Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive230

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:79.117.186.162 and User:Acornboy reported by User:2Awwsome (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: CS Universitatea Craiova (football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.117.186.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Acornboy (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 79.117.186.162 (just four recent ones, too many in the 24 hour period to list them all here, see the history):

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

For Acornboy (again, just four recent ones)

  1. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]
  4. [8]

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

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

Comments:


2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned JodyB talk 13:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • i'm out of here. you support edits made by IP users instead of supporting editors that works their ass off in the last years. well, let them update the pages, because it was the last time I write something for free.Acornboy (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Alchewizzard reported by User:99.245.191.227 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Involuntary_celibacy&diff=584759650&oldid=583654391

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Involuntary_celibacy&diff=next&oldid=584959093
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Involuntary_celibacy&diff=next&oldid=585102862
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInvoluntary_celibacy&diff=585078746&oldid=583684760

Comments:

I've made comments on Alchewizzard's talk page (as well as documenting on the article's talk page), but he doesn't respond, he just continues to revert and claiming legitimate edits are vandalism. The difference between the article as it stood before these reverts and the version it's being forcibly reverted to are dozens of edits.

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. It looks like a content dispute among IPs and inexperienced named accounts. That said, two reverts, one on December 5 and one on December 7 does not an edit war make.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:76.92.127.29 reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Migraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.92.127.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9] Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 10:16 Dec 7
  2. 1:01 Dec 8
  3. 2:01 Dec 8
  4. 00:47 Dec 9

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11] and [12] Comments: IP repeatedly inserting new primary research after two editors have explained WP:MEDRS
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The IP did not breach WP:3RR as the four reverts were not in a 24-hour window. However, there has been a pattern of edit warring stretching back a little further than the first diff above, and he was warned and counseled.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:70.112.2.185 reported by User:Niabot (Result: Protected/blocked)[edit]

Page: Futanari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.112.2.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) aka NotHelpingMatters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (previously indefinitely blocked), including newly created sock ProgressionalStandards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: More or less the entire recent version history.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16]
  5. [17]
  6. [18]
  7. [19]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] and following sections.

Comments:
At the moments it are two IP users 174.88.1.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) which constantly revert the article, from which the reported user is the most active. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 02:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am the user in question, having just registered an account less than an hour ago. I am not a sock puppet, which I note is an accusation that Niabot brings up against essentially anyone who objects to his contributions to the page in question. That said, I am NotHelpingMatters, and only re-joined because I realized I was no longer blocked from editing and assumed the ban had been lifted. The reason for my edits are that the image is unprofessional, of poor quality, harms the page's credibility, conflicts with the intended professional tone of Wikipedia, serves little if any functional purpose in the article, and is needlessly pornographic in nature. Niabot, who created the image, has been consistently adding it whenever removed by myself or other users. The page's text itself is quite biased as well due to his contributions, but my main concern is the image. I originally became aware of the article through a link on another website, where it was cited as an example of a low-quality page that had been hijacked by an editor with a conflict of interest. The image needs to go. ProgressionalStandards (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe in coincidences, but i strongly doubt that this is a coincidence. You seem overly familiar with WP from the start... That aside; i seriously do not want to introduce any bias. Please mention the particular sections of the article which are biased, introduced by myself and not or falsely sourced on the discussion page. You did not touch or discuss any content, but you rigorously removed the image. If you have better sources, so let me know. I wrote the German article a while ago and i would like to see what could be improved. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 03:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The primary example of this bias is your image here.

The others are minor and I prefer to ignore in favor of focusing on this main issue. Additionally, here is the article I linked, as someone removed it. ProgressionalStandards (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, this professional anti-wikipedian-page -directly associated with the "nice" guys at wikipediocracy- , which quotes me and others out of context. In this case i defended an not (yet) convicted* user against personal attacks. I don't think that i did anything wrong in this instance, but i guess it is good material to make such an silly story out of it. (*We still don't know the details)
PS: And as i had to assume. You have little to no interest in the article itself. You are just on the mission to remove the image. The article and quality of it's content was never in your interest. Well played and lied. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 03:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The image itself is all the reason needed to remove the image. If you're actually interested in improving the article, then the German version you linked to is a good source of better material. ProgressionalStandards (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. This is not an endorsement or condemnation of the present version. Also, concerns about sockpuppetry should be handled at WP:SPI. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • User blocked for other reasons as well. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for catching that. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Judgejoker reported by User:Ruby Murray (Result: Warning, semi)[edit]

Page
Enfield Poltergeist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Judgejoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision "Lucky Louie" Promoting film/fridge sources and potential vandalism. User should be banned on this page."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 21:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC) to 22:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    1. 21:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC) "Its referred to as Brimsdown . It is not a village."
    2. 22:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted back to version from the revision history which is correct."
  3. 21:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid a unhelpful revision. The edit is correct and numerous sources confirm"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Enfield Poltergeist. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Following 3RR warning, switched to IP sockpupppet account Special:Contributions/86.6.111.196: [21] Ruby Murray 13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP posted to my talk page saying "Hello i have asked many (well 2) users and no one seems to give a straight answer so i will try my luck with you!! You put in your notes thats i should be blocked for RR more then 3 times but im just protecting the Original page which has stood that way for the best part of 10 years, now all of a sudden it has loads of references to American journalists as if we believe them?? why?? they had nothing to do with the case. I have put up many completely verifiable sources for them to be taken down. This new version of this page is a complete falsification of events and not verifiable at all. Why are you proliferating these false accounts?? are you getting paid to do so?". The Judgejoker account is at 6RR (counting successive edits as 1 revert), more than that including his IP address. When the IP refers to 'i should be blocked' he's referring to his Judgejoker account. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is where the REAL admins are then fantastic. I am new to Wikipedia but i would Humbly ask you revert the Enfield Poltergeist page to November 3rd version and lock it temporarily. I have studied this case for well over 3 years and know all there is to know about it, not from my own POV but from verifiable sources. over the last 10 days it has been Hijacked by a number of users who want to portray a false past. A typical example of this was that i put up a national Radio show article 'Talksport" which goes out to the Entire country which was hosted by British Member of Parliament George Galloway on The Enfield Poltergeist (In the further media coverage) section for it only to be erased!! This is completely and totally Verifiable, its completely appropriate and yet a number of user (Mainly the one who has made the comments about me here) say that this is not relevant/correct.

It seems that number of users want to change the History of this Wikipedia page, If you look back just a couple of months they were no where to be seen. Another Example is they keep on referring to "Brimsdown" as a village, its not a village at all, that sounds like something an american would say when talking about a quaint little place in England. There is not a single UK map which refers to "Brimsdown" as a village, i should know i live here. I may of used some on the functions incorrectly as im new but my intentions are truly in line with what Wiki stands for, these new contributors are proliferating an Americanized version of History which isn't true. My final example is that in their 'Americanized" version They say the first police officer on the scene didn't know what or how the chair moved. This is completely false. "Caroline heeps" (they don't even know her name) swore on a british affidavit that no human could have moved the chair. Please look into this Travesty of justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgejoker (talkcontribs) 14:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Would also like to point out that the Source "Joe Nickell" had absolutely nothing to do with this case. The Only Paranormal Investigators that the United Kingdom reconises as a citable source is Guy Lyon Playfay and Maurice Grosse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgejoker (talkcontribs) 08:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Judgejoker warned, article semiprotected. Judgejoker may be blocked if they revert again prior to a talk page consensus. Please read WP:SOCK for our policy on using multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Waqbi reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. November 30
  2. December 4
  3. December 5
  4. December 6 (partially similar)
  5. December 9

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Is he Kashmiri, Is he Rajput

Comments:
User is repeatedly replacing sourced info with the one that the article already mentions in the same section (and same paragraph). He/she has been told the same on the talk but I am not sure if there is competence/communication issue or the user is deliberately trying to force his/her preferred version. -- SMS Talk 14:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:79.182.136.188 reported by User:Jinkinson (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
H. Hugh Fudenberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
79.182.136.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 585338406 by Jinkinson (talk) this is not the crank website RationalWiki. the last edit is completely not wikipedic"
  2. 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 585334198 by Alexbrn (talk) gorki made an assumption by doing a google search. the original sentence is enough. stop being such a dick head as you are usually are"
  3. 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Bill Maher */ reverted edit . undue weight and over the top"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC) "/* December 2013 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 21:19, 9 December 2013 "/* Maher, Gorski and Anti-vax */ new section
Comments:

Has been involved in a dispute with Alexbrn regarding the wording of a sentence in the "Bill Maher" section Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 21:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected one month. Two different IPs with the same geolocation have been reverting the H. Hugh Fudenberg article. 109.67.188.175 (talk · contribs) is from the same place. I take no position as to which side is correct about these edits, but one person using multiple IPs in an edit war violates WP:SOCK. Good-faith IPs can use the talk page to make their case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Arizona3876 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page
Ed Manion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Arizona3876 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 05:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 05:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ""
  4. 05:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC) "changed redundant sessions band sentence and added his current work as saxophonist with Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band on the Wrecking Ball Tour. added member of Robert Cray Band and founding member of Bruce Springsteen with Seeger Sessions Band"


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ed Manion. (TW)"
  2. 05:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Ed Manion */ please stop removing the same references you are in breach of WP:3RR"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

attempted to help here, here, and here.

I think I exceeded 3RR myself and have therefore undone my latest edit. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Result: Both warned for 3RR violation. The reverts did not continue after the 3RR warning. Arizona3876, you can't use edit summaries as a substitute for discussion on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Salmanse reported by User:Ctg4Rahat (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page
Abdul Quader Molla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Salmanse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 14:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 14:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ""
  4. 14:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ""
  5. 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ""
  6. 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on Abdul Quader Molla. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Two weeks by User:IronGargoyle for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner reported by various IPs (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

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

Four reverts in a single day. Claims to "revert sock" however the issue is deeper rooted and more malicious or promoting some kind of stealth POV than anything constructive; the revision continuously being restored is so inferior to the unfavoured revision that its restoration would be deemed vandalism by any admin/recent change patroller had an identical edit been carried out by an IP or a new account, or even a different experienced editor. Quite simply, the version being restored contains grammatical flaws including verbiage, destroys the demographics layout, removes sourced information along with the source itself, and worst of all removes the article title and its Cyrillic spelling from the infobox. If reverting sockpuppet edits is such a requirement, I contend that it can be done manually and not so abruptly as to vandalise the page. To give some background information, Kosovo is a sensitive subject and often there is dispute as to whether the article title should represent the Albanian or Serbian name and spelling. However, what is not in dispute is that the main space will observe and report both spellings in naming sections including the infobox.

  • 1st [22] (compare left and right revisions, pay attention to first notable change which is removal of article title from infobox so as to display the Albanian name in stand-alone format, compare this to Peć, Pristina, Uroševac and the rest)
  • 2nd [23]
  • 3rd [24]
  • 4th [25]
  • Current [26]

Please note that (on the naming issue), genuine vandalism reverting took place here, here and here.

During the course of edit-warring, Bbrynr was warned here. His reply was this followed by the 4th revert. Please also note that just in case anybody argues that removal of those names forms part of a consensus, I draw your attention to the first removal and inform you that what we have today is a legacy of that precise contribution.

Prior to any admin decision, can I ask the person handling the matter to take this into consideration. Can I ask that the person dealing with this also inform the accused party of this discussion after deciding whether to take the case on, otherwise the accused party will without doubt skirt the issue by removing this entire block. I ask that admins remember that the purpose of this project is to write an encyclopaedia and this could mean questioning what is more important out of playing the bureaucrat for the sake of obiding by the book or applying common sense and casting out non-constructive edits on negligible grounds. 92.40.106.11 (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
I have notified Bobrayner of this. Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a frivolous/malicious/revenge report. The first four reverts Bobrayner made were reverts of User:The Next Timelord, a now indefinitely blocked confirmed sock of User:Evlekis (see SPI file), and thus don't count against 3RR, and the fifth revert is of the exact same edit, made by the IP who filed this report. An IP who has not only continued Evlekis' edit war on Đakovica but also on Jakova, making WP:DUCK come to mind. Thomas.W talk to me 11:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
In ordinary circumstances yes. This however is an instance of blatant vandalism. Don't believe me? Scroll down to the bottom of the accused party's reverts and see that he has introduced a false category (containing a red link). Experienced editors would be required to engage in fact-checking before insisting so tirelessly on one revision over another. Bobrayner is renowned for being an experienced editor and highly respected by the community, it must therefore be accepted that he endorses the revision he is given which removes the correct category and replaces it with a false (non-existent) title. 188.29.97.186 (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Utter BS (by another loudly quacking IP geolocating to the same place and writing in the same style as Evlekis). Edits made by socks of banned/blocked users can be reverted "free of charge" without fact-checking, because indefinitely banned/blocked users have forfeited all rights to edit Wikipedia. So any and all edits of yours can be reverted. Period. Thomas.W talk to me 11:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Evlekis is sock or whatever you call it, but I have to agree with him. He compromised himself, but some of his comments (like the one above) actually point to the persistent......do not know how to call it........."misinformation". You can block the sock, yes, but please check his claims anyways, not all is black and white. TaaTaa 212.178.225.61 (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thanks, also, (to Thomas W - no quacking, I cannot help if my number changes every 5 mins) here is an edit from an alleged "confirmed" sockpuppet. Yes you can revert it and yes 3RR does not apply whenever the so-called "confirmed sockpuppet" restores his revision, however, in doing so you take full responsibility of the version you are restoring. 188.29.97.186 (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry[edit]

  • Using socks to edit-war with an adversary, then going straight to this noticeboard, is standard procedure for Evlekis-socks. Revert, block, ignore. Reverting socks does not count towards 3RR, of course, and a good thing too; otherwise Evlekis' crap would have spread much wider.
  • It would also be a good idea to block 94.197.118.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Another sock whose only purpose is to follow me to other random articles and revert my edits, another Evlekis hallmark. I'd caution the blocking administrator that they may get the same treatment from the next batch of socks. bobrayner (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thomas.W and Roxy, thanks for your help :-) bobrayner (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
They haven't helped you, they have simply declared their support for you. Only you can help yourself. Naturally an admin may decide that the accuser's status may not be used in evidence, or he may decide to adjudicate on the issue at hand. If it is the latter, you will need to explain why the thirst for one poorly written revision with errors and instances of blanking over the other, and the excuse "rv sock" won't suffice there. 188.29.97.186 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Unclear on what happened here, but when none of the IPs who signed above (or left their comments unsigned) actually edited the article it's hard to take this seriously. Semiprotected the article two months. Use the talk page. Open a report at WP:SPI if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Red and black partisan reported by User:EllsworthSK (Result:Blocked )[edit]

Page: Gaddafi loyalism after the Libyan Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Post-civil war violence in Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Khamis Brigade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Brak, Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2013 Benghazi conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Red and black partisan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [32] (08:38, 5 December)
  2. [33] (09:13, 5 December)
  3. [34] (09:42, 5 December)
  4. [35] (11:08, 5 December)
  5. [36] (20:00, 6 December)
  6. [37] (21:14, 10 December)
  7. [38] (21:18, 10 December)


  1. [39] (19:48, 25 November)
  2. [40] (19:36, 4 December)
  3. [41] (21:52, 10 December)


  1. [42] (15:25, 10 December)
  2. [43] (00:31, 8 December)
  3. [44] (01:17, 7 December)
  4. [45] (10:10, 15 November)


  1. [46] (21:47, 10 December)
  2. [47] (21:43, 10 December)
  3. [48] (21:30, 10 December)
  4. [49] (19:39, 10 December)
  5. [50] (11:17, 5 December)
  6. [51] (14:23, 4 December)
  7. [52] (20:55, 2 December)
  8. [53] (23:45 26 November)
  9. [54] (21:45, 10 December)
  10. [55] (21:28, 10 December)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:
All that really need to be said was said here and on ANI. Constant edit warring, constant violation of rules such as WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR. Before someone jumps about lack of communication - this problem isn´t with particular article(s), but with user. Communication was tried and ignored on the main article talk page, on ANI and on recent edit war report made by user:Lothar_von_Richthofen by both me and him. He either cannot comprehend simple thing about what is reliable source and what is not or he simply chooses to ignore him. And after getting only wall of texts that only raises blood pressure or no response at all I am sorry, but communication is not an option anymore. Admin inaction in cases of ANI and recent report just strengthens such position. I admit that today I violated 3RR, although I simply did not notice it. I will gladly accept block, I broke the rules after all. I have no problem with taking responsibility. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm blocking indef until this user chooses to communicate and stop edit warring. John Reaves 22:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Cogsipeacre reported by OhNoitsJamie Talk (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Arab people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 16:36, 6 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 584864178 by Acroterion (talk)")
  2. 20:02, 7 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 584971363")
  3. 16:13, 8 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 585082307 by Abdelrahman93 (talk)")
  4. 21:04, 10 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 585157062 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)")
  5. 21:05, 10 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 585480755")
  6. 21:19, 10 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 585490069 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) se talk page")
  7. 21:38, 10 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 585492652 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) again se talk page")
  8. 21:57, 10 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 585495753 by Flyer22 (talk)again se talk page stop your Edit warring")
  • Diff of warning: here

OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 days by User:Acroterion. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Odioeternoalfutbolmoderno reported by User:Brayan Jaimes (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Categoría Primera A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Odioeternoalfutbolmoderno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [59]
  2. [60]
  3. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63] and [64]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. No breach of WP:3RR, but the edits themselves are disruptive on top of the warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:122.56.234.211 reported by User:Jack Greenmaven (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Pardus (operating system) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
122.56.234.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC) "Its either secular or non secular, and in this case its clearly non secular."
  2. 03:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC) "it *IS* non secular distro!"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Non secular? */ new section"
Comments:

Repeated attempts to add a phrase. More than 3 reverts. About three editors have agreed that this phrase is out of place. Greenmaven (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:93.32.174.228 reported by User:Enok (Result: )[edit]

Page: Italians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.32.174.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Francotti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the IP's reverts:

  1. [65]
  2. [66]
  3. [67]
  4. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

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

Comments:
Note that the IP-user uses the edit summary to write falsehoods ("Sourced material removed", "Disruptive edits", and similar things).--Enok (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. As far as I can tell, everyone is edit warring. You failed to notify the IP; I've done so. I'm also concerned about the relationship between Francotti and the IP, so I've added Francotti (who joined the fray) above and notified them as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User:B Lynn33 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Indus river dolphin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: B Lynn33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 7 December
  2. 7 December
  3. 9 December
  4. 12 December

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:
The page was protected after B Lynn33's third revert and Bgwhite (the user who reverted him/her) explained the removal of those unused sources on his/her talk, but soon after protection expired B Lynn33 again reverted. -- SMS Talk 23:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User:63.251.123.2 reported by User:14.198.220.253 (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Category:Peer review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 63.251.123.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [75]
  2. [76]
  3. [77] (now 63.* tried to compromise with "science", notice that "scientific method" is removed as 63.* compromises.)
  4. [78]
  5. [79]
  6. [80]
  7. [81]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned on edit summaries

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Science#Is_peer_review_defining_characteristics_of_science.3F Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F

Comments:
The war begins with the lack of talk on 63.*'s first revert, "Peer review is a reasonable subcategory of scientific method." as stated by 63.*, while the initial edit precisely bases on the idea "Peer review is not a reasonable subcategory of scientific method.", so he/she negates an argument, i.e. "I say yes" "you say no", and it does not make his/her explanation. 63.* carefully evades the essence of revert trolling by stating a POV which looks like an explanation.

Consequently, I tried to prove the obvious that 63.* apparently refuses to understand, Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F. 63.* then tried to compromise with "science" in-place of "scientific method", which I disagree and thus consider controversial. On top of that, there is still no counterargument from 63.* against "scientific method" so far, without which he/she has yet to justify his/her revert trolling. Anyway, the consequence discussion over Talk:Science#Is_peer_review_defining_characteristics_of_science.3F is ongoing, that's why his/her proposed change has yet to pass. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


I'm glad to have additional users review the history of the interaction between 14.198.* and I. A few weeks ago, after 14.198.* accused me of "wikihounding", I wrote up an explanation of why I have been monitoring their edits here. 14.198.* appears to have a history of attempting to water down statements about the connection between science and peer review (and scientific consensus), presumably in relation to their views on Serge Lang's activity as an AIDS denialist, as that was where it started. They also consistently misunderstand WP:STATUSQUO. Nevertheless, if other folks here feel that my actions have been problematic, I'm happy to change them. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that you are willing to link my talk page, as I explained to you that your POV "14.198.* appears to have a history of attempting to water down statements about the connection between science and peer review (and scientific consensus)"
is just a matter of fact that peer review doesn't have to do with science, science doesn't have to do with peer review. If you disagree, then this is just opinion and you said right out that my edit is disrupt, did I say "you appear to have a history of attempting to obfuscate statements about the connection between science and peer review (and scientific consensus)" on you?
It is just your imagination and your loaded tone "water down" "eliminate" that makes me your enemy, WP:AGF applies to you. If you disagree, then you just challenge my argument, so, you still insist that peer review is defining characteristics of scientific method? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, I have to clarify what you said is also largely inaccurate.
My edit on Serge Lang only changes the word from "scientific consensus" to "argument", which I can understand and if you later find his book Challenges, I doubt he actually uses or even agrees with the word "scientific consensus" and "AIDS". The editor there basically puts up the arguments which he refuses to use or even interpret, thus this just makes the arguments in that article untrue and rude. Anyway, that is for Serg Lang's page, this should explain your trouble. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've semi-protected the category for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
So, my edit ends up being locked. Bbb23 I guess (with your lack of explanation) your reasoning is that while 63.* reverted my edit for 7 times I reverted his/her reverts for 6 times, and it cant be immaterialized.
I understand but as you can see on Talk:Science#Is_peer_review_defining_characteristics_of_science.3F and Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F, not only I have done my part and 63.* has yet to explain his reasoning on his vandalism, that is, how does "peer_review" supposes to be the defining characteristics of scientific method, if he/she refuses to discuss or self-revert his/her edit disrupt, then what do you think a regular editor should do? After 2 weeks I end up see you on DRN. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Vikram kumar84 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Baashha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Vikram kumar84 (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


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Kailash29792, next time please file the report correctly. Also, although the user's edits were so promotional as to be vandalistic, it would probably be better for you to report the problem earlier before edit warring yourself in the article. I've taken the unusual step of removing the material from the article in addition to blocking Vikram.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Fromthestretch (Result: Fromthestretch warned)[edit]

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


[82]

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

[83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=next&oldid=585876136
  2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585825670
  3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585741102
  4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585739422
  5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585508821
  6. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=582663346


[84]

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


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

[85]

[86]

[87]

Comments:

Fromthestretch (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you start by reading WP:YOUTUBE. Regardless of any other issues, we never link to YouTube and similar websites unless it is entirely clear that the video has been uploaded by the copyright holder - which is clearly not the case here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I have warned the filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Vanthorn reported by User:Frietjes (Result: )[edit]

Page: Template:Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Musical or Comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vanthorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [89]
  2. [90]
  3. [91]
  4. [92]
  5. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:
This user just want to change the template layout without providing any plausible reason for that and with any kind of discussion on the talk page. He just started to discuss it now after beeing alerted by me. Vanthorn msg ← 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not correct. Another editor removed the decade split, and you restored it. There has then been a tug-of-war between you and that other editor + Frietjes--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sasata reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [97]
  2. [98]
  3. [99]
  4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

This user has been persistently, blindly reverting all my edits to this article for the past two days. As you can see he has already broken the 3RR for previous reversions, which I did not report. At this stage he is refusing to discuss anything on the talk page. This persistent and automatic reversion of every single edit I make, forcing me to spend days to add a simple tag to the article has made if effectively impossible to edit.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The tag appears to be incorrect Mark. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I've protected for three days to allow discussion in talk. Hopefully that is all that is needed here. --John (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Artpop - volume 2 reported by User:IndianBio (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Beyoncé (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Artpop - volume 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC) to 17:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    1. 17:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
    2. 17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
    3. 17:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
    4. 17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album)*/"
    5. 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album)*/"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Result: Warned. It's almost 24 hours since their last revert. If they continue to revert about hidden tracks, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Aerecinski reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Warning, Semiprotection)[edit]

Page
Philippe II, Duke of Orléans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aerecinski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586128460 by FactStraight (talk) - Plse respect other editor's work and stop agression"
  2. 22:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586097683 by Kansas Bear (talk) STOP contemptuous and antagonist reverting"
  3. 10:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 585966731 by FactStraight (talk) -plse stop harassing revert"
  4. 20:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 585820644 by FactStraight (talk) - stop harassing and senseless reverting - respect work of others"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[102]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User is not stopping despite 3RR warning. Edit-warring against two editors. Possible use of IP socks as well: [103] Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I just gave them a 3RR warning (not relying on the one from more than a month ago). If anyone (Aerecinski or an IP) reverts the content back in I'd be willing to block for edit warring. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding here to the allegations that have just been brought to your attention about my violating the WP.3RRN. The problem revolves around the systematic deletion of a paragraph I wrote over a year ago as part of Philippe II duke of Orleans' article. FactStraight and his wiki friend Kansas Bear seem bent on entirely deleting my edit although this paragraph is well referenced and relies on serious historical sources.

There has been no attempt of any kind of dialogue by FactStraight who merely keep deleting the paragraph every other month or so as the editing history clearly shows. Over the past days the party seem decided to upscale the problem into a full scale editing war but again without any dialogue. Kansas Bear merely left an agressive warning on my talk page, while deleting an edit I left on his page last night through the agency of a sock puppet (editWarrior) who merely justified his deletion with insulting comments.

A "new" editor has just surfaced: Dr.K again deleting my contribution to Philippe's biography and leaving an agressive title to his editing which I ask you to consider removing. Actually I start to wonder if Kansas Bear and FactStraight are not the same person... I do not understand the rites of agression that seem to characterize this editor's attitude in this after all very minor matter : we are talking about a long dead figure of French history (17th-18th centuries). And the party doing the reporting is the one actually eager to escalate a minor difference of opinion concerning what should or should not be included in a dead person's biography into a full scale editing war. Aerecinski (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Aerecinski, you do realize that according to WP:BRD, if you add a paragraph and it gets removed, you may never re-add it until you have discussed and obtain new WP:CONSENSUS for it ... no matter how wonderful and sourced it might be? YOu have to discuss your reasons for adding it ... not the other way around ES&L 11:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Aerecinski is warned. If he reverts the article again to restore his material (before getting consensus) he may be blocked. It does appear that he is using the article on Philippe II as a WP:COATRACK to insert negative material about his daughter Marie Louise. The scandals about his daughter are already well-covered in our article on Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans. Aerecinski has also been coatracking at Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine, our article on the grandmother of the unfortunate Marie Louise. To forestall more IP edits to insert Aerecinski's material I've semiprotected Philippe's article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Katcheic reported by User:Tco03displays (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Katcheic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Edit Differences

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: His whole talkwage is filled with warnings of various degrees and 2 bans.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office

Comments:

Please refer to the whole Talk:Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office to see warnings and attempts at discussion with user.

I can no longer deal with this user. For almost 2 weeks he constantly deletes my edits, and reverts my work. He does not engage in discussion. It has been stated by User:Callanecc that all changes in the article must be previously discussed due to edit wars. The user has received handful of warnings and 2 bans so far. After being unbanned he came right back to the page and removed material that stated opinions of known journalists, (well-referenced and used to achieve a NPOV, it had been discussed in the talkpage) and added new material with no discussion. This user ha been warned for weeks, he is the only editor causing trouble in the page, he clearly tries to promote a specific point of view (look at the discussion in the article talkpage as well as the warnings on his talkpage) and has also vandalized the page Murder of Pavlos Fyssas in the past to reduce the information in regards to the anti-Golden Dawn protests that took place after the murder, while he added biased and misrepresenting information based on unreliable sources on the reactions to the murders of the 2 Golden Dawn members; exaggerating the public response. The two events are interlinked in Greek politics. At the moment Golden Dawn is being prosecuted as a criminal organization in Greece, and what the user is doing is to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool to affect the views of non-Greek speaking readers on Golden Dawn. It is also interesting to note that we had agreed that the murders cannot be considered a terrorist attack, that the information on the executioners is disputed and controversial; and thus the article should not be merged with Terrorism in Greece, but the moment I added skeptical statements by known journalists in Greece in regards to the organization that claimed the attack, to balance the scale with the opinions of Golden Dawn (that the murderers were leftists) the user decided that it should be deleted without notice. I've been trying hard to reach a neutral point of view on this article and it is not difficult, if I did not have this editor constantly trying to propagate.

All of the editors and the admins have been very tolerant with this user and tried to find common ground. But there is no ground left. I follow Greek politics closely and I was very suspect of this article popping up because I was afraid pro-Golden Dawn people would pop up to attack Pavlos Fyssas' article, turn Wikipedia onto a political boxing arena and propagate against the Greek left and in favor of the far right. In my opinion there was enough toleration, too much to be honest. Wikipedia has no space for the slightest propaganda and intended misinformation,

Its not up to me to deal with this from now on, but I will suggest an indefinite ban on the user and semi-protection on the article from IPs and very new users. Do as you see fit.--Tco03displays (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Extra note: I follow politics in Greece, and I write and checkout mostly political articles on Cyprus and Greece. This is beyond a simple difference in opinion or perspective of editors (as it happens in Turkish vs. Greece articles like the