Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive227

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:TruthAboveEverything reported by Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 13:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 22:02, 27 October 2013 (edit summary: "Any desired additions are welcome, but please do not remove factually correct and well cited information.")
  2. 23:08, 27 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579015752 by Alexbrn (talk)")
  3. 01:58, 28 October 2013 (edit summary: "")
  4. 02:53, 28 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579045079 by Ruby Murray (talk)")

Diff of warning: [1]

It also appears likely some socking is going on; would be great if an Admin could take an all-around look. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:212.183.128.176 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Trevor Griffiths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
212.183.128.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 01:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned by User:DVdm, 17:09, 27 October 2013.[2]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Also edit-warring in past 24 hours as User:212.183.128.179[3] and User:212.183.140.28. Has previously made the same tendentious edit as User:212.183.128.160, User:212.183.128.167, User:212.183.128.131 User:212.183.128.98 and User:212.183.128.174.[4] RolandR (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Subsequent to this report, User:212.183.128.176 and User:212.183.128.179 have been blocked for violation of the BLP policy, but the others, including the latest IP, are still unblocked. RolandR (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (Rangeblocked 212.183.128.0/20) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:WKS Śląsk Wrocław reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Tourism in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WKS Śląsk Wrocław (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see: previous ANI report from two weeks ago. User ignores all warnings.

Comments:
Stubborn and incessant edit warring with the whole bloody world, not just one or two admins and a slew of editors. User WKS Śląsk Wrocław ignores all recommendations in order to promote his own hometown at the article Tourism in Poland. I don't know how to break through to this user. He does not use talk. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 15:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I've offered on the article talk page and on the user's talk page to try to mediate the situation. The user had some good suggestions and were incorporated into the article. I did add a second multiple image tag, but the bottom line is there's more to Poland than just Wroclaw and Silesia that the editor is pushing with their edits/reverts. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton reported by User:Blurred Lines (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
IPad Air (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579135324 by Blurred Lines (talk) See the talk page as to why this is no longer needed, and perhaps a good look at WP:WIKILAWYER may help as well."
  2. 17:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579133912 by Blurred Lines (talk) Nine minor edits in 3 days is hardly a major work of expansion"
  3. 16:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "pretty much no longer needed. No edits in over a day"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user is keeps removing the under construction tag, and it has not been several day since the last edit. The user claims that if minor edits hasn't been made in several days, it should be removed, and it does not say that on the template. The user is doing the same thing on iPad Mini (2nd generation), and it's just getting disruptive. Blurred Lines 18:18, 28 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. Also, this strikes me as a fairly WP:LAME dispute. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Pofka reported by User:Werieth (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Lithuania national basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "All the files have critical commentary. Reverted."
  2. 17:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Read the article and think again"
  3. 17:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Prove it or leave the article alone"
  4. 17:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "None of files violate NFCC#8. Skull Man is used to identify important logo, which is mentioned in the article; Croatians leaving the game is used for critical commentary as they left it on purpose to show their dissapoitment in judging and so on."
  5. 17:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Vandalism..."
  6. 18:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "It is when it do not violate any of the rules. Do not remove any of the images until discussion in administrators page is over."
  7. 18:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579140436 by Werieth (talk)"
  8. 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "As I said: wait for the administrators decision before taking any actions! They will remove it anyway if they really violate rules."
  9. 18:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Not a violation"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Repeated violations of WP:NFCC#1,3,8 and (indisputable WP:NFCC#10c) Werieth (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Matter had just been reported to WP:ANI, where I recommended that Pofka take the matter to the article talk page. If no further edit warring on the main article occurs, no action is necessary. If further edit warring takes place, then action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Both parties now discussing on talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Silvio1973 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Istrian exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 578672964 by Silvio1973"
  2. 07:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "Restored rollback version. Do not alter with controversial changes without consensus"
  3. 23:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "1st Proposal to discuss on the Talk page"
  2. 06:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC) "2nd Proposal to discuss on the Talk page"
Comments:

This user keeps removing sourced edits without any apparent reason. A discussion has been proposed on the talk edit but it has been diserted. A 3O requested, but so far without involvement of any editor. I cannot even understand what is wrong because reverts are immediate and unexplained. The changes are just qualified of controversial but no discussion follows.--Silvio1973 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:24.215.200.146 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 3 months)[edit]

Page
Baruch Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
24.215.200.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 20:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Edit was not "rejected" and reverter himself said calling people "murderers" has "far reaching implications."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Editor warned per ARBPIA: [19]

Comments:

Violation of 1RR. Contribs make it quite clear that this IP address is controlled by a single person interested mainly in POV-pushing in the Israel/Palestine area. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely spurious accusation from Nomoskedasticity as I have edited many other pages. Once again, the article for Samir Kuntar does not say he is a murderer, despite his conviction for murder, yet the article for Baruch Goldstein not only calls him a murderer, but a MASS murderer. Nomoskedasticity clearly has a bias. 24.215.200.146 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On top of that, the 3rd false accusation is not a revert, but an edit. 24.215.200.146 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Not applicable)[edit]

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.

For some reason a user I have never known (User:Medeis) reacted hysterically to an edit I made a day or two ago regarding the discrepancies in reports of the actual cause of actress Marcia Wallace's death.

  • This editor publicly accused me, without even attempting to contact me, of:
  1. Violating 3RR (untrue and bizarre)
  2. Committing WP:BLP (when the subject is deceased!!!)
  3. Expressing opinions on the talk page (WTF?!!!)
  • First, he/she claims that I committed "edit fraud" because the reflink backing up the comments made by her son which I entered into the article, was not present (i.e. the reflink following the comment did not confirm that the comments made by the son were actually made). Even if this were true (and it is not), the editor should have assumed an dhad no reason not to assume good faith, and contacted me on my talk page. The reflink (reflink #10) has been present over the last 24-48 hours since the notice of Wallace's death.
  • Then in his re-editing (since reversed as I readded the reflink more clearly since he was too lazy to find it), he made an inflammatory edit summary comment, to wit: "unsupported BLP violation removed, editor has expressed OR on talk and been made aware of 3RR and BLP violation". This is insane. What BLP violation? Even if I knew what that was it cannot apply as Wallace, the subject of the article is deceased. It seems that the gist of this nonsense apparently is that he/she did not see the reflink which clearly quoted Wallace's son, Michael Hawley, even though it was at the end of the same paragraph (again, reflink #10), which he/she could not be bothered to look at or for.
  • This is the text in question:

    On October 25, 2013, Wallace died at age 70 due to complications from pneumonia. Her son, Michael Hawley claimed she was cancer free at the time of her death;[1] however, Wallace's longtime friend Cathryn Michon told Deadline Hollywood that Wallace "passed at 9pm last night due to complications from breast cancer of which she was a long and proud survivor and advocate for women and healing".[2][3]

  • Reflink # 10 is reflink # 3 here due to truncated text:[3]
  1. ^ "Wallace's son claims she was cancer free at the time of her death" deadline.com (October 2013)
  2. ^ "Marcia Wallace, Star of 'The Bob Newhart Show' and Voice of Mrs. Krabappel, Dies at 70". Variety. 2013-10-26. Retrieved 2012-10-26.
  3. ^ a b "R.I.P. Marcia Wallace". Deadline. 2013-10-26. Retrieved 2013-10-26.
  • "editor has expressed OR on talk [page]" -- I did express what I clearly stated was my own opinion regarding the discrepancy between her son's comments that his mother was cancer-free and a claim by Wallace's friend that she had died from complications of breast cancer (with which she had been diagnosed in 1985 but long considered cured given the length of time). Is there a rule that one cannot posit or express opinions on article talk pages??
  • This outrageous, hysterical, aggressive, antisocial, obnoxious verbal assault by User:Medeis, without even attempting to communicate with me directly at my talk page, merits him/her yet another block, and more lengthy than 24 hours, in my humble opinion. Quis separabit? 21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: this editor's block log is here Quis separabit? 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

comment by medeis[edit]

Actually, there's no strict violation of 3RR here by anyone, but the editor who needs addressing is User:Rms125a@hotmail.com.

He has repeatedly added uncited material to the article claiming Wallace died of pneumonia, diff; claiming repeatedly that her son said she was cancerfree, a BLP violation until being cited only on his last edit; arguing his personal OR and BLP violating opinion "my personal opinion is that her son may be in denial" diff; and attributing quotes to the Mirror without any such reference, diff, diff. Of course, the claim of pneumonia and that the son had said she was cancer free nay have been true, but unsupported they were subject to removal, especially given the article's Recent Death listing.

Then, when my communication with him has been nothing but civil, he insults me and people with disabilities on my talk page: "you are evidently a slow learner/special student" diff and files this incredibly hostilely worded AN3 with no 3RR violation on my part.

Please admonish or block Rms125a. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing admin[edit]

I really don't see why this was brought both here and WP:AN#RE_User:Medeis. The extensive editing occurring right now on this article means that it's not a clear-cut care of edit-warring, and that's really the only thing for which this page is useful. Let's discuss the issue at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 28 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:Kurzon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Lloyd Irvin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kurzon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 02:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 07:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  4. 08:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  5. 09:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  6. [22]
  7. [23]
  8. [24]
Comments:

See block log -- previous block for violating 3RR, this editor knows the rule well enough. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  • The last three reverts above were made after this report was filed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW, another editor has exceeded 3RR as well. If the article is to be protected on that basis, it should exclude the material identified as problematic per BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by GiantSnowman.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jguard18 reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Samir Kuntar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jguard18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  • None required, per the notice on the article talkpage ("Editors who ... violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.").
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Violated the 1RR restrictions on the page, with two quick reverts that didn't even have any rationale at all in the edit summary ... even though that was pointed out after the first revert. Epeefleche (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I realize the revert could have been a mistake, however you are more then welcomed to message me first in regards the issue it was reverted twice by myself as it was unwarranted to add it were it was.Also are you referring to the WP:3RR.But again it was reverted when i was patrolling for vandalism and was a false positive and for that i will applogize for that.Jguard18 Critique Me 13:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  • The page is under a restriction, emblazoned upon its talk page, that makes it edit warring to engage in 1RR. Which is precisely what Jguard did. The restriction states that the article is: "under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.... Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."
To compound matters, Jguard failed to leave any explanatory edit summary. In either of his reverts. As WP:FIES states: "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit."
He did this despite the fact that when he in turn had been reverted, the edit summary that was left for him and directed at him stated "Undid (no reason given, and supported by the refs) revision 579214852 by Jguard18." He simply reverted this communication, and again reverted -- again without an edit summary, and again despite it being pointed out to him that the article has supporting refs.
And what he reverted -- without any explanation -- was certainly not vandalism by the wildest stretch of any imagination, and is directly supported with RS refs in the article, per wp:lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment The pertinent part of the sanction is Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. As I see it, one of the reverts was of an anonymous IP that has been aggressively pushing an edit. User:Jguard18 has not violated the 1RR sanction (since one of his two reverts are exempt) and has not violated the more generally 3RR rule. The IP needs blocking though! Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Again it is a good point to note that this ip is still aggressively pushing the edit as seen [25] with another user as well Again Epeecflech you are more then capable of discussingthis issue.On another not it seems the ip was banned at one point and actually currently is now [26]Jguard18Critique Me 18:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: No violation. As Betty Logan observes, the ARBPIA 1RR rule does not count reverts of IP edits when determining if a violation has occurred. All parties are advised to use caution on any further reverts and to use edit summaries. Admins are allowed to enforce the 1RR rule without any warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bluespeakers reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33], [34]

Comments:
Edit warring, probably a sock puppet of previous conflict creators of this page,[35], Won't explain his edits, won't present a source that supports the information he wants to insert. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

These accusations against me are outrageous and wrong. I tried to work with this user, ask questions and reach out to other users. I was under the impression that you have discuss before you delete so I have not. I have not done anything malicious. I personally know the user who was [36] we all attended WSU and that person is still trying to fight their case. This was a large university and we had discussions about religions and that's where this all started. I just picked up the place after that user left me the notes on this group. For what it's worth, I am not sure if it is worth this much debate. If someone who does not have attachment to this can take a look. It would be very helpful. Apologies for taking up time.

Bluespeakers (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

[37]

Why you are removing the sourced materials and inserting something which is 100% no where written in the given source? That's 100% Vandalism. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are five sources backing this statement up.

Click to see details
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=%22Maharaja+even+though+he+had+taken+the+vows+of+%22&source=bl&ots=uhk2QoqH8W&sig=MqL-M2sTl1Eoh_olE7f7vryPzJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0Ky6UcTHL82qqQGR54DoDg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Maharaja%20even%20though%20he%20had%20taken%20the%20vows%20of%20%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rmfR4nQvbSsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Accused+of+deviating+from+the+Vedas%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ECdvUo2jBcL72QWQuIHwAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=frauds&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Siv6V1VDX-AC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=swami+dayananda+criticized+swaminarayan&source=bl&ots=Kjfj6yDy4Y&sig=E_s97SJV3gPc5zyJLZqrISqbU7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HjNvUupjxffbBY_IgIgJ&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Vallabhacharya&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Siv6V1VDX-AC&pg=PA109&dq=Shikshapatri+Dhwanta+Nivarana&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YzZvUovXJemW2AW5loCoCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Shikshapatri%20Dhwanta%20Nivarana&f=false

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22acquainted+with+Swaminarayan+doctrines%2C+as+is+demonstrated+particularly+in+his+anti-Swami-+narayan+pamphlet+Shikshaapatriidhvaantanivaarana%22&oq=%22acquainted+with+Swaminarayan+doctrines%2C+as+is+demonstrated+particularly+in+his+anti-Swami-+narayan+pamphlet+Shikshaapatriidhvaantanivaarana%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.1012j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=122&espv=210&q=%22acquainted+with+Swaminarayan+doctrines%2C+as+is+demonstrated+particularly+in+his+anti-Swami-+narayan+pamphlet+Shikshaapatriidhvaantanivaarana%22&tbm=bks

I asked you for help but instead you attacked me. So I sought out others help.

Bluespeakers (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and none supports any of your claim . Bladesmulti (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not where you discuss this but if you acutally read them. Dayanand criticized the Narayan sect a lot for deviating from the Vedas. You are not reading it. Don't be stuck on stupid. Read it and then add to the paragraphs as needed. Seriously, you have not read anything. I just re-read to make sure that I posted the right links and it is all there. Bluespeakers (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Now this user is trying to block me. First he deletes everything without explanation and then when someone disagrees. He attacks. Is this what wiki has become? Please help. Bluespeakers (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Article protected for one week was requested by Bluespeakers. Thank you EdJohnston for taking the time out to deal with this.

Bluespeakers (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:117.194.243.115 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Block, semi)[edit]

Page
Arunachal Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
117.194.243.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "RV Vandalism. I am taking this to he admins now."
  2. 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "RV Vandalism from land of plagiarizing, thieving, half-evolved monkeys."
  3. 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Darkness Shines. I am well aware of your s$%hitty creed/ilk and capable of putting you in your place well and proper. That 'claim' NOBODY recognizes DOES NOT MERIT mention in the beginning and that's that."
  4. [38] "We don't need to mention the 'claims' of any half-evolved race of monkeys in the lead para itself. NONE of the nations outside of that of the thieving, plagiarizing, crooked creed of monkeyland think so."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Arunachal Pradesh. (TW)"


Result: IP blocked 24 hours by another admin. Due to the use of three different IPs from the 117.194.* range I've semiprotected the article one month. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:77.173.230.171 reported by User:Brianhe (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Theomatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.173.230.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&oldid=565988274

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&diff=577658961&oldid=565988274 (18 October)
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&diff=prev&oldid=577939551 (20 October)
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&diff=prev&oldid=579061285 (28 October)
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&diff=prev&oldid=579315062 (29 October)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:77.173.230.171&diff=579326334&oldid=579114331

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:77.173.230.171&diff=579114331&oldid=579113931

Comments:

Request for page protection was declined "not enough recent activity": [39]Brianhe (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I only see three reverts in ten days, and I don't think that's enough to merit a block. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Alfietucker reported by StuffandTruth (talk) (Result: Protected)[edit]

The following user refuses to engage in the talk page to prove how the paragraph on Guramit Singh is WP:SYNTHESIS, and is needlessly reverting without proper discussion. All sources cited are reliable sources, it should be known.

Page: Tommy Robinson (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 19:04, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "/* Quitting the EDL */ Guramit Singh was a spokesman, not a leader, so irrelevant to Robinson's answer; besides, this breaches WP:EDITORIAL and WP:SYNTHESIS.")
  2. 19:26, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579329425 by StuffandTruth (talk) - this is still WP:EDITORIAL and WP:SYNTHESIS - please discuss on the talk page")
  3. 20:11, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by StuffandTruth (talk): Rolled back for WP:SYN identified on talk page. (TW)")

StuffandTruth (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Response from Alfietucker

I see that StuffandTruth decided to pre-empt me, since I told him/her that (excuse the pronoun) they were edit warring and implicitly would be reported. I get the impression that S&T has a poor grasp of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, proven by their reporting me for allegedly breaching WP:3RR without acknowledging they were edit-warring - and in fact have done as many reverts as I have as follows:

  1. 19:14, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: ("/*‎Quitting the EDL*/ found source that says he was leader and co-founder)
  2. 19:32, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579331458 by Alfietucker (talk) misquoting policies - it is neither WP:SYN, and neither does WP:EDITORIAL apply - see talk for why")
  3. 20:17, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579338177 by Alfietucker (talk) violated WP:3RR, refusing to discuss removal of content) ")

To explain the case from my side, I found the following edit by S&T on Tommy Robinson (activist): [40]. I started checking the citations, and quickly found WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:SYN, as I explained on the talk page here, here (n.b. comments appended with “- Alfietucker” placed within S&T’s post), and here.

I should also add that User:The Four Deuces added to the discussion their observation that S&T had made a synthesis between the two news articles here. Still S&T does not appear to have understood the policy, and has now reported me for alleged "3RR" for reverting on the strength of TFD's comment (as I also guessed there may be a BLP issue involved, but perhaps I was being over-sensitive to this).

As I’ve said, I get the impression that S&T has a poor grasp of Wikipedia guidelines and policy: but this is no excuse for their battleground mentality and apparent inability to assume good faith. If you wish me to provide evidence of this, including one earlier episode today, I can do so: but I assume we ought to deal with this "3RR" case first. Alfietucker (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
Neither editor has reached 3RR, so there is no violation. I have not participated in this edit-war, but did point out I agreed with Alfietucker that the edit is synthesis because it points out the criminal conviction of a former member of a group Tommy Robinson once led, although the source does not connect the two men. I think too that synthesis that is prejudicial to a living person is a BLP violation. I suggest that both editors attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page and to post to a relevant noticeboard if necessary. TFD (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@TFD - since there is a BLP with the edit suggesting that Robinson is endorsing someone convicted of violent robbery, and I don't want to be had up for breaching 3RR, could you please fix this? Alfietucker (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Not to worry - I checked WP:BLP and WP:3RR and realized - not having been there before - that removing breaches of WP:BLP are exempt from 3RR. (On my head be it if I've misunderstood the policy.) Alfietucker (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Astynax reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:10, 25 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 578714116 by Tgeairn (talk) responded on Talk")
  2. 19:39, 25 October 2013 (edit summary: "reinserting material blanked by Tgeairn: Cargo cult is both movement and type, Astara and The Centers notibility are established by the cites & if added cites are needed, request them rather than blank")
  3. 08:56, 27 October 2013 (edit summary: "restoring criterion for membership on this list")
  4. 17:07, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579272811 by Nwlaw63 (talk)see talk")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No templated warning given, adequate explanation given at article and editor talk pages.

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

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment - This is not a 3RR violation. However, it is edit warring and has been disruptive to the development of the article. There have been several previous incidences on this article of the reported editor acting well outside of BRD, even though active discussion was taking place on the article talk page. Multiple previous requests to stop reverting and instead discuss and reach consensus have been dismissed or disregarded.

Tgeairn (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kobayashi245 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kobayashi245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Fine. Added more information to balance it."
  2. 13:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Actually, "Dawkins largely agrees with Lewontin" is WP:OR and not what the actual source states. Boldy edited."
  3. 09:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Edwards' critique */ Properly formulated the structure. Added another quote by Dawkins."
  4. 22:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579360262 by Binksternet (talk) What? What is your justification for that meaningless revert?"
  5. 23:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579362999 by Binksternet (talk) Discuss the "questionable change" in the talk page. Otherwise the next revert will be considered edit warring."
  6. 23:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579366301 by Mann jess (talk) I already did. Next time read the talk page and argue against it before you revert."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Edit warring again */ new section"


Comments:

3 reverts today, another 2 just outside of the 24 hour window. User already warned for warring on other pages on the 19th. He's well aware of our policies, given his edit summaries include warnings to other editors: "the next revert will be considered edit warring".   — Jess· Δ 23:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course I reverted those edits. Binksternet reverted for no valid reason at all, something more akin to vandalism, and you reverted and told me to discuss this in the talk page. I have already done that. Binksternet and you should rather come to the talk page and present your arguments why you disagree with my addition, not simply revert it for no reason and then tell me to "discuss it" when you're not discussing it.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding discussion, there is already participation on the talk page, where there is not currently consensus for the change. Furthermore, posting to the talk page does not excuse edit warring.   — Jess· Δ 23:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
No, there is not "no consensus," there is no argument whatsoever that my addition should be reverted, because I am using a reliable source to add balance to a part lacking neutrality. DRNC.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw reported by User:Elockid (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: N/A. Multiple preferred versions.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Reinstating "City of Man" in lead (Editing while logged out)
  2. Reinstating the first global city (Editing while logged out, removed by Miguel Raul
  3. Editing logged out (Reinstate this edit)
  4. Reinstating the first global city (Originally removed by Miguel raul)
  5. Reinstating the first global city (Removed by me and Miguel raul, and LogX)
  6. Reinstating "City of Man" in infobox (Removed by Howard the Duck, and Miguel raul)
  7. Reinstating "City of Man" in infobox

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Me here and here, Dougweller

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk pages of those who have reverted him.

Comments:
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw has been slowly edit warring for a month now with multiple users, (me, Miguel raul, Mezus360, Howard the Duck and LogX. He has persistently both using his account and editing logged out re-adding his edits despite being warned for NPOV violations. Elockid(Boo!) 14:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Blocked for a week. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )[edit]

Page
Camp Ashraf raid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kermanshahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579471561 by Darkness Shines (talk) - Look at the talk it was already taken there, conclusion was massacre tags removed."
  2. 14:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "There was already consesus that those ludicrous tags should be removed. Pro-MKO propagandist re-added them."
  3. 11:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undo pro-terrorist propaganda by Plot Spoiler. Talk already concluded your "massacre" and "mass-murder" have no place on this article about military raid against terrorist group"
  4. 22:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC) "Removing terrorist propaganda. Massacres can only be against civilians not armed terrorists."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Camp Ashraf raid */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 11:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Recent edits */ new section"
Comments:

User:Soffredo reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
List of current heads of state and government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Soffredo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [41] "Latest revision as of 22:17, 30 October 2013 Soffredo (Undid revision 579525050 by Hebel (talk))"
  2. [42] "Revision as of 19:03, 30 October 2013 Soffredo (Undid revision 579495529 by Hebel"
  3. 17:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579494162 by Miesianiacal (talk) The amount of reverts doesn't change the discussions made in the past."
  4. 17:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579492405 by Miesianiacal (talk) See the discussion in "List of sovereign states""
  5. 16:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579481860 by Hebel (talk) It has been decided that the Cook Islands and Niue are sovereign. There's no need to undo this edit again."
  6. 12:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579380132 by Hebel (talk) See the discussion on "List of sovereign states""
  7. 00:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579375214 by Hebel (talk) The UN recognizes them (see http://www.un.org/depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world00.pdf ) and see discussion on "List of sovereign states""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning

Revision as of 21:58, 13 March 2013 Novangelis 3RR warning

alternate link 13 March 2013 Novangelis 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Incessant edit-warring. Way over 3RR. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Mm. Thank you for logging this; came here to do so myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The user is continuing to edit war even after this report was launched. The user is well aware that this report is open, but has failed to respond either here or on the talk page. TDL (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Really, "WTF?" is the only thing that comes to mind. I'm sure it's not what Bbb23 would have said, but hey, there you go. Is 48 hours enough? Drmies (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Xan81 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page
Talk:Atheism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Xan81 (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, 30 October 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579538748 by Mann jess (talk)"
  3. 23:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579540070 by Rhododendrites (talk)"
  4. 23:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Consensus has not been reached on this article. */ new section"
  5. 01:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "General note: Using talk page as forum on Talk:Atheism. (TW)"
  2. 23:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Atheism. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [43]
Comments:

User has passed 3rr by inserting commentary on a talk page repeatedly. I don't know if a block for edit warring is necessarily the right step forward, to be honest. It might help. I think the issue might be broader; WP:NOTHERE comes to mind, which would require a discussion at ANI, but it seems too early for that. An outside opinion and intervention would be helpful, I think. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 01:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, see the discussion on his talk page. I've tried to explain the issue to him repeatedly, but he won't settle for anything less than discussing whether we really have proof of the Big Bang. Rhododendrites has tried explaining NOTFORUM as well.   — Jess· Δ 01:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Temporarily blocking. John Reaves 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:198.182.56.5 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

Page
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
198.182.56.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579631013 by Darkness Shines (talk). This is a reliable source because the references in this source are reliable. Be open minded and do not undo based on your opinions"
  2. 16:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
  3. 03:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Criticism and controversy */"
  4. 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Criticism and controversy */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "/* United States Commission on International Religious Freedom */ new section"
  2. 16:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 16:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Blog ref */ new section"
Comments:
24 hour block Vsmith (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:75.51.169.232 reported by User:Atethnekos (Result: Protected and blocked)[edit]

Page
Dionysus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
75.51.169.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 578958449 by Paul August (talk)"
  2. 04:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579036285 by Atethnekos (talk)"
  3. 04:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 579058996 by Atethnekos (talk) rv"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

See User_talk:75.51.164.167, User_talk:75.51.174.116, User_talk:75.51.166.139, etc for previous warnings to this user. And see also the notice from administrator Rklawton at Talk:Dionysus#IP_Editor. Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 04:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Now the user seems to be at Special:Contributions/75.51.173.206. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 04:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And now at [Special:Contributions/75.51.173.182]. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 07:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (rangeblocked 75.51.160.0/19) and Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ahmadac reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ahmadac (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. [44]
  1. [45]

The article is under 1 revert rule sanctions. He has already been warned by administrators on his talk page Sopher99 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. The two edits are consecutive and count as only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version. Help:Reverting
An editor must not perform more than three reverts (in this case more than one) on a single page—whether involving the same or different material [46]

Tell me again how he does does not fit the criteria? Because it was consecutive? So I can undo the edits of everyone in the entire page's history, so long as I do it consecutively and without interruptions? literally unbelievable. Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." (WP:3RR) It even makes good sense. In this particular instance, the two consecutive edits were clear reverts, but what if you made seven consecutive edits that just change material in different parts of the article? Would you want that to count as seven reverts? In any event, now that you (should) understand the policy, please don't report here unless there's a violation. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Beauvy reported by User:Mark Miller (Result: blocked )[edit]

Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Beauvy: Beauvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [48]
  2. [49]
  3. [50]
  4. [51]
  5. [52]
  6. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments:
This appears to be clear edit warring of POV and what may be original research. Clearly the editor is not being civil in this dispute and has removed a civil warning to discuss the issue on their own talk page with no discussion there or on the article talk page. I have an opinion as to what is going on here, but suffice it to say, the editor refuses to collaborate and continues to simply edit war. Editor has been editing since 2012 and has about 75 edits that are mostly to articles of human sexuality with a number of edit war warnings. Editor may not be here to build an encyclopedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Issued a short block for now - if issues re-occur after block expires, let me know and I'll take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. When the editor returns I will attempt to work with them in hopes that they can better understand our policies and how to edit in a more collaborative manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Indicologist reported by User:Omnipaedista (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Northeast India (edit | talk | history | links |