Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive232

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:JHunterJ (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Great Jones Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6], among others

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments: Beyond My Ken will not permit maintenance tags to be placed on the article so that other editors might address the problems.

Response by Beyond M Ken: The placement of a maintenance tag shows that a single editor believes there is a problem with the article. When another editor disagrees, the tag should be discussed on the article talk page, and should not be restored until there is a consensus to do so. Examination of the histories of the article and the article's talk page will indicate that it took several times of my requesting discussion from JHunterH before he went to the talk page:

  • [8] JHunterJ places an "In popular culture" tag on the article
  • [9] Because I disagree that any of the four items in the "In popular culture section" are "trvial", I removed the tag
  • [10] JHunterJ restores the tag, thus violating the third part of WP:BRD, which applies as much to the placement of tags as to anything else.
  • [11] I revert, with a specific request for JHunterJ to follow WP:BRD
  • [12] JHunterJ restores the tag, without starting a discussion on the talk page outlining his concerns
  • [13] I revert, with another even more specific request for discussion.

Finally, after two requests from me, JHunterJ starts a discussion on the talk page -- however, he rather snidely digs at me, saying that I "implied that he asked for discussion when he hadn't", which, of course, isn't accurate, since the reference to WP:BRD had preceded the more specific request for discussion.

There's some discussion between the two of us, but nothing is decided. No other editors contribute, and JHunterJ does not ask for a third opinion, no no consensus is established concerning the use of the tag. Despite this he again restores the tag (for the third time) with the edit summary "See Talk page". This, of course, is disingenuous, since there is no consensus on the talk page to "see", only a non-conclusive discussion between two editors of different views. Because there is no consensus, I restore the status quo ante, as specifically called for by WP:BRD:

Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion.

JHunterJ then reverts me, I restore the status quo ante and we're off to the races.

It appears to me that JHunterJ believes that behavior required of other editors is not required of him because he is an admin. He appears to think that as an admin he is a "supereditor" who does not have to discuss edits when asked to discuss them, who can ignore one of the most-followed behavioral precepts around this place, BRD, and who can do what he wants to, when he wants to. For my part, should other editors arrive and make arguments in favor of JHunterJ's position, I would obviously respond, but if the consensus went against me, I would never think of restoring an edit -- any edit, whether the addition of a fact or the placement of a maintenance tag -- against consensus, nor would I continue to insist on my own way while the determination of consensus is underway.

I do not ask that any sanction of any sort be placed against JHunterJ for his uncollegial and un-admin-like behavior, only that he be told not to restore the tag to the article until there is a talk page consensus to do so, and that he not do this kind of thing again in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your beliefs about my beliefs notwithstanding, I have made no claims about my adminship, nor used the admin bit in this discussion, but it is typical for editors to pretend that admins they disagree with are simply unworthy of being admins. The reference to WP:BRD[14] is indeed where you implied that you asked for discussion when you hadn't. Epicgenius (talk · contribs) and I are in agreement about the tag for questionable citation (from Urban Dictionary), and at least tacitly about the in popular culture tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
It may be "typical" of other users, but it is not typical of me, and I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between an incident of improper behavior and general unworthiness to be an admin. I would never call for an admin's head over one edit-warring incident, and I have not done so here. It is true that your behavior in this instance has been unworthy of an editor who is an admin, not only because we expect better behavior from our sysops, and it would be totally unwarranted for me to make broad generalizations about your editing history based on a single incident. I have simply characterized your high-handed behavior in this instance as it appears to me as being that of an editor who believes that being an admin gives you leeway not provided to other editors.

As for your other claims - as is explicitly clear in the diffs I presented, my second restoration was accompanied by a request to follow WP:BRD. Surely you must be awate that the "D" in "BRD" stands for "Discussion". So when you started a discussion after my next very specific request for discussion, you had no reason to say then (or now) that I had not previously asked for you to discuss your edits.

Finally, there is no way to know what Epicgenius thought or whether he agreed with you, because he did not participate in the talk page discussion, and simply slapped a "sources" tag on the entire article, which I removed. A near-stub article with 5 references - the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, Moscow's Street Book, two NY Times articles and the Urban Dictionary is not a candidate for a "sources" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You said I didn't ask for a third opinion when I explained that tagging the article with {{in popular culture}} serves that purpose. You claimed that I believe that behavior required of other editors is not required of me because I am an admin. Please provide a diff for this claim. Or don't. The point here is that you violated 3RR, and none of your hand-waving here addresses that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you made a request for 3O and I missed it, then I'm wrong about that - please provide the diff where you posted at WP:3O and I'll certainly apologize for that. As for the other, I made it explicitly clear (you are reading what I wrote, yes?) that the characterization of your behavior was just that, my opinion of what your actions look like to me. I am a sentient, perceptive human entirely capable of summarizing the behavior of another human based on what I see. If you're asking me to provide a diff where you said to me "I don't have to do that, I'm an admin", then, no, I won't be able to comply with that request. But I can say how the things you did appear to me based on my 8 1/2 years of editing here, and my innumerable interactions with other editors. Just like when I asked you on your talk page to do the right thing, and act in a manner befitting an admin, and wait for a consensus before restoring the tag, and instead you filed this 3RR report, when you were the other participant (!!) and the party violating WP:BRD by their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I realize you're only feigning ignorance for rhetorical purposes, but here's the diff where I explained that tagging the article with {{in popular culture}} serves that purpose (you are reading what I wrote, yes?):[15] Since you can't comply with the request, please stop assuming bad faith. And stop violating 3RR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am "feigning" nothing, so your "realization" is in error.

The dispute between myself and JHunterJ was over whether the tag should be in the article. A third opinion would have settled whether or not there was a consensus to use the tag. Unilaterally putting the tag back on the article didn't fulfill that need - since editors rarely see a maintenance tag and then go to the talk page and say "Gee, that tag is a good idea!". Re-tagging the article merely marked the "In popular culture" section as having trivial contents - which is JHunterJ's opinion in the first place, so how he can see that as asking for a third opinion is beyond me. So, restoring the tag was not the equivalent of asking for a third opinion to settle the dispute, which was about whether the tag should be used in the first place.

JHunterJ, please tell me that you do see the difference, yes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, JHunterJ was right in putting the {{popular culture}} tag in the article.
Additionally, Urban Dictionary is not a dependable source, as most of UD's entries are written by readers, and anyone can just put an entry on the site whenever and wherever they want. Regardless of whether the entry is true or not, it gets accepted most of the time. I don't doubt the reliability of the other sources on the page, however.
Finally, JHunterJ did not use his admin tools in this argument, so I don't know why this is being brought up here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I never claimed he used his tools, please be more careful in your reading. The remainder of your comment should have gone to Talk:Great Jones Street - but since you posted it here, has there been a determination at WP:RSN that Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source? If so, a diff would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── In an attempt to cut the Gordian knot, despite my belief that nothing additional was required (see my comments on Talk:Great Jones Street), I have now extensively referenced the "In popular culture" section of the article in question with sources such as the NY Times, Salon, the Hartford Courant, the New York Daily News, and so on. Perhaps this will appease JHunterJ, and he will move on to more productive pursuits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Article protected one week. It is hard to see optimal behavior on either side. Consider WP:DR. Both BMK and JHunterJ surely know how to open an WP:RFC. If this is part of a long-running dispute about popular culture sections, find an appropriate venue. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Msloewengart reported by User:Vegaswikian (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Msloewengart (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. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Las Vegas#Airport (link to discussion)

Comments:
Suggestions to move the discussion to the talk page were made in edit comments which by the nature of later ones were read. Also false edit comments were used to add the same content. Reverts of the content were done by 3 different editors including one by a support of the content for the false edit comment.

Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. User:Msloewengart has been mass-adding airports to infoboxes, and has violated 3RR here at Las Vegas. A general discussion about airports in infoboxes has been opened and I recommend that all parties wait for its outcome before reverting the airport entries in any other infoboxes. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Liberalufp (Result: Malformed report )[edit]

Page
 Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported
TheRedPenOfDoom (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:

this guy has engaged in at least 4 edit wars and is current engaging with me on an edit war he is distruptive and wreckless. i suggest u block him for 2 or 3 days to teach him a lesson Liberalufp (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean this fine piece of work that you have for some reason been edit-warring, even though the article should not likely have ever been created in the first place? ES&L 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
i dont like your rudeness he is been conducting edit wars on multiple occations and he is marking it unotable when it clearly is and has been deleting text in the article that says why it is. i am trying to make it better but he is obstructing my efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalufp (talkcontribs) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. only (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:StringBandDivisionThesis reported by User:Leaky caldron (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Aqua String Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
StringBandDivisionThesis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. 22:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "a consensus within the Wiki community in regards to my reliable source article still was not presented to this author. Therefore, I will need to revert the page."
  3. 19:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverting because it is a reliably published source."
  4. 19:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  5. 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  6. 15:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  7. 13:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  8. 04:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  9. Consecutive edits made from 03:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) to 03:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. 03:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 03:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 03:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Aqua_String_Band

Comments:

despite discussions on talk page and WP:RS/N Wikipedia:RS/N#www.stringbandrecord.com the editor is insisting on adding a self-published source Leaky Caldron 22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not the editor of the website, so this should make the discussion moot. I am merely publishing a reliable source, which itself, is based on over 110 years of Philadelphia Newspapers. I have been told that newspapers are an allowed resource to verify authenticity. The reliable source at hand, "The Philadelphia Mummers' String Band Record", which is assessed at http://www.StringBandRecord.com is based on these newspapers. Not hearsay, not opinion (and again, I am not the author of the work in question). The original Wiki "poster" stated that historical newspapers ARE INDEED allowable under Wiki rules. The source I am quoting from does NOT list the Aqua String Band (a Philadelphia Mummers' String Band) s having performed in the Philadelphia Mummers' Parade during 1927, 1928 and 1929. This information came from up to seventeen different Philadelphia newspapers. If Wikipedia DOES NOT allow historical newspapers as published sources, I (and the rest of the ENTIRE Wiki community) will need to know this.StringBandDivisionThesis (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours only (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Gulmammad reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [21] is the first edit of this series of edits

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]
  3. [24]
  4. [25]
  5. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
Gulmammad has for months come on to the article occasionally in order to push their preferred version of the lead in, despite the objections of every one else in the talk page discussion. They refused to list their issues with the former lead, and instead asked others to list their issues with their lead. My pointing out of the puffery elements of the lead eventually led to the conclusion that I "have nothing but hate towards the subject of this article", and the implication that I'm an Armenian (not that I'm offended by this, but it wasn't intended as a compliment). I didn't give them a talkpage warning as they're not a new user (DTTR), but I added one today due to the request for such in the instructions for filing this report. CMD (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Gulmammad is warned that if he reverts the article to his own preference again, without getting consensus on talk, he may be blocked without further discussion. This appears to be a slow edit war in which he returns to the article at wide intervals to change it to his version. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Mr. EdJohnston, I must confess that I am surprised to see you still active on here after so many years. I got bored very early and have been semi-retired since 2009. But once in a while I contribute an edit or two at my leisure. This time an e-mail notification dragged me here and let be known to anyone that I have no time or desire for fruitless tit for tat discussions with users like CDM. Some months ago when I read the lead of the subject article, I realized it was outdate and rewrote it. Furthermore, to eliminate any bias I even had several other professionals critique it. Then I proposed the final version in the talk page and asked for changes if anyone wished to make. On an article watched by over 300 users, only CMD and two other editors proposed changes and I immediately incorporated them into the lead and waited for a month. Only then I moved my version to the main article assuming they agreed by remaining silent. But mysteriously, CMD immediately appeared and reverted my edit and left yet another vague argument on the talk page. Perhaps this is what you call a slow edit war by me. The question is, Mr. EdJohnston, why you haven't treated this case impartially? Gulmammad | talk 05:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you and User:Chipmunkdavis can't agree on the article you can follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. One option is a WP:Request for comment. Since Azerbaijan is an important article, a listing of the article at RfC should be noticed and will bring in a variety of opinions. If instead of waiting for consensus on the talk page you just continue to revert, blocks of at least one party are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd say there's consensus on the talkpage against the new lead, and it's disingenuous to portray this as Gulmammad vs Chipmunkdavis. Two other users have commented on the revised version on the talkpage (others commented on the similar previous one), and I quote from each, "the proposed lead is not only less concise...but has an unfortunate "advertising tone" that is not a good WP fit...Too much hyperbole", and "The current version still has some problems...I think we can resolve the issue by considering what should be added to the previous version, not by completely rewriting it." CMD (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Lufsig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589079632 by ViperSnake151 you want profanity? well, Fuck You!"
  2. 03:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589078032 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
  3. 2:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Symbolism */ per source"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Censorship of material. (TW)"
  2. 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* January 2014 */"
Comments:

Reverts the inclusion of uncensored translations in Lufsig, asserting that it is "per sources", uses an inappropriate edit summary on the third revert. Has a history of similar edits on this article. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Why is there an obsession to include profanity when it's dealt with [not totally] circumspectly by the sources? Just how's this censorship? -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we present facts, as attributed to reliable sources. Different sources have their own editorial policies on the use of profanities in the context of news; but our policy is that we do not generally remove or censor offensive materials when they are "relevant to the content" and legal under relevant laws. In fact, we have an entire article on Chinese profanities. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment-when the source uses "mom's c***," how does WP:NOTCENSOR apply when it's a direct quote?
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. only (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Zmflavius reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: No action )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]
  5. [34]
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale No action taken. only (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:ViperSnake151 reported by User:Ohconfucius (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Lufsig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. "rewrite"
  2. "WP:NOTCENSORED"
  3. "WP:NOTCENSORED"
  4. "rv; sources of questionable reliability, removal of pertinent content"
  5. "Okay; I actually missed that the first time I looked at the Time source, but yeah."


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Comments:
  • It's clear from the last two reverts cited above that some knee jerk or blind reverting is taking place, and legitimate or otherwise good content has been summarily erased to the detriment of article building and the reader. I'm not going to edit the article for a while or until it cools off, whichever is the sooner. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Zanzibar606 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Urantia Book (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zanzibar606 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC) "I undid revision, I don't understand your statement dougweller. If you look up dark islands, it is obvious they are talking about black holes when you read 15:6.6, It was not known the black holes are commonplace, and now it well known, very significant."
  2. 17:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) "Under the "original research" guideline... it says no such thing about the necessity of citing a peer-reviewed science paper. Anybody can clearly see the "dark islands" are black holes. The criticism of science section is cited to Gardner, a nonscientist."
  3. 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC) "Warn me? Show me where in the O.R. guideline it states that I have to cite a scientific paper? This is a very benign entry, anyone who has read the UB knows that dark islands clearly describe black holes. It is UNREASONABLE to have to cite a sci. paper."
  4. 21:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC) "This makes no sense. Are you guys telling me that just because something has a different name but describes the same phenomenon, I have to find a sci. paper to affirm it?"
  5. 22:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "I removed all sci. criticisms citing Gardner & Sprunger...both were not scientists and they do not cite any scientific papers in their criticism. How does Gardner know the UB is consistent with the planetesimal theory? There is no sci. paper citation."
  6. 22:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "If you allow Gardner criticisms which are not from scientific papers... then you must allow some of the numerous non-scientific paper sources that confirm science in the UB. To do otherwise would be disingenuous."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Urantia Book. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Although slightly outside the 24 hours, editor is clearly edit-warring - reverted by 3 other editors, and not using the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

24 hour block. No other choice, really. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Modernist (Result: )[edit]

Page: History of painting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Werieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [36] - removed image of - Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dalí, 1931
  2. [37] - reverted Freshacconci (talk · contribs)
  3. [38] - reverted Freshacconci (talk · contribs) - who commented You were restricted to one such edit, no more.
  4. [39] - reverted Modernist (talk · contribs)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] and here [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - There are many discussions concerning this editor deleting images from visual art pages. He was asked by his colleagues to only revert once...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
There are many discussions concerning this editor deleting images from visual art pages. He was asked by his colleagues to only revert once...Modernist (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Werieth closed the discussion at WP:NFCR here [42] as an "uninvolved editor" and since that discussion has weight of consensus, that decision should hold. If any other editor (well, besides those clearly involved) made the same closure, I would expect there wouldn't be any question about removal per the discussion consensus. But even though Werieth did not directly interact in that discussion, his past behavior brings into question whether he is "uninvolved". If it is considered that this was uninvolved, then Werieth has done nothing wrong. But I believe that it's hard to categorize this as such, Werieth having clear intent (even if it is intent I agree with). --MASEM (t) 23:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem here - if anyone else but Werieth - given his recent block and warning; I would not have made this report...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • So, Werieth closed the discussion (in favour of his preferred outcome), and rather early I might add, and then proceeded to remove the images himself. When an editor such as myself, that was not aware of that "decision", such as it is, reverted that edit, he then edit warred, despite being on a 1RR restriction on image-related edits. I find his "carrying out NFCR action" excuse to be somewhat laughable, given his hasty close and enforcement. This is an editor that contributes nothing other than removing images. I have no opinion on his removals of non-visual art images at this time, but I would like to see a topic ban on visual art topics, as he has no knowledge of the field and has no capacity to work with other editors or follow a 1RR decision. freshacconci talk to me 23:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll just note that when Weieth closed the discussion, there had been no new comments for over two weeks. I'm not sure how to judge "uninvolved editor" here, but surely, having a lot of experience in image deletion discussions should not disqualify one from closing a discussion on NFCR. How should we judge "uninvolved" here? Quadell (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    Addendum: I just saw that NFCR recommends 4 weeks or clear consensus. It appears to have been closed a bit early, despite not getting any comments in a long time. Quadell (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    There is probably some history that anyone involved in recent discussions between AFD and visual arts can assert that Werieth has clearly been shown to be strong enforcement of NFC there, but I can't just point you to any specific page, but even as one that agrees with Werieth's point about NFC issues, I have to side on those saying this was a involved closure and should not have been closed by Werieth and acted on by him as well. If it was an uninvolved admin that did the closer and Werieth simply reverting it to enforce it, that's one thing, but this is judge, jury, and executioner behavior here, which is improper. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    Actually NFCR is 7 days, given that there was only 1 user claiming that the file is acceptable and several others giving sound policy based arguments against the files (where Modernist is the only one making an argument for the file which amounted to ILIKEIT). Given that it was a fairly clear consensus that the files where unacceptable the close was correct, I did not take any personal postion in that discussion. It was a fairly clear case of minimal usage and UUI 6 Werieth (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    "Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days." So, no not "7 days", that would be 7 days minimum. And as it is clearly being established here, you do not have the ability to close properly, you do not work well with others, and you are involved because this is all you do, you delete images and talk about deleting images. Therefore, closing a discussion and then implementing that dubious decision is wholly inappropriate as you are intimately involved. freshacconci talk to me 01:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If Modernist wants to have the NFCR close reviewed that is a different matter, revert warring, leaving no valid arguments for the reverts and ignoring process is not the way to do it. Werieth (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The only edit summary that provides any kind of rationale for reverting is Key painting in 20th century; discussed in article; has own article which has nothing to do with the outcome of a NFCR. Werieth (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record - I said One of the most important Surrealist works of the 20th century - needed to be included... certainly not just ILIKEIT [43]. As to this scenario - Werieth reverted the image - and ignored Freshacconcci's clear admonition; and acted outrageously as in Masem's words - judge, jury, and executioner; - deleting one of the most important Surrealist works in the history of painting...Modernist (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That would make an argument for Surrealism not History of painting, which is what this report is about. The jury is the users who participated in the discussion, not me. If you want to dispute the NFCR blindly re-adding the file is not the way to do that. Given that per the NFCR closure the usage is a violation of NFCC, WP:3RRNO §5 would apply in this case. Werieth (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmmm - are you suggesting that we add the Dali to the Surrealism article?, good suggestion...Modernist (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I said that would be an argument for it, not that the argument is strong enough to do so. Werieth (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You were equally guilty of edit warring there - making 4 reverts at that article as well - perhaps we should lodge a second complaint about you. Considering the Dali painting was discussed and referenced in both articles including 20th-century Western painting and History of painting and frankly belongs in both articles your objection amounts to IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You have shown a complete failure to understand WP:NFCC policy, just because a work is discussed doesnt mean that we need to display it, often works are referenced and discussed across many many articles, and normally a link to the article on the work is sufficient. See WP:NFC#UUI §6 Werieth (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No justification for your 4 reverts in both articles. Read this The three-revert rule...Modernist (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    Actually after closing the NFCR and establishing that it is a NFCC violation WP:3RRNO §5 applies which means that this isnt a violation of 3RR rule. Werieth (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Werieth, the point is, given your current stance on NFC and past issues of enforcing NFC, you are technically uninvolved by realistically involved deeply that you shouldn't have closed the discussion and edit warred the removal. Even if I were uninvolved in that discussion (I was, but lets assume hypothetical), I would avoid closure of that with a ten-foot pole because of my own current rhetoric on NFC and visual arts, much less maintaining the removal via edit warring. There was no rush to close it early, and then when an uninvolved admin closed it as remove, you'd be perfectly free to revert removal justified by a third-party's decision. I'm totally on your side about the NFC issues with the image, but there's no way I can justify your behavior to get that. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If the NFCR close had been challenged it would be a different story, that has yet to happen, So far it has been Modernist screaming about how unfair and how we must have the file plastered everywhere, without basing it on any policy based arguments. If Modernist wants to request a review of the closure they are free to do so. That has yet to happen. Modernist however cannot bypass NFCR and just edit war the file back into articles. Werieth (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I see 8 reverts from Werieth in 2 articles in a short period of time with no discussion. Looks like edit warring violations of WP:3RR to me and a lot of other editors...Modernist (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:NFCR established that the files were in violation of WP:NFCC. Thus the removals are exempt from 3RR, please stop trying to cherry pick policies to get the files re-added to articles. Werieth (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • PS I did cite the WP:NFCR multiple times as rationale for removal. Not sure how much more discussion you want. Werieth (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? I didn't scream - I initially added one comment; and made one edit per article regarding your edit warring. As to your interpretation of WP:NFCR policy - note - I've been discussing these matters for 7 years; understand the policy and guidelines quite well and I do not agree with your and some of your colleagues misinterpretation of the foundations intentions regarding contemporary and modern art imagery...Modernist (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Werieth, will you agree not to revert to re-remove images from articles if you were the one to close the discussion? To simply bring it up to another admin, preferably an uninvolved one, and let him/her decide what is the best course of action to take? Quadell (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Modernist, will you agree not to revert to re-include images in article that have been closed at NFCR, even if you disagree with the ruling? (And if you think the ruling invalid, do you agree to instead have the NFCR close reviewed, rather than reverting against the decision of the closed discussion?) Quadell (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I will agree provided the Dali images are returned to the articles and the discussion is re-opened...Modernist (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
      • It doesn't make sense to say "I agree not to revert to reinstate the image, provided the image is reinstated." If you reopen the discussion, then consensus will determine whether it should be reinstated or not. We all have to abide by policy and consensus. If policy was not followed, if consensus was misinterpreted, if the discussion close was out of line, then we can reopen it and determine collaboratively how to apply policy here. But what you can't do is continue to re-add images into articles in contravention of the results at NFCR, FFD, etc. So I'll ask again: do you agree to abide by the results of NFCR and FFD discussions, even if you disagree with them, and appeal the results through appropriate channels (instead of edit warring) if you think the close was inappropriate? Quadell (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Quadell I generally always abide by those rulings - in this case - after Werieth's edit warring via somewhat outrageous judge, jury, executioner actions; and after Werieth had made 3 reverts to each article I defended the image with one revert to each article - then Werieth proceeded to four reverts to each article - doesn't the rules apply to him? Seemed like a blatant violation of WP:3RR to me...Modernist (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Actually that is calling anyone who closed an NFCR, FfD, or AfD a judge, jury, executioner. However the case is I just closed the review per the consensus that was already there. Werieth (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Thank you for your response, Modernist. Quadell (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Werieth ought to refrain from closing any of these discussions. He is involved whether he comments on a particular discussion or not, given his strong views. Someone closing a discussion has to be able to judge all positions, and policy, fairly. There is always going to be a perception that Werieth won't do that (whether it's an accurate perception or not). Also, Werieth did agree last month not to remove an image from an article more than once, where (in his words) "the removal is questionable or subjective." See my discussion with him here, for example. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • My views are fairly balanced, given the discussion the consensus was that these uses where inappropriate, according to that the removals where neither subjective nor questionable. Regardless of how a discussion is closed you will rarely have 100% agreement, someone is almost always on the other side of how a discussion is closed. If you want to discuss my position (which did not come into play here, I was just running through and closing those discussions that where fairly clear to help with the backlog) with regards to non-free media I will gladly discuss them. Ill also note that I do remove files, but I have also uploaded ~250 myself. Werieth (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I consider myself much more reasonable on these discussions, but I dare not close any (save those that are clearly obvious or simple bookkeeping) given that most know my stance on NFC, as to simply avoid the controversy of the decision; I would reasonably expect the same of anyone else on that page, particularly when the consensus wasn't straight forward. I know that as written our policies allow for me to close such discussions if I didn't make a mention, but because of how some feel there's an NFC cabel going on with just a few editors, I avoid doing anything that upsets that, and I'd recommend the same rationale here. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Werieth, the thing is that perception matters as much as reality when it comes to being uninvolved enough to close contentious discussions (and it seems that these image closures are always contentious when it comes to art). Also, you had been involved in disputes over art images, disputes with Modernist in particular, and over History of painting specifically, so those factors alone made you too involved to close this one. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
What's the difference? Oh yes, Werieth uploaded this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Admin comment: This is a particularly tricky 3RR case. It's clear that Werieth reverted more than normally warranted. On the other hand, he was enforcing a NFCR ruling, which is usually immune to 3RR. (He certainly believed it was.) But on the first hand again, he made that close himself in a manner that just about every uninvolved commenter has deemed suspect or at least unwise. I would normally give this a pass, but he has failed to acknowledge that there was anything at all wrong with his behavior, and has completely ignored constructive suggestions on how to resolve the conflict. I'm not at all sure the best way to handle this, so I'm not closing it myself. We don't want people in general to refrain from enforcing NFCR decisions, even if they themselves made those rulings, so I don't want to create a chilling effect... but I'm also aware that giving sanction to Werieth's actions would be bad for Wikipedia. (If nothing else, it would cause a lot of editors to lose faith in the fairness of the NFCR process.) Hopefully an admin with more 3RR experience than myself will be willing to make the call. Quadell (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Non-admin comment. The fact is, that it's not been established that Werieth has done anything wrong. Some have suggested, after the event, that Werieth was too involved to have closed this particular NFCR; the correctness of this suggestion can only be determined, by having the NFCR reopened, then reclosed by a different editor and yeilding a different result. Whilst Werieth has not commented on Quadell's suggestion, I personally don't think it desirable to impose bespoke behavioural rules; much better to improve/clarify the general rules. One possible change to the process is to impose a cooling period (of say seven days) after NFCR closures before acting on them. Aquegg (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AngieWattsFan reported by User:Josh3580 (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page
List of soap opera villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AngieWattsFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589083560 by Josh3580 (talk)"
  2. 03:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "There is a very good reason, please read the Talk page before reverting what I have written. I cannot entertain this because these are untruths written on Wikipedia."
  3. 03:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "I did when I realised the nonsense on the article. Utter nonsense and I won't entertain it a second longer. Have you watched the show?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Message re. List of soap opera villains (HG)"
  2. 04:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. List of soap opera villains (HG)"
  3. 04:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "tb, 3rr"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* EastEnders villains. */ Responded"
  2. 05:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Replied"
Comments:

User has previously been blocked for edit warring. 4th revert has not occurred, but the User does not appear to be interested in WP:Consensus, considering the prior history. User is continuing to edit war, and is personally attacking myself on my page, as well as another user in this diff. I have encouraged discussion, but the user is not interested, and only wishes to war and name call. Josh3580talk/hist 05:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This user is annoyed. They were blocked for their edit wars previously. Now they are gaming the system and belittle anyone who opposes. Plus they acted against consensus on a well discussed list in which a sizable amount of opinions are heard. This individual has displaced neglect and displace for anyone else's view, a direct violation of a collaborative project. Besides their snide use of personal attacks. They speak for themselves. Baiting everyone. As they always do. Drama bomb classic case etc etc.Rain the 1 05:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week only (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:86.13.182.103 reported by User:Begoon (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Alma mater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
86.13.182.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "this wouldn't be necessary if you weren't on another personal little powertrip."
  2. 15:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589148723 by Mr. Arrogant. Do please block the IP address you predictable little man."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 15:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC) to 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. 15:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "TransNeptune - a software company, mental_floss - an American magazine, both TV Tropes and Neatorama are well known, but as you're so pedantic I will remove it, 2 valid sources are sufficient. Nothing personal, you're an a*****e."
    2. 15:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "I find it astonishing that you are all so readily prepared to remove an entire section for the sake of half a sentence that you don't agree with."
  4. 14:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589137940 by Begoon (talk) Nothing personal though, right? PMSL"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "advice"
  2. 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Alma mater. (TW)"
  3. 15:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* January 2014 */ +"


Comments:

This is obviously Wicks Steve‎

see my user talk page history and the ip talk page/history for history

Also reverted at article by Michael Bednarek, Pigsonthewing, and user seems now to just be in a "revert because I iz bein abused and suppressed" loop. Getting boring. Begoontalk 16:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:A.raxhid reported by User:MrScorch6200 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page
Arianna Bergamaschi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
A.raxhid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 22:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 22:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removing {{blp prod}} templates on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
  2. 23:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
  3. 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
  4. 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removing {{blpprod}} templates on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I have not checked, but it is possible that I also violated the 3RR. Seeing as this article is new and not highly notable, I believe the boundaries of the 3RR can be pushed a little. Also, I believe most of the content addition I reverted was unsourced and/or poorly sourced (see exemption 7 of the 3RR if you are not familiar with it). --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  • User:A.raxhid and user User:MrScorch6200 are warned for edit warring. The subject's website is a reliable source so they are able to remove the BLPPROD tag. If you wish feel free to take it to AfD. However any revert from either of you will result in a block. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:Taylor Trescott (Result: User:Rusted AutoParts blocked 6 months )[edit]

Page
2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "And who makes that decision? Walker's death was one of the most talked about this year."
  2. 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "Boldly reverting. This isn't a matter of consensus, it's a matter of news. Walker's death was one of the years most talked about. This seems more like a personal preference. If you'd like, go to the talk page, but Walker definitely qualifies to be here"
  3. 02:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Deaths */ removing photos are it's clear they are nepotistically selected. Consensus on these before added back. And Derby, I advise you read WP:OWN"
  4. 03:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "Seems you do too. I can't replace images without consensus, you can't readd images without consensus. Fairs fair."
  5. 03:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "Cut it out, these are under discussion at the talk page. It's very weird what names are representing the year."
  6. 05:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Deaths */ hiding pictures until consensus reached. Since you refuse to do as asked, I have to find alternatives. Their integrity is compromised, so they're gone for now. Any further reverting is just plain ridiculous"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Note was left at user's talk; continues reverting. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 05:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The definition of edit warring strictly lies in the reversal of the same edit three times. I reverted his change of Walker's photo twice. His reversal of me removing the pics twice. Your reversal once. Then I hid them as he wouldn't comply with my request to keep them off until a consensus was reached. It's what we did with The Wolf of Wall Street when the genre was compromised. May I point out he has yet to respond to my talk page post? I did go to the talk page and begin the discussion, these two have yet to. I'd like to know why is that because right now their conduct screamed "my way or the highway". Rusted AutoParts 05:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Look, I know. I'm way too headstrong when it comes to arguing. I get hotheaded and lose sight of the issue. But I'm telling you, the goal for me wasn't to fight over it. When I look at it, it's really minor. But at the same time, it gets under my skin when someone defies a request, like taking their issue to the talk page where I started a discussion, and continue to reverse back to the way they want it when they know of the discussion and simply choose not to engage in a conversation about it. It always seems there's a double standard in that way where content that is disputed gets removed, and somehow content stays when it is disputed. I don't understand why that happens, but it sets me off. It's hard to talk when your opponent won't talk. And it sucks more that they have to be an opponent. I'm just trying to edit in a way where future readers can either understand it without having to scroll through Shakespearian type writing style, or in this case, high lit the highlights of a year. If reversal of several different edits is 3RR, I apologize. I truthfully didnt know that applied. I thought it only applied to reverting the same edit three times, I swear to god. Again, it's not my goal, objective, mission, whatever to war about content, it's a simple matter of getting upset, something I am desperately trying to work on. I don't want to be blocked because it would deprive me of my opportunity to maturely debate the issue. Maturely understand why they are against it, understand their stance and part ways as collaborators, not rivals. What I do wish is for Derby and Taylor to take to 2013's talk page and reply to my post. Rusted AutoParts 06:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Rusted AutoParts blocked once again, for 6 months this time. Perhaps 6 months maturation will improve his ability to "maturely debate the issue".—Kww(talk) 06:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:79.182.111.44, User:79.182.49.102 being reported by User:DendroNaja (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Snakebite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
79.182.111.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), User talk:79.182.49.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


diff

Comments:

This user is not just engaging in an edit war, but he is now harassing me by following any page I edit to start trouble. He is angry because I discovered numerous WP violations in his editing of the Inland taipan page. The thing is, the diff up there of what the article originally contained was done by User:Jmh649, who is a physician and an administrator here on Wikipedia. But this IP user is taking his anger out on me. My mission when I sign on WP was to expand and improve any venomous species article I can and eventually upgrade them to GA status, so I started with the Black mamba, which after a rigorous review attained GA status. I have given this IP user numerous warnings on all the different IP's he uses to no avail. An admin protectted the Inland taipan page, so now he is angry with me and is on a mission to harass me. I hold two degrees on the subject matter and he seems to be a silly amateur who has the attitude of "my snake is deadlier than yours" as you can see in his edit summaries. I finished with the black mamba article, so now I have nominated the Many-banded krait page for GA status, but it needs a lot of work. I have over 140 technical books and field guides on venomous snake species and access to full texts in online journals. Something has to be done with this user who keeps using different IP's and is now harassing me only because I discovered his policy violations. Here is a short list of copyright vios I discovered on the Inland taipan page (there are many more):

He, in my humble opinion, has zero value on Wikipedia. He clearly doesn't care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he's interested in his own POV and will not agree to consensus. This has been a long standing issue with him over the numerous IP's he uses. He is engaging in an edit war (I am not going to do anything about his latest revert) even though I have rollback option. I am going to leave it to you guys. His other IP's, which have all received warnings are: User talk:79.177.163.151, User talk:79.182.111.44, User talk:79.182.49.102, User talk:79.180.177.93, User talk:79.179.166.212. --DendroNaja (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the link to the page and two IPs as the top. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't really want to send this off somewhere else, but in terms of recent edit warring there is nothing actionable. Have a look through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and see if there is anything there which will help. Otherwise this might need to go to ANI, probably ending with either the user starting to talk or getting blocked. But from an AN3 point of view there is Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Though I'd appreciate it if other admins could take a look as well in case I've missed something. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:MarianoRivero reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked and semi protected)[edit]

Page
2013 Metro Manila Film Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MarianoRivero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  2. 09:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  3. 09:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  4. 09:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  5. 09:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  6. 08:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  7. 08:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  8. Consecutive edits made from 08:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) to 08:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. 08:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
    2. 08:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  9. 08:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  10. 08:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  11. 08:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  12. 07:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  13. 07:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  14. 07:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  15. 07:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  16. Consecutive edits made from 06:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC) to 06:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. 06:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
    2. 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
    3. 06:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
    4. 06:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  17. 05:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  18. 05:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  19. 05:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  20. 05:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  21. 05:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  22. 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  23. 04:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  24. 02:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  25. Consecutive edits made from 02:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC) to 02:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    1. 02:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
    2. 02:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  26. 02:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  27. 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  28. 21:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  29. 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  30. 20:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  31. 20:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  32. 20:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  33. 19:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  34. 19:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  35. 19:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  36. 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  37. 19:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  38. 19:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  39. 18:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  40. 18:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  41. 18:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  42. 18:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  43. 18:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  44. 18:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  45. 18:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  46. 17:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  47. 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  48. 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  49. 16:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  50. 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  51. 15:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  52. 15:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  53. 15:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  54. 15:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  55. 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  56. 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  57. 14:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  58. 14:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  59. 14:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  60. 13:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  61. 12:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  62. 07:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  63. 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
  64. 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2013 Metro Manila Film Festival. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

In excess of 60 edits, including one after 3RR warning. Have also given User:112.207.248.114 a warning for exceeding 3RR Flat Out let's discuss it 10:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Shervinsky reported by User:Andrux (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Little Russian identity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shervinsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  3. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments: After being blocked for 1 week, User Shervinsky comes back to Wiki and continue edit warring and his POV-pushing in the article Little Russian identity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The reported user did not provide any explanation concerning his edits at talk page.

User:192.69.217.195 reported by User:Vzaak (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Terence McKenna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 192.69.217.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [51]
  2. [52]
  3. [53]
  4. [54]
  5. [55]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56] [57]

Comments:

[For context only] 192.69.217.195 is restoring unsourced crazy stuff added by this banned user, who has vandalized other articles with the same unsourced craziness, e.g. [58]. vzaak 16:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User: Anthony Weights reported by User:Oxford24 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: The Time of the Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anthony Weights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]
  4. [63]

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

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

Comments:

Anthony Weights, 176.27.228.253, and whatever other new user accounts he’s using (same language, same additions every time) is trolling Broadcast and Reception on this article repeatedly and ignoring the talk page. Several new puppet accounts have been used solely to add the same negative fan reviews and make the reaction “mixed”. As discussed in the talk section and edit comments, it’s not appropriate to include any source one chooses in the Reception section. It should be limited to professional writers at established entertainment/news websites and magazines, under the reliable sources guidelines. If we include every fan who posted an opinion, the Review/Reception section would be 80 paragraphs long and every movie and episode of anything would have a “mixed reaction” It is implied this is reaction from professional critics. Man of Steel, with a 55% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, has a mixed reaction. Several users have talked about this in edit comments and talk. Anthony Weights, and has been warned already about edit warring on this page on January 4, but continues to make the same edits again and again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony_Weights

Nearly all professional, legitimate feedback has been positive, if you do an internet search. He is including fan sites where anyone can post (quoting Hypable is equivalent to quoting youtube comments), a student newspaper writer (with only one other article, in fact), an opinion blog from The Telegraph after the official review has been quoted, repeatedly saying the reviews were mixed, trying to single out criticism in reviews that are 90% positive. He even moved the 86% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, which are only professional reviewers, from the beginning where it usually goes to the bottom of a random paragraph. This person has a personal hatred for the episode and contrary to all discussion will not stop tainting the article that way. As soon as semi-protection expired a new user, 176.27.228.253, made the same edits he’s been making over and over. The 274 word opinion post from James Delingpole trashing the show, that he repeatedly tries to include (see edit history), is listed under http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk, where there are dozens of bloggers; whereas the official review from The Telegraph by Tim Martin is listed under Culture/TV and Radio -- as it is in any major news source such as The Guardian. He has shortened, moved or edited mine and other editors’ text to reflect a negative reaction. If you look at the talk page and edit history, this behavior has been going on for a while, with the general feeling from users that the negative reviews are from questionable sources. Note: other users than myself have tried to fight his edits, in the history. Oxford24 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Result: Warned. While Anthony Weights repeatedly adds a negative slant to the article, he never participates on talk. If he continues to revert without waiting for consensus he may be blocked. Another admin has restored semiprotection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:IndianBio reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
Artpop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
IndianBio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "Readd sales for UK which is certified gold, an url behind a subscription wall does not mean that the indicated sales are untrue, a Google search shows this"
  2. 10:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "You are really getting on everyone's nerves you know, even after Homeostatis explained you countless times"
  3. 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by STATicVapor (talk): Stop the edit warring, dont stir shit for unnecessary reasons. (TW)"
  4. 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by STATicVapor (talk): Use your eyes, there is no certification listed, just the sales. (TW)"
  5. 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 589153932 by IndianBio (talk): ???? (