted the truce and awared you that I do not want to continued to be harassed and confronted by you every time I make an edit. Even after that discussion where we agreed on a truce, you still decided to included that part on this page. Anarchistdy (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I made the comment here before you replied. GSK 22:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Rajaomair reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rajaomair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Previous version
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. 16:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. 15:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. 14:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575734672 by Nigel Ish (talk)i used different username(Weimeng) on airliners. didnt know its this hard to upload a single file."
  6. 14:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575731562 by BilCat (talk)I provided this image to airliners.net. dont engage in edit.war please."
  7. 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575717270 by BilCat (talk)"
  8. 11:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. (TW)"


Comments:

Persistently trying to replace an image with a new one. -- SMS Talk 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The most recent 4 reverts were done after filing of this report. --SMS Talk 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:98.196.58.91/User:Lifeteenadmirer reported by User:Briancua (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Life Teen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.196.58.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Lifeteenadmirer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


The anon keeps on inserting unsourced, POV information about the founder of an organization into the organization's article. The information is true, as far as I know, however it violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, at a minimum. Additionally, there is already an article about the founder, so this information is best suited for that article anyway. Two editors have been reverting his edits and trying to get him to stop.

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]
  4. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:
Shortly after I reported this issue, User:Lifeteenadmirer created an account, and then made the same edits to the article. I believe them to be one and the same.

--Briancua (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:74.101.71.177 reported by User:TAG speakers (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Hapa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.101.71.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16]
  5. [17]
  6. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] and [21]

Comments: User appears to have a continually changing IP address, which they state here: "My IP address changes because my ISP dynamically distributes IPs." [22]

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. This issue has been reported here, at ANI, and at RFPP. I've semi-protected the article for one week, but I'll comment about my ambivalence at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TriiipleThreat reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: The Avengers: Age of Ultron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575707590&oldid=575702120
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575781078&oldid=575780832
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575725198&oldid=575723271
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575815835&oldid=575815490

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron#Renner

Comments: There seems to be a serious issue of WP:OWN going on at this page, with a handful of editors apparently deciding for everyone else what should and shouldn't be included in this article. The entire history is replete with reverts, some valid admittedly, but a good portion not so much. Arguments over the validity of sources continues on the talk page, but something needs to be done to make these editors aware that simply reverting editors that happen to add sourced information is not okay. —Locke Coletc 04:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you're kidding right? Besides the fact that the you are combining two entirely different situations, they all are based on careful examination and discussion of the content. Sorry if others disagreed with you, not just myself. This is collaborative editing. And as I warned you, you were at 3rr not I.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Undid revision by TriiipleThreat
  2. Undid revision by RustedAutoParts
  3. Undid revision by TriiipleThreat
Diff of edit warring [24]
Diff of attempt of dispute resolution on article talk page [25]
From WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.. And I also warned you, as I linked above. —Locke Coletc 04:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
All of my edits were based on good faith and concensus from discussion. The only one attempting to WP:OWN the article was you, insisting to have it your way when atleast three editors disagreed with you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:3RR does not provide exceptions for consensus or good faith. Consensus, by its very nature, shouldn't require edit warring to maintain. —Locke Coletc 05:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't, but you were the edit warrior. The bottomline is you should have attempted discussion after the first revert, not re-reverted another editor per WP:BRD, which I warned you about in my edit summary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Can I suggest you leave this one for admin to have a look at rather than continuing the debate here. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 05:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Very well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment It's worth pointing out that 3RR doesn't apply to claims about living people. Fair enough, it's not like we are saying he's doing gay porn, but if there is any doubt about the authenticity of the claim the information should be omitted until there is a concrete statement, preferably by Marvel. All those sources look very gossipy/blog like to me and we shouldn't be including WP:Speculation. There's no harm done if his name is added at a later date. Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've locked the article for five days. If anyone - Betty or otherwise - wants to explain the supposed BLP issue to me, I'm listening.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: Declined)[edit]

Baseless report and baseless after-reports. @BattleshipMan: get a grip.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Ransom (1996 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. his first revert
  2. his second revert
  3. his third revert
  4. his fourth revert

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

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

Comments:
TheOldJacobite has violated the 3RR rule on the movie article Ransom (1996 film) and has reverted my edit four times in that article. I previously reported him for edit warring on that article, but no violation rule was taken. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. TOJ has not violated WP:3RR as he has reverted only twice in the last 24 hours. Please read the policy. I don't see any discussion of the plot/character dispute on the article talk page. Why don't you start one?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)He has not violated 3RR. Please stop edit warring and go to the talk page to try to work out this silly dispute. --Onorem (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I just found out from someone that this guy has been committing a series of edit warring in other articles, including Raging Bull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and The Departed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). You might want to look at in the second of the revision history of The Departed to check that out. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
He hasn't edited either of those articles in over a month. Please take this silly dispute elsewhere. --Onorem (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Look at the dates of the revision history of Raging Bull. That's actually over a week and look at the timing of his edit warring on that article. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Interfase and User:188.255.44.254 reported by User:Yerevanci (Result: Article protected for 10 days)[edit]

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


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]
  5. [30]
  6. [31]
  7. [32]
  8. [33]
  9. [34]
  10. [35]
  11. [36]
  12. [37]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Interfase and 188.255.44.254

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] The IP opened a discussion, Interfase responded, [39] but as we can see the edit warring continued.

Comments:
Interfase and the IP reverted each other for numerous times (around 20 times), which is simply ridiculous and unacceptable. --Երևանցի talk 18:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The article was protected earlier, and thus neither party has been able to continue reverting since being warned. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Both have gone way too far. I think this kind of behavior is unacceptable. --Երևանցի talk 18:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Chuy33 reported by User:Onorem (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Richard Grieco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Chuy33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575871376 by Onorem (talk)"
  2. 23:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575919500 by Onorem (talk)"
  3. 23:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575919592 by Onorem (talk)"
  4. 23:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575919829 by Legion fi (talk)"
  5. 23:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575920447 by Onorem (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Richard Grieco. (TW)"
  2. 23:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Richard Grieco. (TW)"
  3. 23:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked indefinitely for making a legal threat and for breaching WP:3RR. Actually, there are other problems as well, but that'll do for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:88.104.219.76 reported by User:GregJackP (Result:Blocked)[edit]

Page: Genocide of indigenous peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.104.219.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [41]
  2. [42], [43]
  3. [44] thru [45] (9 total edits)
  4. [46]
  5. [47], [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50], [51], see also edit summaries, requesting that the IP take the changes to the talk page.

Comments:

Please note that three different users have tried to address this with the IP, myself, Kathryn NicDhàna, and Darkness Shines. Warnings (five total) were placed on IPs talk page without any result. IP is making similar edits to diminish or eliminate references to genocide in other articles as well, see [52], [53], [54], and [55], just to list a few. Based on the pattern of editing, may be a sock, but I'm not sufficiently sure enought to go to WP:SPI yet. GregJackP Boomer! 03:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You reverted me three times on that page and therefore violated the rule your self: [56][57][58]. Three of my were edits were reverts. [59] [60] [61]. Why did you make references to my addition of references for the estimates of numbers who died under Shaka and refer to it as diminish or eliminate references to genocide. Also you said that I was trying to diminish or eliminate references to genocide when I corrected that the Miskito Indians were allied to the Contras. 88.104.219.76 (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Obvious violation, noting that GregJackP did not excede 3 reverts. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:STATicVerseatide reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: No violation as to STATic; Lugnuts warned)[edit]

More comments aren't helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: STATicVerseatide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts for edit warring

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65] However, this user just blanked my comments.

Comments: The crux of this issue is that how can the runtimes of an album be known when a) the album hasn't been released and b) there's nothing official from the band either. Looks like iTunes is a Wiki-esque site with user-generated information, so fails WP:RS. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. STATic is at three reverts and has therefore not yet breached WP:3RR. Lugnuts, you have breached WP:3RR, although not in your battle with STATic, unless you want to claim that your reverts of the IP were exempt, but that would be a stretch based on my understanding of the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that this page has attracted a lot of vandalism, which I've been reverting. The IP edit was another one of those (or at least in my eyes, maybe I'm wrong about that latest one). Bbb23 - please can you explain how an album can have information like this before it's actually released? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
His revert of the IP should not be exempted as he was reverting the same sourced content. I think Lugnuts should be blocked for violating 3RR, he obviously knew about the rule since he made this report here (in bad faith nonetheless). Of course I did not, and had no intention of continuing to war. Lugnuts seemingly was just warring with me for fun, since I disagreed with him at a WP:TfD discussion, that happened minutes before. I only reverted to restore the reliably sourced content, that he gave no probable reason for reverting. iTunes is not user generated in the slightest, iTunes only gets information from Apple itself or the record label(s). Also for the record I did not blank it, he readded all the discussions I had just archived, and messed up the links to said archive, so obviously I reverted it. STATic message me! 19:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
To clarify - I'm not reporting a 3RR, I'm reporting edit warring, which is different. I removed the IP edit(s) in good faith under the rationales I've already given (the album isn't released and nothing has come from the band about runtimes). I then have those edits reverted by STATicVerseatide for the same rationale. I don't know how that iTunes "source" can be viewed as reliable, as per points a) and b) that I've already mentioned. Even after raising this on the talkpage of STATicVerseatide, my edits were blanked - hardly helpful. I've only just realised that this editor is indeed the one behind the TfD which I commented on, but this has no relevance to this issue. I hope this clarifies my point to the reverting of the IP edits. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. I'm willing to accept that your reverts of the IP were in good faith, although that's not an exemption, but once you saw where things were heading, you continued to revert STATic based on the disagreement as to the reliability of the source, which is not an exemption for edit warring and cannot be interpreted as good faith. Worse, you filed this report, even though your conduct was clearly problematic. I don't want to impose a punitive block, but I need to see some insight into your conduct that persuades me that you understand the policy and you won't be disruptive again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not requesting a block for anyone, but an understanding on how information that isn't available can be used as a reliable source. I do understand the policy, but I believe Static's edits were a bit WP:POINTY after the TfD (IE straight to an article in my edit history, revert, revert, revert). Again, check the edit history of the article in question regarding vandalism. I'm happy to withdraw this issue as it's not going to go anywhere. Not only did I revert Static's edits, I tried to engage the user in conversation, which was quickly blanked on their talk page. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're trying my patience. Offering to withdraw the report? What kind of nonsense is that? I've already determined that it was a baseless report. I need you to acknowledge that you violated WP:3RR, that you now understand the policy (you were blocked recently for edit warring), and that you promise to pay much closer attention to your edits in the future so this behavior does not repeat itself. You also must agree not to edit the article at all for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Well that's what I thought I said (or implied). OK, so it's crystal clear - I appear to have gone against 3RR, but I now do understand the policy and promise to pay closer attention to my edits and not to edit the article. Is that OK? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
That sounded pretty condescending to me, I do not know about you Bbb23. I do not think just because he "promises" should let him off the hook from violating 3rr. You are not supposed to disruptive wikipedia to make a point. STATic message me! 20:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The information is available, the album was released for pre-order by Republic Records onto iTunes where is explicitly says the track times [66], unless you are implying the record label is not a reliable source for its releases. And nope wrong again, I have edited the article many times in the last week and have it watchlisted, so looks like you are grasping at straws when the evidence is against you. The issue is not resolved as you are now the one this report is against, being the only one that violated 3RR. As I already said, you restored all the discussions I just archived, and messed up the archive link, so obviously I reverted you on my talk page. @Bbb23: I really think Lugnuts needs to be blocked for this, not only did he edit war and violate 3RR clearly knowing the policy, he also did it in a pointy fashion and removed sourced content from the article. His revert of the IP may have been in good faith, but it was still an edit that should not have been reverted, as they did provide a reliable source. STATic message me! 20:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, where does it state that the record label have supplied the info to iTunes? You also state that "I have edited the article many times in the last week" but this is clearly a lie, as your only edits in the edit history are the three reverts from today. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I used to work with an independent record label, that is how iTunes works, you cannot just go on iTunes right now and post a pre-order for Artpop, or MMLP2 only the record label can obviously do that. And my mistake I mixed up this album with the new Korn album, but I have still had the page watchlisted for over a week, so no I do not have time to go through your contributions to revert your edits. I reverted you in the first place, because you reverted sourced content, whether it is an IP or not you have to respect all editors contributions if they improve the article. Judging by your amount of reverts on the page in the last month you might have WP:OWN issues with the article. STATic message me! 20:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Based on Lugnuts's final response to me above, I am closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vahram Mekhitarian reported by User:Yerevanci (Result: Vahram Mekhitarian and Хаченци blocked)[edit]

Page: Armenian Eternity sign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vahram Mekhitarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [67]
  2. [68]
  3. [69]
  4. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:
This user constantly reverts disputed material and fails to discuss the raised issues. Also, he was blocked on Sep. 27 for 24 hours and on Sep. 29 for 3 days. --Երևանցի talk 20:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just setting up Twinkle to report this as well. Editor simply doesn't listen. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what to do and how to proceed with these wars. This page is under discussion at the Institute of Standards and the Government of Armenia. But we can not discuss any version of the page, because it changes all the time and looks contradictory. If possible, lock the page in my last edition for two weeks, until the end debate in Armenia. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Logic seeker reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Occupy movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Logic seeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Nonviolence */"
  2. 01:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Nonviolence */"
  3. 01:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Nonviolence */"
  4. 01:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Nonviolence */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. User talk:Logic seeker#October 2013
Comments:

Specifically note my mention of WP:3RR on the user's page and the subsequent revert by the user. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:DrBonesaw reported by User:BullRangifer (Result: No vio, protected 4 days)[edit]

Page: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DrBonesaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [74]
  2. [75]
  3. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Multiple sections where the issue is still under discussion and no consensus for this one editor's proposal has been accepted:

Comments:

This is a classic SPA who only edits this topic, and mostly over a semantic issue. He does not impress or convince us. Instead of responding properly to the reversal of his edits and the advice about 3RR, the editor placed a 3RR tag on my own talk page. I have given up and now come here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am a new editor, but I have been engaged in talks with other editors on the talk page regarding this article for quite some time. The edit in question which was continuously reverted by user Brangifer, was not addressed by them on the talk page despite my request to discuss it there. This editor was the only person that seemed to have issue with my edit. If you look at the talk page, this editor clearly has a personal vendetta against me for having a different opinion than them and they have become seemingly belligerent in the discussions. Before user Brangifer came into this talk today, the other editors and I were making good progress on the article. That effort has since been derailed by this users antics.DrBonesaw (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You still had no consensus from any editors to make that edit. It was under discussion, there was still disagreement, and no resolution had been achieved. Period. You should have respected BRD after the first revert of your edit, the advice you received, and the warning on your talk page. Yet you kept it up. That's why we are here. Even if your edit was 100% correct, we don't edit war content into articles over the objections of other editors. We discuss until a consensus has been reached. We aren't there yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I have warned you on your talk page about edit warring. You have had the template with good instructions. You should have read it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I realized my mistake the first time I engaged in reverting another users edits. You began this "edit war"…how are you not seeing this. I made an edit based on a conversation that took place in the talk page before you arrived. If you had an issue with it you should have created a section on the talk page to discuss it. Instead you reverted repeatedly. Recently, this article has been thoroughly edited against consensus. If you had actually read the talks you would realize this. Ever since our first engagement on the Fringe topics talk page regarding this article you have been nothing but rude to me. Other editors even spoke on the fact that your comments towards me could be taken as personal attacks. It appears you need to review WP policy as well before you continually police other users.DrBonesaw (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to have learned from that first mistake.
You are not telling the truth ("I made an edit based on a conversation that took place in the talk page before you arrived."). The edit you made was still under discussion. Even if you started discussing that change a year ago, it was still under discussion and strongly disputed by several editors.
BRD is not written BR BR BR D. It's only BRD. You made a Bold edit, I Reverted it. Instead of returning to the ongoing Discussion, you restored your bold edit a second time. That's edit warring. I made one more attempt to restore the status quo, with a clear edit summary, but you restored your bold edit a third time. That's where it remains now, and only because I'm not interesting in participating in your edit war. When your edit is not accepted (because it is strongly disputed and still under discussion), you are not supposed to press forward. That's edit warring. That's how it works here. I suggest you self-revert so we can get back to discussing. Otherwise you can be blocked on your attitude alone. A full 4 reverts is not necessary. Your attitude and failure to understand how edit warring works speaks ill of your future here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The edit that I made today, that you kept reverting was not strongly disputed by anyone…except you. The edit that I made today hardly made change to any of the content in the article. Infact, It was merely a cleaning up of the language used. You may want to review the talk page regarding the specific edit I made today. You are the only person that even commented on it. That will be obvious to anyone who wished to look into that. You seem to be the one who is bending the truth here. Why are you ignoring my comment about your previous personal attacks towards me that were pointed out by other editors? It is obvious you have a personal issue with me and you are letting this affect your contributions to the article in question.DrBonesaw (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Have I missed something? I'm only seeing three reverts by DrBonesaw, which is not yet a violation. GregJackP Boomer! 03:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't missed anything. Edit warring can exist before 4 reverts is reached, and is a blockable offense. When the trend is clear, we come here if an editor refuses to heed warnings and advice. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
True, but the only two I see involved are you and him. Which sort of indicates that if he's edit-warring, so are you. Plus, looking at the talkpage discussion, it appears that this is a content dispute. You both need to stop edit-warring and try something else, like request for comment, DRN, or something. GregJackP Boomer! 04:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that something else needs to be done than edit warring. Although he's been unsuccessfully trying to convince others than myself, regardless of who reverts (by the nature of things, only one can do it), it constituted the R in BRD. DrBonesaw refused to heed the advice about 3RR and BRD and made a BRB, rather than just returning to the talk page. So don't try to make this all about me alone. If I hadn't done it, someone else would have. There was no consensus for his change. That's the rub here. Content disputes make up 95% of what ends up here, and edit warring is not the way forward, which is why I brought the matter here rather than continue. I stopped and he didn't. I figured he'd get the point, what with all the warnings and advice I was giving him, but that didn't work. This noticeboard comes into play when edit warriors won't listen.
He has fought for this edit from his VERY FIRST edit on Sept. 13! (Compare that diff with the currently disputed edit. It removes the content he has sought to remove from the start.) This is nothing new. He has never gotten consensus for it. It has been contested all along. When he got Bold, I reverted him. Very simple and standard procedure. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I think I've said all that needs to be said. An admin will need to settle this. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The SPA in this case is outside consensus, and I would have reverted if I hadn't been asleep. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 05:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, how can I be outside consensus when no one had disputed the edit when it was proposed. You did not add any contribution to the edit proposal that I made on the talk page? DrBonesaw (talk) 05:35, 7 October 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. DrBonesaw is warned not to edit war in the future though or blocks may be issued. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have protected the article four 4 days to give the editors a chance to continue working out the content issues on the Talk page. Zad68 15:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Dan Murphy reported by User:Aymatth2 (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Gregory Kohs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dan Murphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

[80] Previous version reverted to: [81] Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff][82]
  2. [diff][83]
  3. [diff][84]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Kohs (4th nomination) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [86]

Comments:
Subject objects to an attempt to add sourced material to an article being considered for deletion Aymatth2 (talk) 14:26, 7 October 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. I suggest you two stop reverting though, or blocks may be issued in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • So I can restore the version that got reverted? It seems relevant to the AfD discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd rather you discuss the issue more instead of continuing to revert. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Max rspct reported by User:The Bushranger (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainiak Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Max rspct (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


[87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [88]
  2. [89]
  3. [90]
  4. [91]
  5. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Comments:
While not WP:3RR this editor has repeatly continued to re-insert highly confrontational and uncivil comments into an AfD discussion that was closed nearly a year ago, including after being warned not to do so, indicating a clear intent to edit war their comment back into the closed discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:88.104.219.76 reported by User:GregJackP (Result: No action taken)[edit]

Page: Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.104.219.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [95] to [96] (3 edits)
  2. [97]
  3. [98]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99], [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Comments:

Although not yet four reverts, this IP editor just came off of a 24-hour block for edit warring on genocide articles. Editor refuses to take changes to talk page for discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The IP is discussing on his talk page, and doing a damn good job of it, his last revert was well justified. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Since he's only made two reverts today and has stopped to discuss, I'm going to decline to take action here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:92.145.77.139 reported by User:Yworo (Result: 24 hours for both)[edit]

Page: Espresso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.145.77.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [103]
  2. [104]
  3. [105]
  4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Comments:
IP editor is engaging in disruptive editing. Check edit comments, falsely claimed to be discussing on talk page ("see talk" on reverts 1,3), but never posted there. Not following WP:BRD, did not attempt to discuss after being reverted the first time, which they should have done.

Yworo (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Technotopia reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Talk:Sega Genesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Technotopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [110]
  2. [111]
  3. [112]
  4. [113]
  5. [114]
  6. [115], complete with personal attack in edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not entirely applicable, as dispute involves content on article's talk page. Editor continues to restore deleted comment that is merely an accusation of bias coated with a nationalistic insult. A second editor believes this may be someone evading a block, as well.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:Euryalus just shortly before the filing of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

User: 72.66.30.115 reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 24h, semi)[edit]

Page: Nina Rosenwald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎72.66.30.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [will describe reverts]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [117] removes material just added by another user (summary shares the personal opinion that it is "a lie")
  2. [118] indicated as a revert in the summary, restores blatantly promotional self-published material
  3. [119] removes material added two days ago by another user
  4. [120] indicated as a revert in the summary, restores blatantly promotional self-published material

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned the user when he hit 4RR a few days ago, and said that I would let it go this time. The user waved it off with personal attacks and, as you can see, continued to edit war.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: various sections on Talk:Nina Rosenwald, where the IP is pushing a POV against three or four other more experienced users, and has also shared such gems as "Israel cannot 'occupy' Israel. That part of the world was given to the Chosen People by You Know Who a long time ago and forever. I believe it's in the Book." and "the settlements in Judea and Samaria are not illegal—Israel says so, and Israel is in control. (International organizations are fine, up to the point where they begin to interfere with a nation's sovereignty.)" as justification for his edits.

Comments:
The user was already warned about edit warring after the first or second 4RR, and has now hit it again in his attempt to write a promotional puff piece. I don't know whether he's a paid PR agent, an ideological POV warrior, and/or simply a troll, but either war, he shows no indication of stopping his edit-warring behavior. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  • This is a brightline violation of 3RR, with each of the four diffs showing a specific revert separated by edits from other users. The user has been combative and pushing a POV. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked 24 hours, article semiprotected. The editor has broken 3RR and seems to be pushing a POV. Though he participates on talk, he is not waiting to get consensus there. He has been reverting the article against four different editors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ben0kto reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Acid Rap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ben0kto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576378987 by STATicVerseatide (talk)Thank you. I will continue to work on the Acid Rap (mixtape) article w/o copying until complete."
  2. 02:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576378557 by STATicVerseatide (talk) Original work on both articles will continue"
  3. 02:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576378140 by STATicVerseatide (talk) (Acid rap is a genre originally. More sources yet to be added)"
  4. 02:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576376424 by EuroCarGT (talk) (still adding RS)"
  5. 02:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576375581 by Ross Hill (talk) (not vandalism)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Acid Rap. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User continues to edit war in attempt to create a new article on a different topic at Acid Rap, while copy-pasting the former content to Acid Rap (mixtape), even after I explained that copy-paste moves are not allowed. STATic message me! 02:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply editing a genre's article in attempt to provide informative information. Working on original editing of the redirect/replacement of the article for the mixtape named after the genre in accordance with copy-paste policies. Acid Rap (mixtape) may be deleted temporarily if the article is too similar the original. Ben0kto (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The three-revert rule is something which I was not aware of and will not repeat. Ben0kto (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You cannot change the topic of an article without consulting the talk page of said article, and cannot move articles by copy-pasting the article's content, as I have explained to you almost five times now. STATic message me! 03:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Reverted a sixth time, after stating here, and on my talk page that they understood 3RR. STATic message me! 04:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II reported by User:Firkin Flying Fox (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Students for Justice in Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (page subject to 1RR)

  1. [122]
  2. [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments:
All pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation. Sepsis is well aware of this, having been repeatedly warned about it, and blocked twice for previous violations:

Ya, this is a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim, or perhaps NoCal, I've already gone ahead and made the SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. These two sockpuppeters have been hounding me for a long time now, I asked Sandstein for advice in dealing with them, he said reverting these extremely obvious sockpuppets of banned users falls under WP:3RRNO - [[126]]. Anyone who reads the history of the article will see multiple sockpuppets recently editing it, Jennifer Worth , Firkin Flying Fox, GoGoTob2, Scarletfire2112/Soosim.... I will wait to revert these socks edits on the many pages they have attacked until they are confirmed/blocked. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


Comment - I don't think AndresHerutJaim would bother filing an edit warring report. Firkin Flying Fox is probably the same obvious sockpuppet that filed this report. Isarig/NoCal is the kind of person who is capable of exploiting rules to target perceived opponents, while simultaneously breaking the rules themselves. They have done it many times over the years. So this looks much more like NoCal than AHJ to me, for what it's worth. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing link to previous report, Sean. It appears Sepsis II was blocked twice already and aware of RR rules, thus escalating block appears appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Agada will join any discussion going on, always in support of the pro-Israel extremists, even those who are banned sockmasters, six time indef blocked editors, etc. He should be ignored, perhaps his ban from joining in such discussions should be put back into force again. Sepsis II (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Agada, I can see that might look appropriate if the objective is to unethically exploit a charity to wage a pointless and disruptive ethno-nationalist information war and to facilitate and reward sockpuppetry. To me, that approach looks more like throwing fuel on the fire rather than trying to put it out. Protecting the article seems like a better approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry guys, this sounds like WP:9STEPS. Editors should be reminded about WP:NPA. Sepsis II broke the rules and no doubt she/he was aware of it. Rules are rules and should be applied equally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Sepsis II can simply self-revert, but curiously no one has asked him, so this is obviously not about the rules, it's about gaming to target a perceived enemy in a conflict that has nothing to do with this charity. It should be about minimizing the disruptive impact of manipulative and dishonest people on the project. It's profoundly dumb and counterproductive to reward those people for their lack of ethics and the enormous amount of disruption and conflict they cause. This has nothing whatsoever to do with POV. It's about using judgement, not allowing procedures to be contaminated and exploited by people fighting an information war and trying to stem the negative effects of sockpuppetry. I haven't even looked at what these guys are fighting about, I'm not interested. I've never even read the article. What is obvious is that almost every recent edit is by a sockpuppet, sockpuppets on both sides of the conflict. Sepsis II also has an outstanding issue regarding former accounts that is, no doubt, feeding the flames, that I described here at 19:38, 18 September 2013. Either way, block evading socks are not allowed to be here and they are not allowed to do anything at all. This is not a difficult concept to understand and yet, astonishingly, time and time again, people facilitate and encourage block evasion despite the enormous cost to the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
No, Sean. This is about rules and proper procedures. An editor can not revert edits he/she thinks were made by sock. If sock suspicion arises, WP:SPI is the proper venue and an investigation should be initiated. After the suspicion is confirmed, then, the known sock edits are to be reverted. Let's examine Sepisis II actions:
* Adds the identical content three times
* Does not take part in discussion of talk page
* Does not even consider to self revert
This noticeboard is about edit-warring I did not look into content dispute in hand. I am concerned about proper procedures to avoid yonder disruption. And after two blocks for identical reason '1RR violation' I don't see what is the alternative here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnny Squeaky reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

Page: Soylent Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnny Squeaky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


First version reverted to: [127]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [128]
  2. [129]
  3. [130]
  4. [131]
  5. [132]
  6. [133]

Second version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [135]
  2. [136]
  3. [137]
  4. [138]
  5. [139] and calling my good-faith revert "vandalism". Δρ.Κ.