Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive235

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Jackmcbarn reported by User:88.104.24.150 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC implicit oppose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

For one, 3RR doesn't apply in your own userspace. Also, I made it clear that that was the wrong page to edit. Thirdly, the warning link was ME warning YOU. Finally, you started undoing my regen of the page, which is clearly blatantly unconstructive. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, AND the first two reverts were by Technical 13, not me! Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation WP:3RR indeed doesn't apply to a user's own userspace, and it also doesn't apply to reverting clearly disruptive edits, such as 88.104.24.150's removal of a name that belongs on that page per its inclusion criteria. Huon (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Huon,
Can you please educate me, and show me that specific policy?
And please note that the diff you showed [8] was just me undoing this [9] where Jackmcbarn undid the edit from Aircorn - not me. Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Aircorn never edited that page. I added his name to the list in [10]. You undid my edit for no reason in [11]. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Read 3RR exemptions, it clearly states it. AcidSnow (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
AcidSnow already pointed out where the exceptions to WP:3RR can be found, and Jackmcbarn pointed out that he didn't revert thrice anyway. Regarding Aircorn, he supported proposal 1, which by the rules laid out at the top of Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014#Implicit oppose counts as an implicit oppose to proposal 4. Jackmcbarn added them to that column of his list; 88.104.24.150 removed them with an edit summary that rather clearly shows that 88.104 didn't understand what they were doing, and reverted a second time for good measure. Both the original report and 88.104's reply here contain so many falsehoods that it's almost comical. 88.104.24.150, you may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Huon (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:The sun2013 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Vevo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
The sun2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism page vevo free encyclopedia in English, This page needs to be protected from the clowns that erases information or enter false data to generate controversy among the fans of the artists."
  2. 20:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism page vevo free encyclopedia in English"
  3. 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593317551 by ViperSnake151 (talk) WTF WHO THE PEOPLE?"
  4. 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Vevo. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Do not restore the "Certified" list. */ new section"
Comments:

Constantly restores content that was removed as a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE; editing pattern and conduct seems to imply "ownership" behaviour ViperSnake151  Talk  22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Oda Mari reported by User:STSC (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oda Mari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 04:57, 1 February 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 08:56, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 592667818 by Mogism: The description of the source is unreliable. Besides, there's no mention on Japan in the source. Please provide RS with evidence like the source #37. . (TW)")
  2. 06:32, 2 February 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by 54.199.150.33 (talk): Though it's cited, there are no evidence in them. (TW)")
  3. 08:44, 2 February 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 54.199.161.4 (talk): The evidence is the photograph of the forein aircrafts and their identification. See talk page. (TW)")

Comments:
These are unjustifiable disruptive reverting purely for personal nationalistic reasons.

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. STSC, don't make accusations without evidence. I don't even understand your involvement (or uninvolvement) in the dispute. The IP addresses, btw, all come from an Amazon corporate account. There's been no WP:3RR violation and the reported editor has opened a discussion on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Anil Singh Pokhriyal reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 17:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593605262 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
  4. 17:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  5. 20:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. using TW"
  2. 17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Ayurveda. using TW"
  3. 20:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "pointer"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor is adding quasi-spam to article. See User_talk:NeilN#Ayurveda NeilN talk to me 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Even though no discussion has taken place at article talk page, NeilN has been involved in a lengthy discussion at his own talk page (thread linked above) about verifiability and related policies. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I have also started one at the talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy says "The person should be noticeable" and the author of the books is very significant person in India then how can others mark it as spam without verifying that. All the books are original and written by Rajiv Dixit himself based on Ashtang Hridyam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talkcontribs) 21:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like you have a content dispute with other editor(s) and need to resolve that at the article talk page. Edit warring is not an acceptable means to resolve the disupte. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours User made yet another revert to the Ayurveda article, in spite of all the advice above and requests to discuss on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Page: Philip Seymour Hoffman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

Winkelvi has been attempting to scrub any mention of the syringe found in Hoffman's arm from the article, reverting 3 different editors' attempts to insert the mention based on the NY Times article, offering only the excuse that "newspapers say a lot of things." Msnicki (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Scrub" is an unfounded and simply untrue accusation. My feeling? Msnicki is seeking punitive rather than preventive action and is ticked because I objected to his un-encyclopedic edits. I started the talk page discussion on the disagreement in content, explained why I felt what he was adding didn't belong, and he didn't like what I had to say. It was then and only then he placed a 3RR notice on my talk page, and then threatened filing this report on the article talk page. I admit I was probably too over-zealous in protecting the article, but I never had any intention of edit warring, and I still don't see how Mcnicki thinks adding unproven and speculative content is appropriate. My comments at the article talk page regarding his inclusion of certain content are thus: "Who were these "investigators"? Newspaper people? NYPD detectives? The Medical Examiner? "Investigators" is pretty vague. As far as what the NYT says: newspapers say a lot of things. Just because it's said doesn't make it fact, even if it is from what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. There is no deadline in Wikipedia and we are not newspaper reporters trying to "scoop" one another. We are supposed to be supporting the writing of content in an encyclopedia. Hypodermic needles, envelopes, and the like reported by unnamed "investigators" just isn't encyclopedic. We can do better than that". I still believe we can do better than the content Msnicki was putting in. For me, it's not personal, it's about the content. -- Winkelvi 22:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Winkelvi, you violated WP:3RR and there's no exemption for your reverts based on, for example, a WP:BLP violation. However, I'm willing to accept that you acted in good faith and that a block at this point would be punitive. However, I strongly urge you to leave the article alone for a while lest any edit you make, even if it's about different subject matter, constitutes a revert. There are a lot of people editing the article, and I'm sure it will get along just fine without you. Also the stuff about Msnicki doesn't seem to be supported by any real evidence, particularly as you reverted several users. You are, of course, welcome to contribute to any discussion on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Point(s) taken, Bbb23 and will do. -- Winkelvi 00:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ersroitasent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593570058 by Faizan (talk) it was not supported by consensus Do not edit war, take it to talk page"
  2. 11:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593542650 by Brewcrewer (talk) no consensus"
  3. 00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "undo trivial edit by Mikrobølgeovn"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Yom Kippur War. (TW)"
  2. 11:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Yom Kippur War. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Clear violation of 1RR rule within 24 hours. Spotted this violation earlier too, warned the user several times, but still another case of edit-warring. The diffs have been provided, the user is edit-warring with several experienced editors, as evident from the article's history. He did three reverts in 24 hours. Faizan 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Clearly not supported by consensus

We've had this discussion it was not supported by consensus--Ersroitasent (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And that's an exception to edit-warring? In addition, 3 separate people seem to be "against" your edit - that looks like better consensus that you think DP 12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure Callanecc, thanks. Faizan 12:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Faizan, being 3 hrs outside of 24 is usually considered gaming the system, and should also have led to a block DP 13:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
DangerousPanda Whatsoever, it was not a 1RR violation. I don't have an active editing history in that article and I am not an edit-warrior. I admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time, then how does it mean that I was gaming? Faizan 13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:113.52.17.67 reported by User:Sekicho (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Kazuma Ieiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 113.52.17.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Comments: Anonymous user keeps butchering this article about a current Japanese political candidate (Tokyo gubernatorial election, 2014). Did the same edit for a fourth time after being warned of 3RR. Not sure why they are so obsessed with this guy in particular...

Sekicho (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Removing sourced content with no explanation. It doesn't make much sense to add a notability tag after you've removed the sources that show notability, while giving no reason for your change. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:50.67.92.94 reported by User:Underbar dk (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Seaquam Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.67.92.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seaquam_Secondary_School&diff=prev&oldid=592276842

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:
IP has been reverting content to his preferred version without responding to the concerns raised on the edit summaries and his user page. He has also took to WP:STALKING my edits to revert them, such as here and here on my userpage

_dk (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 week for disruptive editing. Two different IPs are revert warring to add WP:PEACOCK language to Seaquam Secondary School so I've applied semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Precision123 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Sodastream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Precision123 (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. [30]
  2. [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sodastream#CS_Monitor

Comments:This is a 1RR article as stated on the talk page which this user has edited. I've edited other parts of the article, but not any part related to this 1RR infraction. I have however interacted with this "new" editor on other articles and believe they are not here to help the encyclopedia but to further a POV by edit warring - [32] - 5 reverts on a 1RR article in January. Sepsis II (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell reported by User:Underlying lk (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lord of Rivendell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "After a massive removal spree of factual and visual content, you arrived back to 172K. Bravo..."
  2. 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Adding back all the citation tags (they didn't save a significant amount of space, anyway)"
  3. 23:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Sorry, I missed two citation tags: One in the intro, one in the Etymology section. Now they are all complete."
  4. 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "All the citation tags are now restored. Your deletions saved less than 1K."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Turkey. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparing Turkey with its equivalents */"
Comments:

Note that my changes were the result of a five-day discussion on Talk:Turkey#Recent_expansion_of_the_article where the article's issues were extensively discussed and there was wide agreement on the need for changes, but that didn't stop Rivendell from restoring his own revision. Several other uninvolved users also complained of Rivendell's tendency to violate WP:OWN. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit: after another editor restored the previous version, Rivendell went on to revert a fifth time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
He always violates WP:OWN and makes changes against the decisions that we made on the talk page, all the time. I give my support for it. And he recently filed a complaint about me to Administrators' noticeboard, but it didint approved, it got rejected.KazekageTR (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:94.27.233.95 reported by User:RolandR (Result: )[edit]

Page
Karl Marx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
94.27.233.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593772711 by DMacks (talk) Being born of a line of rabbies is pretty much being of Jewish origin."
  3. 20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "That doesn't make the Jewish ancestors disappear."
  4. 20:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593777695 by Jim1138 (talk)"
  5. 20:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593779411 by Jim1138 (talk)"
  6. 06:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (No summary, but same reversion)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Karl Marx. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:92.11.xxx.xxx reported by User:Scolaire (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Easter Rising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.11.192.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 92.11.202.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 28 March 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 12:16, 2 February 2014
  2. 16:03, 2 February 2014
  3. 20:24, 2 February 2014
  4. 14:56, 3 February 2014
  5. 18:35, 3 February 2014

No four reverts within 24 hours, i.e. gaming the system.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 92.11.202.180, 92.11.192.215

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: initial post by Denisarona, entire discussion to date

Comments: The user is a dynamic IP. I am requesting page semi-protection. Scolaire (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 13:16, 2 February 2014 (removed identification of the Jazali group)
  2. Revision as of 07:27, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
  3. Revision as of 07:47, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
  4. Revision as of 08:17, 3 February 2014 (ditto)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments: User violated 3RR over content dispute on Yemen. He has been revert-warring on the page over BLP material with a number of different editors, including administrator User:Materialscientist. The user has in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he is simultaneously revert-warring on the Najahids page with several editors over the same issue ([36], [37], [38]). Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This user has admitted formerly being User:Kendite. Back on December 15 this editor was also reported at this noticeboard for warring at Queen of Sheba, and it seemed to be a 3RR violation. That particular report was closed as stale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. The user has been reverting the Yemen article a lot but does not participate on Talk. As with the edit mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss. His theory about his opponents was also stated in his edit summary here: 'some Afrocentrists here are working together'. Any admin may lift this block if the user agrees to engage in discussions and wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── User:Inayity is quite right about the racial overtones. Accusing opponents of "Afrocentrism" and a priori of being "African" seems to be a routine part of Kendite/يوسف حسين's modus operandi (c.f. the related Sheba debacle here with the non-African User:Til Eulenspiegel). Kendite/يوسف حسين also uses antiquated, derogatory epithets like "Negroes" with no compunction [39]. Elsewhere, he also claimed to be reluctant to engage in discussion because he was "tired" [40]. Apparently not tired enough to revert war with several editors on two pages simultaneously, though. Additionally, the user has serious WP:OWNership issues and threatened an editor ("just stay away from any Yemen related article" [41]). Middayexpress (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Capricornmanager1 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
World number 1 male tennis player rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Capricornmanager1 (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 11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 11:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
    2. 11:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
    3. 12:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
    2. 18:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
    3. 18:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
    4. 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
    3. 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
    4. 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
    2. 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
    2. 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
    3. 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 1913–present */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Refrain from reverting */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This is not the first time this editor has been told not to keep reverting by multiple editors, though it is mostly in the subject lines. His 3RR is going on. Not sure why he won't listen. Warning given and yet he did it again. I certainly have no qualms about an administrative warning being given instead of any kind of block... but I thought it should come from someone semi-official instead of just other tennis editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Warned. All editors are expected to abide by consensus. If this behavior continues, Capricornmanager1 can be blocked with no further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Wester reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
French fries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wester (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 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) to 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "back to original version"
    2. 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 11:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 12:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "again: back to original version before someone screwed up"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) to 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Belgium */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* French Fries */ please stop"
  2. 16:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* French Fries */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "/* France/Belgium origins */ new section"
Comments:
I restored it back to the original version of a few months ago. It's EvergreenFir that keeps pushing his version. If anyone should be reported it's him. A bit lame that he tries to resolve it this way. I gave sources that the French claim is more recent than the Belgian claim. Then it's clear that in the template only Belgium should be mentioned and not France. --Wester (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
And note that's it's NOT a edit war. The last two edits were not simple reverts but a rework of the page. EvergreenFir is even reverting things like this which are outside the mentioned conflict. It seems that he is not looking what he is doing.
In the last edit I even tried to resolve the matter by simply removing the 'invented' section in the template. Since all this talk about who invented the fries is getting kind of silly, the reality is that nobody knows for sure.--Wester (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You were asked repeatedly to take it to the talk page and refused. Your edits were still removing the content related to the reverts. You are being disruptive to prove a point. As I've said multiple times, we are here to report on the state other sources. There sources saying there's a debate. We must report on that. It would be biased to take sides and to choose one is original research. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You keep mentioning that holy source of you. A source that no one can verify since it's a book. Most sources, like this are clear: Belgian claim: 17th century and French claim: 1789. So France should not be mentioned in the template. It's as simple as that. And that was also the original version. France is only added on January 9, 2014 by an anonymous user: see this. It's that dubious edit that I reverted. --Wester (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Forgot to note this is not the user's first time edit warring according to their user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That is character assassination. I am active on Wikipedia since 2005 made nearly 3.000 edits and nearly 100.000 edits on the Dutch wikipedia and have never been blocked. That's a clear indication. I do not know what EvergreenFir's intentions are with this action. A block solves nothing here. --Wester (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Wester (then known as Westermarck) has been blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia at least once, so that's a lie and they know it: [42][43][44][45] Naturally, the links are in Dutch, but it was for sockpuppet use.
Wester has never been blocked on the English Wikipedia, but has come close more times than I can count. Their talk page history shows that it's repeatedly sterilized of the accumulation of warnings for their long history of edit warring, unilateral page moves and other edits that defy consensus. At any rate, the idea that Wester has a history of good behaviour is patently absurd.
As for the actual article, choosing an arbitrary edit from over a year ago isn't good justification for the deletion of content. And Wester's argument doesn't even make sense. With the actual origin unclear, the fact that one dubious origin story uses an earlier date than another dubious origin story doesn't make it the right one. It's not clear where fries were invented, so it doesn't make sense that Wester (or ES&L) dismiss it as obvious. Oreo Priest talk 23:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
First of all, if you knew Dutch you would see that that block was a mistake and not sock puppet use. So that doesn't count. Second: that edit you mentioning is made in January 2014. So not 'over a year ago'. Barely two weeks ago. It was an anonymous edit that I reverted. And no: there is no actual debate between France and Belgium who invented fries. I find that only in American sources. Probably since it's named 'French' fries. --Wester (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we put this on WP:LAME? The world (including the French) know that Frenched, Fried Potatoes were invented in Belgium. Citations are everywhere ES&L 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That isn't the issue. It's the removal of the fact that the French and Belgians both claim it from the article. Repeatedly. Also, it doesn't matter if Wester is right or not (as the EW warning template says). (S)he was edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No, you are not looking to other sources and keep focussing on the words 'ongoing battle'. Most sources are clear that the Belgian claim is older then the French one. BTW: lot's of sources also mention Spain. --Wester (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No, that suggest that I do not feel my talk page should be used against me like EvergreenFir did. A talk page is a private thing.--Wester (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:41.96.7.179 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Moors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
41.96.7.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 17:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 19:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
  5. 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Moors. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

There's an ongoing discussion on talk page, editor is ignoring it and has reverted 5 times in two hours despite invitations to talk and 3rr warning. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ersroitasent (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. [46]
  2. [47]


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

Comments:
Again he has violated 1RR. Earlier he was reported too and was blocked for a day. But his disruptive edits and edit warring continue even after the block. I request a strict action to be taken. He is edit-warring with four users on the article, and moving without consensus. Instead of discussing it on the article's talk, he keeps on reverting others' edits. After this severe violation of 1RR just one day after the block ended, it seems that now a more strict action is needed. Thanks. Ping DangerousPanda, am I gaming the system now? Faizan 03:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


nonsense claim! There's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk [48] nonsense claim by User:Faizan What disruptive edits...... What.....

the edits i reverted was not supported by consensus stop your disruptive edits Do not edit war, Instead take it to talk page--Ersroitasent (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion, but is not seeing your active participation. You have no material or reliable sources in support of your your claims. This diff explains your disruptive behavior, is this discussion? Besides you have clearly violated 1RR. Faizan 07:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
i DID Not have any claims to support i reverted No consensus edits stop cite misleading information--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This diff There's an active participation What......... an argument!!!!--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


I admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your argument was discussed and proved wrong in an earlier discussion. I'd be more than willing to discuss if you provide a serious argument on why we should remove sourced content from the article, but so far you have only unspecifically denied the validity of the information. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

i reverted No consensus edits the countries that sent troops are in the Aid to Egypt and Syria section and Not in the infobox--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of indefinite. The return to the identical edit after a block for that edit, and full-bore lack of willingness to discuss shows longer-term protection of the project is unfortunately required DP 09:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User: Precision123 reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: Warned again)[edit]

Page: Haaretz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Precision123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

Content is clearly related to the IP conflict (and under WP:ARBPIA 1rr restrictions) as it regards a research paper looking at the bias in reporting in the Israel Palestine conflict. Editor has been repeatedly ignoring the 1rr restrictions on IP related topics, and has been previously warned about this behaviour. For previous recent example see e.g. [55][56]. Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring was not present here.
(1) To respond briefly to what should have been an uncontroversial edit: Because citable references are made to the text of an article, and not the abstract, I merely edited the sentence to reflect what is stated in the article's text (p. 117) and not the abstract. Last, the sentence had problems with WP:Editorializing. That was all this one-sentence edit involved.
(2) User:Dlv999 has cited three edits above. In chronological order, the first (#3) was a bold edit (removed for WP:OPED and WP:V), and #2 was the compromise sought after a user reverted me. I only reverted once.
I further submit that User:Dlv999 did not attempt to resolve the dispute in the article talk page--the editor just added a section in talk moments before deciding to report this. In fact, no constructive explanation for edits was made in the edit summary nor any citation to a Wikipedia rule. --Precision123 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please note that this editor was warned about edit-warring just yesterday. See #User:Precision123 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Warned). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 11:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned again, only because he has been told that 1RR didn't apply to this article. Precision123 you need to discuss these issues on the article's talk page, when you make the first revert. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:72.214.164.94 reported by Corkythehornetfan (Talk) (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page: KCKC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 72.214.164.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

  1. [57]
  2. [58]
  3. [59]
  4. [60]
  5. [61]
  6. [62]
  7. [63]
  8. [64]
  9. [65]

KCKC Alice 102.1 is switching its format on 5 Feb. 2014 at 3 p.m. This I.P. user is changing it as if it had already happened. Plus, its website is still branding as Alice 102.1 I also think the I.P. user is using 24.166.187.131 this IP address too, who is also reverting and changing the article. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 03:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:117.201.217.221 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
Kamma (caste) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
117.201.217.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
[66]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. addition
  2. 13:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593882352 by Sitush (talk) See Talk page"
  3. 13:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593883747 by Sitush (talk)"
  4. 13:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593884810 by Sitush (talk) See Talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kamma (caste). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Talk:Kamma_(caste)#Reliablity


Comments:

User:Cityinfonorns reported by User:IIIraute (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: 2014 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive235/userlinks

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [68]
  2. [69]
  3. [70]
  4. [71] & [72]
  5. [73]
  6. [74]
  7. [75] (this revert was done after edit warring warning by admin)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, removed as "nonsense" → [78]

--IIIraute (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Warning: Ownership of articles noticeboard discussion, removed as remove nonsense!!!!!!→ [79]--Cityinfonorns (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr Shempenstein reported by User:Wieno (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Jeremy Piven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Dr Shempenstein (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 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    2. 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    2. 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
  3. 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
  4. 02:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) to 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    1. 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    2. 01:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
    3. 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
  6. 01:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Career */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Jeremy Piven */ new section"
  2. 21:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jeremy Piven. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Content dispute - Music video */ 3O response"
Comments:

User has admitted a personal connection to the producer of the video he keeps trying to add to the page. There are 3 of us reverting his edits and telling him to work it out on the talk page, but we're hitting the point where we're reaching our own 3R limits. I got involved because of a 3O request. Wieno (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Has not reverted since warned. Next time warn earlier. John (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: No action)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Page
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See also User talk:Garbage turk (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (6RR at present)
User being reported
Werieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "remove socks comment"
  2. 19:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Andy Dingley (talk) to last revision by Werieth."
  3. 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Please stop proxing for a sock, you where warned"
  4. 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "remove socks comment"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User had been warned by myself and another user and alerted he was deleting legitimate comments by another user and persisted in removing the comments. He states this is because it partially is a copy and paste from a banned sock, however it has been pointed out that the entire comment being removed is not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I only removed the socks post. I left Andy's comment alone. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:3RRNO removing posts by socks/banned users is exempt from 3RR. Werieth (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No, you also removed my post. You have since been told that too, which you then excused as you only did it once! Please do not lie to us quite so obviously, it fools no-one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As I stated before, the first time I missed that you added an additional comment. which is why it was reverted. Werieth (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You were since corrected on that point. It's OK, we forgive mistakes. Since then however you have stated that your removal of my post was OK because you only did it once (an excuse for 3RR, but no excuse for simply not blanking other editor's comments at ANI). On this page you have also since claimed "I only removed the socks post", which you had already been told was untrue. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This comes down to two core issues – along with most of Werieth's re-appearances at ANEW
  1. Does 3RR apply to Werieth? He is after all the editor with 18RR and an excuse as to why that was permissible and why he was unblocked for it.
  2. Does AGF apply to Garbage turk?

There is no policy reason to remove posts by socks. WP:3RRNO does not say this.

There is a policy reason to remove posts by banned and blocked users, which is something different.

Werieth (and others) have claimed that Garbage turk is a banned user. They have given no evidence for this, nor even indicated which user they refer to and why they are banned. In the absence of such evidence, AGF requires us to treat Garbage turk as a user, possibly even as a sock (as no-one contests that much), but we are not allowed (per AGF) to treat them as if banned.

Werieth should either show evidence that Garbage truck is banned, or else stop treating them as if banned. If there is no evidence that they are banned, then 3RR still applies. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: No action. 3RR cases about user talk are sometimes a judgment on who is behaving more disruptively. Since User:John Reaves has indefinitely blocked User:Garbage turk with talk access disabled he has already made the call on this. If you think sanctions are due to User:Werieth you could try making the case to John. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This isn't about Garbage turk, it's about Werieth. How are GF editors supposed to operate when an editor whose behaviour is so bad they're repeatedly assumed to be Betacommand is instead given a free pass to ignore one of our basic behavioural policies? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Andy, Im not ignoring anything. Given the behavior of the numerous socks, and abusive behavior, identifying the master may not be doable, however given the behavior and the fact that non-involved administrators obviously see the accounts as abusive socks, (and from what I can tell there are several likely masters that are banned, I just dont have solid enough evidence to make that accusation at this point) the master account has a very high probability of being banned due to the disruptive nature of the socks that they have used. WP:AFG isnt a suicide pact, given the number of blocked accounts tied to this user common sense applies. Just because they spout rants that support your position doesnt mean that we should ignore common sense and let abusive trolls roam the wiki. Werieth (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
There is far more, albeit still inconclusive, evidence that you are a sockpuppet of Betacommand than there is for Garbage turk being a sock of any specific sockmaster, either banned or not. You assure us that Garbage truck is banned and that you know who they are because CUs have told you personally. Yet you want the corresponding statement "I think Werieth is Betacommand" to be revdeled on sight as you consider it (despite being told otherwise repeatedly) to breach WP:NPA. Despite this imbalance, you are still allowed to treat Garbage turk as if banned and basic policies like 3RR are thrown away in your favour. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:82.132.232.24 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Semi)[edit