Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive238

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Rushton2010 reported by User:ERIDU-DREAMING (Result: No action)[edit]


I made some minor changes on the 15th October 2013‎ to the Breadsall Priory article, which were reverted by Rushton2010 on the 16th October 2013‎, on the grounds that my changes had "seriously distorted the information to the point of making it incorrect."

He nowhere pointed out what information was seriously distorted, and has used the same excuse to revert each and every one of the changes I have made, no less that 10 times now. Indeed as day follows night you can be sure that if I make a change he will revert it.

I told myself that if Rushton2010 reverted my changes more than 10 times I would (reluctantly) draw the attention of this noticeboard to his activities. My impression is that he has "ownership issues", and on those grounds reverts each and every change by me. At no point did he feel the need to correct any mistakes (if indeed there are any mistakes) he just reverts the whole text, each and every time I have made any changes, and this has gone on now for a period of several months.

Comments:

In summary Rushodon2010 reverted my changes on the 26th February 2014, the 24th February 2014‎, the 12th February 2014‎, the 8th February 2014, the 5th February 2014, the 4th February 2014, the 3rd February 2014, the 29th January 2014, the 5th January 2014, and the 16th October 2013.

This not only violates the three reverts rule, it seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here, but as the page is one of little interest probably only local interest given it averages only 10-20 hits a day; of which some/most will be us anyway and the user involved as shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism and they have shown no signs of wanting to discuss -having on 10 occasions now reverted- rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization.
The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
Some are more issues of wikipedia procedure - for example the removal of 8 categories:

  • Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
  • Monasteries in Derbyshire
  • History of Derbyshire
  • Marriott International
  • Augustinian monasteries in England
  • 13th-century establishments in England
  • Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
  • 1536 disestablishments in England

-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries. There is also the repeated removal of "Citation Needed" tags, and the "Ref Improve" Hatnote - all without the issues they highlighted having being rectified.
Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice -ditto why I thought he was removing the tags before they were rectified). It's Breadsall Priory.... Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both.
Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more.

I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved.
--Rushton2010 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Response:

"The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu."

Give a single example in the current text where that is true. If you can find a single example change it. You know full well that you have simply engaged in wholesale reversion. You know that you are being disingenuous. I am happy to make the article as accurate as possible.

"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here"

Again you are being disingenuous. The reason why you did not come here is because you know that you have engaged in wholesale reversion, each and every time, for many months. Not something to be proud of, and not something to which you wanted to draw any attention.

"the user involved has shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism"

Again, you know that to be completely untrue, as anybody who looks at the article can see for themselves. If there was a specific issue you should have addressed it, but you didn't, you just engaged in wholesale reversion. Again you are being very disingenuous.

"rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization."

Ah a little bit of truth mixed in with the lies about "vandalism".

"for example the removal of 8 categories"

  • Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
  • Monasteries in Derbyshire
  • History of Derbyshire
  • Marriott International
  • Augustinian monasteries in England
  • 13th-century establishments in England
  • Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
  • 1536 disestablishments in England

-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries."

I did not remove those categories. Why would I remove those categories? It makes no sense. If they were removed it was obviously accidental, and easily remedied by the editor. He simply demonstrates my point for me.

UPDATE I see that the last version did accidentally omit the last list, but that does not apply to any of the other versions which were changed back by Rushton 2010, which he knows full well, so (yet again) Rushton2010 is being "economical" with the truth.

"Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead, something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice"

Again more deceit. I changed it to miles because that is how it is understood locally. I added Long Eaton because that is a much better known local centre. Long Eaton is much larger than Breadsall. He must surely know that, and so he should be careful about throwing the word "bizarre" around.

"Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both."

Again a little bit of truth, yes it is better with both, that is the point. No mention of the kilometers issue I see. I wonder why?

"Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more."

At last the nub of the issue. All that other stuff (to be brutally frank) he is just making up. This is the only substantive point. He disliked that I changed this sentence. Let us examine the issue. He calls it a gross error. Let us put aside the hyperbole and look at the difference between the formulations. He wants to say that "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon" which is a clumsy sentence. I replaced it with a sentence which reads better. Why the protest? The complete reversions? The refusal to modify that sentence? Because he thought it was important that although Augustinian friars could not own land (which was why it was incorrect to identify them as such) he thought it was important to draw attention to the irrelevant fact that this did not apply to any land upon which the monastery was sited. Now anybody can see that this is irrelevant to the point being made (i.e. which sort of friars were they) but he was not going to discuss the issue, he was a going to revert every single change I ever made, no matter how minor, simply because I changed this sentence in a way that took out this irrelevant point, which he found so important.

"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved."

Your behaviour has been clear all along. It could not have been more clear. You took possession of the article and reverted each and every change (no matter how trivial!) over a period of many months. You have now compounded this behaviour by lying about your actions. Lying about my actions, and all over a single sentence which you could easily have changed back if it mattered to you so much. It is all there for people too see. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. If anybody reads the article as it is now in comparison with the original it is clear that the charges of "vandalism" are just lies. All it amounts to is a difference of opinion about whether or not it is important to mention that the monastery owned the land "it stood on". The rest is just Rushton2010 attempting to justify his malice and arrogance.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I see that Rushton2010 has just reverted it once more, even while it is being discussed here! That makes a total of 11 reversions! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that if you make an edit, if it gets reverted, you're NEVER permitted to re-add it unless you have obtained consensus to add it via discussion on the article talkpage, right? DP 09:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: No action. This is a long-running dispute but nobody broke 3RR. Both parties are advised to use the talk page. Use WP:DR if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mingling2 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mingling2 (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. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Not otherwise involved. A rather slow EW. Also Malbin210 below Jim1138 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I really don't have any religious motive. The section about religion is very overcrowded. I request user malbin210 to resolve the dispute on article's talk page but does not respond. What should I do?Mingling2 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a exactly copy pasted from Mingling2 user contributions history > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mingling2

  1. 14:50, 22 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Albania ‎ (And the reason behind this is that Moslem women don't pray at mosques and evangelical churches which have a single church for every ten believers.) (Tag: Mobile edit)
  2. 15:59, 21 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . Albania ‎ (Islam is largest religion in Albania so its image needs to be placed first.) (Tag: Mobile edit)
  3. 15:50, 21 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+571)‎ . . Talk:Albania ‎ (Tag: Mobile edit)
  4. 12:30, 2 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,001)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
  5. 11:53, 2 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-2,438)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion: These estimates it cover just 79 out 83 fedral subjects. Not much informative.)
  6. 16:18, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-437)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
  7. 12:50, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+682)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
  8. 12:43, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+849)‎ . . m Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)

Then he removes an image from the national hero of Albania ... because he faught the muslim Ottomans ! And then he gives an excuse , that only himself can understand !

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=596778004&oldid=596761300

And then he removes half of the section of the religions in Albania !!!! Why ? Because those minorities are christian ! ( Albania is a multireligious country )

1 2

Let me repeat that this user is lying . He is not an albanian . And he is a sock puppet account of multiple times banned religious fanatic from Pakistan , with no life , that has a certain fantasy with albania ! I am sorry but i have lost so many hours now trying to clean up his mess !!! Trying to restore content that he deletes !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Malbin210 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malbin210 (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. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff1 by JamesBWatson

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

Comments:

Not otherwise involved. A rather slow EW. Also Mingling2 aboveJim1138 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I did nothing more than reverting edits that user mingling2 was making for religious purposes . All his reverts as demonstrated by his contributs history is about religion , be that in Russia Albania Macedonia or wherever !!! All in all is not edit warring ! Why ? Because when you restore the original version of wikipedia , when that version is being vandalized by a person with a religious agenda claiming to be albanian as well ( which he is not , because i am from albania ) then is called protecting the article from vandalizers !!!

He removes established sourced VERY VALUABLE content ABOUT RELIGION and only , that has been there for months or years , meaning that there has been a general consensus , furthermore look the latest edit that he made ( you have presented it here already ) . In the section of religion he removed around 1 kb of content about religious minorities in Albania which are a very active part of Albania society such as per example the Protestant community . Guess what he removed all that sourced and accurate content !!! And let me stress out THAT I HAD NOT WRITTEN that content . Why does he do that ? Because i think is one of the multiple sock puppet accounts that this person operates for Religious muslim propaganda !!! Please do investigate if he is somehow connected with an already multiple times banned user from Pakistan that has a certain fantasy with Albania! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talkcontribs) 13:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:DiverScout (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&action=history


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States (warned on talk page that I was reporting, but no reply.)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States>


Comments:

DiverScout add information with sources that don't contain anything (webpages nonexistant or now foreign language sites), so I reversed the addition for reason as unverifiable ( "nonsense sources" & "nothing regarding scouting at those links"). After all when clicking the edit linked the notice "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." is at the top, which the source are not. I have only reverse him twice and he had add it twice too. So, if I am block, he should too. He gave me minutes from his "warning" to posting here and another 2 minutes for an actually flagged message at my talk page that was to indicate that he was reporting me. In which time as was discussing his disregard for waiting for consensus in moving to rename the article. Also, note his attempt at improperly informing the responding administrator that he "Tried, but this guy is not interested and is a repeat edit warrior." When given the time frame given to respond was almost nil to respond, so no DiverScout did not try. Whether or not I am a "repeat edit warrior" is immaterial to the current issue. I have run into several contentious editors who would not show up to discuss the issue until reaching near the 3RR line. Any one can report me, just as frivolously as DiverScout has now. Spshu (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

89.79.201.171 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: Blocked; protected)[edit]

Page: Cramér's conjecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.79.201.171 (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]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:
The IP user also appears to have edited under at least one other IP address and as User:Marek Wolf. --JBL (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I've blocked User:Marek Wolf for one week for edit warring and self-promotion. I've semi-protected the article for one week against his IP addresses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:62.44.135.196 and sock User:87.63.80.142 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page
Veria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported
62.44.135.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

and its sock 87.63.80.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196.

Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597834201 by Pjposullivan (talk)"
  2. 17:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597833787 by Pjposullivan (talk) Other cities also have other langages for example Tetovo in Macedonia."
  3. 17:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597831244 by Pjposullivan (talk)"
  4. 16:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597827288 by 87.63.80.142 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "==ARBMAC Warning==
  2. 18:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. 18:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering.
  4. 18:40, 2 March 2014 3RR Warning by FPaS.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Coordinated edit-warring with sockpuppet 87.63.80.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) across many WP:ARBMAC2 Greek articles. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

See also

Common target articles. Please check article history.

User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Snowded (Result: Voluntary restriction)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]
  5. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16] (Note the latest batch is a continuation of earlier edit warring)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:


Edit warring against three other editors, personal attacks on the talk page. Matt seems to be back to his old ways ----Snowded TALK 19:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no "old ways" here: that's just something Snowded always says about me. This is a big one: policy has to come before 3RR here as the current wording commits a grave error in its misinterpretation of national identity. My clear 'OR'-correcting content has been removed from the article by a small group of people who want to break up the UK. 3RR makes less sense in this area, as it's just used to win arguments and stop change. Snowded has refused to give his opinion on the discussion page. As soon as a made a policy-correcting edit it was attacked, and it just went down hill from there. This was, however, settled last night with my compromising edit. Snowded today reverted it for no good reason other than just saying "talk" (which he personally hasn't done - he won't commit - so how can I?). It was settled, was all fine, and this is utterly needless now. It's entrenched nationalist politics at its worst imo. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see Matt you have been opposed by all other editors engaged, and trying the nationalist slur does not excuse the "I'm right so exempt from 3rr" stance you have taken ----Snowded TALK 20:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If you looked a bit more carefully you'd see that in the end the better editors involved accepted the compromise (decausa, martinevans etc) - You've just needlessly fanned the flames today, and give air to known trolls like 'British Watcher'. If you actually engaged in the discussion you would have spotted all this. For the first time ever, I even sent you an email to point out the mistake you are making. I pretty sure that I've never done that before to anyone. Why did you ignore it Snowded, it's so needless and painful it really is. The current content is so non-policy it has to go. My edit was 100% inoffensive. Whatever happens to me, the article will simply have to be free from incorrect interpretive bias. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
A clear 3RR violation by User:Matt Lewis. He may be able to avoid a block if he will agree not to edit the article or its talk page for seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Fine. But please be aware that at one point this article stated that "74% of people in Wales had no British identity". It was all interpretation of a column heading. Over 74% of us has! It doesn't make us any less Welsh, and like the census people we ragard British as Welsh and vice versa. This article insists the census was mutually exclusive in UK terms, and a test of Britishness. IT wasn't. What I found (a bit buried-away I admit) was beyond unacceptable for me, and I wasn't taken seriously from the very outset unfortunately. Everyone I've spoken to yesterday and today in Real Life Wales finds it utterly absurd (even on St David's day), and one woman said "this is why daughter says don't trust Wikipedia." It's so sad, and it does nothing for the project at all. But I'll ring around and alert and try and get some better sources from the census people (see if they'll 'prove the negative' in some way - they won't want this at all). I assume that is acceptable - they can only say no. I'll take what comes any way. Sorry but I thought this was over last night (in fact I'm certain it was) and today I didn't feel I had any choice but to say I feel policy beats 3RR in this regard. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Reverts continued here Daicaregos (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I've seen the above comment since. It's just the final way of shutting me out Dai. It's pretty transparent imo. But as the person who put the above line into Wikipedia (on "74%") you've personally got what you want in the end, at least for a while. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Voluntary restriction for one week, in lieu of a block for 3RR violation. Matt Lewis will not edit the article or its talk page until 20:48 on 9 March. "I feel policy beats 3RR in this regard" -- check WP:3RRNO and see if you can find anything there which agrees with you. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell reported by User:RolandR (Result: 1 month)[edit]

Page
Template:Largest cities in 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. 14:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "It doesn't say anything about Bursa, just a pile of gecekondu style apartments without architects. The main square shows the Governorate (Valilik) of Bursa and the Atatürk statue in front of it."
  2. 20:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "This picture shows the main square of Bursa, with the Governorate Building and the statue of Atatürk in front of it, and the hills of Mt. Uludağ in the background. (The Admin didn't revert it, YOU reverted it.) By the way, you are obviously an Islamist."
  3. 21:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "POV = Atatürk?"
  4. 21:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "The picture that you added shows slums, and is obviously stolen from an internet website, with very low pixel resolution and quality."
  5. 21:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "There is also a lot of air pollution when the picture was taken. Looks like a dirty, ugly, backward city."
  6. 21:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "Are your parents also cousins?"
  7. 23:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC) "Vre málaga..."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Maybe... 18 August 2013, conflict with IP around the same Bursa picture.
  2. back at square one... 14 February 2014, conflict with Lord of Rivendell around the same Bursa picture of the present conflict. No reply at all.
The Banner talk 01:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments:

Warned several times, though not by me: [18] [19] [20] [21] RolandR (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Template was protected at 14 Februari due to edit warring ([22] over pictures. A few hours after lifting of the protection Lord of Rivendell started the edit war all over again. The Banner talk 01:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocking him a third time for edit warring would be pointless. Continuous reverts may be annoying but more worrying is that he resorts to trolling other users (not me in this case) when he loses an argument and is unwilling to let go of his battleground mentality that caused the previous blocks.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
He's been blocked several times for editwarring in articles related to Turkey before. Simonm223 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – One month by User:Canterbury Tail for continuous edit warring and 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:1.10.217.3 and User_talk:1.10.193.26 reported by User:B20180[edit]

Page: Tetsuya Yamato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1.10.217.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  1. [23]
  2. [24]

warning: [25]

Page: Tetsuya Yamato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1.10.193.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  1. [26]
  2. [27]

warning: [28]

Comments:
The IP user also appears to have edited under at least one other IP address. --B20180 (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. B20180, you are going about this all wrong on a number of fronts. First and foremost, you are just as guilty of edit warring as the other editor. Second, what he's doing is not vandalism, and your report at WP:AIV was properly rejected. Third, taking this issue to the talk pages of multiple arbitrators demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. It doesn't help that your English is poor as others have some trouble understanding what you're trying to say. This is a content dispute. Resolution of it belongs on the article talk page where you discuss the content and not the conduct of the editors (your vandalism label on the talk pagge is not a good way to approach this). If you can't resolve the dispute, then you'll have to use other forms of dispute resolution. The one thing you cannot do is edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. I think I should use that talk page later in other way. (I still busy in this time) And thank you again. --B20180 (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Bbb23:, thanks for explaining things to him. To be fair, someone who thought they'd play a joke on him told him to come here from my talk page. B20180, Bb23's advice is good, and is similar to what I just said on my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw that, Floq, when I was evaluating the report. I thought the "joke" was unkind.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Sportfan5000 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Take your fight to another forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Denis MacShane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (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]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33], which was met with: "dishonest and disruptive trolling"

Comments:

This user is very well aware of 3rr rules, and despite a polite note that they were removing sourced content while claiming it was unsourced, went back and repeated the same while attacking me. I've seen them in action before and can't say any of this surprises me, but no one should be attacked for pointing out errors when they are made, as long as they are done so civilly.

Each post I have left on this users' page has been met with equal hostility and attacks so I ask for other eyes on this, and to post notice. The last time i posted about his edit-warring [34], he also just removed the notice stating, in part, " are hypocrites unwelcome here -- as they should be on all of Wikipedia". The edit in question was reverted by another editor indicating that the onus was, in fact, on this user to defend the addition which they never did.

The content in question clearly has sources sited, this is one of several articles they are doing this on. This also seems to be a regular pattern of theirs.Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The content at issue appears to be

It has been reported that he is currently in a relationship with the economist [[Vicky Pryce].

Which appears at first glance to be a tidbit of gossip and not a statement of fact. There is a legitimate question as to whether gossip belongs in biographies of living persons, and I suggest the fact that an IP has re-added the material might be of interest here. One source is a single aside in a Telegraph article, and the other is a Daily Mail article which uses the term "boyfriend" and not the stronger "in a relationship" which shows the DM is more careful than the Telegraph at times. I suggest, moreover, that "gossip" in a BLP ought not be a protected addition. Collect (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. There's been no violation of WP:3RR. The material is poorly sourced and not even correct, using the word "currently" (a dreadful word) when the source is from 2012.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it, my concern remains the dishonesty in insisting it was unsourced when clearly it was. Also of note for future reference i do enjoy Collect acting on this editor's behalf while accusing an IP of being suspicious editor out of hand. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
You might like WP:AGF and note that I have edited well over a thousand separate BLPs of all types and descriptions. Accusing me of "dishonesty" is not exactly compatible with that guideline. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring material lost due to edit conflict and noted by Sprtfan5000:

Sportfan is not telling the truth. This is a frivolous if not outright dishonest report, part of a minor campaign of wikihounding and harassment.

The content at issue appears to be

  1. I did not remove the content as "unsourced." The content in question claimed a current romantic relationship involving McShane and another public figure, Vicki Pryce. The references for the supposedly current relationship were not current, but sixteen months old. In terms of gossip about the private lives of public figures, this is not at all current. (My rule of thumb has been twelve months, but I've seen other editors enforce shorter cutoffs.) I also checked some more recent news reports about the individuals involved (eg, [35], [36]) and saw the supposed "relationship" was no longer mentioned. I therefore removed the content from the article, with the edit summary "no current source", a summary I have used hundreds of times for similar edits without generating any significant confusion or controversy (see [37])
It has been reported that he is currently in a relationship with the economist [[Vicky Pryce].
  1. Sportfan, as part of the spurt of his own reverts this morning, added BLP violations and other unsourced content back to articles on living persons. For example, on the Joanna Thomas page they added back a claim that the subject was bisexual, based only on banners on the subject's glamour/nude modeling site mentioning "Girlfriends". On the Kevin Papics page, they added back a claim of a "current" romantic relationship, naming a private/nonnotable person, no more recent than 2011, declaring it to be properly sourced -- even though it was evident they had never checked the source, now a dead link but available on archive.org, which does not in any way support the content in dispute [38]. Some of us really try to do proper research when editing BLPs. There is no sign that Sportsfan even attempts to meet this standard.


  1. As further evidence of Sportsfan's bringing this complaint in bad faith, note that Sportsfan failed to place the mandatory notification on my talk page.
This is basically spillover from other editing disputes I've had with Sportsfan, apparently mostly related to the intractable gender politics disputes here. It's really nothing more than an attempt to harass me by bringing a frivolous, probably malicious, complaint on unrelated matters. Sportsfan clearly misrepresented the matter in dispute. Sportsfan clearly reverted edits I made, restoring BLP-noncompliant and BLP-breaching content to articles. Even Sportsfan's comments here are laced with derogatory personalized comments and insinuations, unsupported by anything more than than their own inaccurate conclusory statements. There's no actual evidence.
Therefore, given Sportsfan's deliberatively disruptive behavior, their deliberate refusal to comply with WP:BLP, and their demonstrated willingness to wikihound an editor over content dispute disagreements, I request that they be given a significant block, with notice of even more substantial sanctions if this sort of conduct is repeated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Now that this material has been readied I will respond to these false accusations. I see HW as being disruptive, and needlessly so, Collect also seems quite able in that field and both have continued to operate as if their judgement is infallible. As the edits show I added no BLP violations, the claims were source to the subject's own websites, where they promote their bisexuality. In the other edits i disputed HW's false edit summaries that not sourcing was present when clearly there was. When i left a rather neutral note on their talk page they attacked me, and went about reverting everything while casting more personal attacks. This is a similar pattern Collect has shown. I'm fine with this case being declined and I hope both these editors will act better towards other editors from here on out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Um ... what the heck are you referring to? The edits in question are with regard to the Daily Mail and Telegraph gossiping about a girlfriend --- absolutely no "bisexuality" in the material at hand -- I fear you are quite asea. As for your apparent belief than anyone gives a damn about your attacks on me here -- that is not the purpose of this noticeboard, and you may well find an admin reprimanding you for misusing this noticeboard in that manner. Collect (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid my limit for your antics is pretty much been used up. You have attacked me on various boards and talk pages, fabricated events, and assumed bad faith time after time. The bisexuality issue was brought up by HW, so if you want to dispute that, accuse them of being "asea," yet another, unfounded attack BTW. Can you see your pattern yet? You misread what is right in front of you, assume the worst about me, and make false accusations, and repeat them as if that will somehow make them true. As usual we'll have to get more editors involved in these issues as diplomacy and civility are not accepted as brute force hostility and stirring up controversy where none is needed. I hope for a time when collaborating with you is a positive experience. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Markdrows reported by User:Summichum (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Summichum (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. [diff]
  2. [diff]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

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

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Jeepday.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Farhoudk reported by User:Viewfinder (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [40]
  2. [41]
  3. [42]
  4. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45] and several subsequent edits

Comments:
Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.

I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)

User:Niemti reported by User:50.83.87.8 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Interplay Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niemti (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. [diff]04:51, 2 March 2014
  2. [diff]05:03, 2 March 2014
  3. [diff]05:06, 2 March 2014
  4. [diff]05:12, 2 March 2014‎
  5. [diff]11:41, 2 March 2014
  6. [diff]14:27, 2 March 2014‎ (continued behavior even after being warned of 3RR)
  7. [diff] 15:20, 2 March 2014 (continued behavior even after being warned of 3RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning posted on Users Talk page and he has also been warned in the Interplay Productions change log area.


Comments: User continues to use blanket reverts without even attempting to correct spelling errors, and continues to unorganize a game list and delete info, please look into this. Also instead of at least posting a comment as to why he thinks an undo is appropriate he puts things such as

(cur | prev) 14:08, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (besides the obvious lack of spelling Ex "which failed to return the large ammount of money invested in it.", the deleting the location, deleting public company info, unorganizing the games list, this is your official warning of the "3 Revert rule".) (undo)

(cur | prev) 11:41, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:15, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (again, you "revision" does little to add to the page. Perhaps you should visit ALL of your other entries to see what else you have vandalized.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:12, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (Wikpedia:Vandalism; Troll Hard 2: Troll Harder) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:08, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (again, how is disorganizing the products area useful to this article other than vandalism?) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:06, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (you're not trolling hard enough) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:05, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (I do not see how your organizing of the products area helps the article. Until you can explain how it helps it I will continue to delete your vandalism.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:03, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (troll harder) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:01, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:51, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (learn the guidelines of Wikipedia) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:48, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:34, 27 February 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (undo)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – Fully protected 48 hours. Both of you guys know how to discuss. It appears that neither of you knows how to wait for consensus before reverting. It is better for me to protect the article than to block both of you for 3RR violation. User:Niemti, try to cut down on the personal attacks in the edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:69.120.212.166 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Lupita Nyong'o (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.120.212.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Nyong'o has been subject of several recent changes, as a mixture of vandalism and GF edits, I assume this is the link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. restoring to original content
  2. diff
  3. i guess lupitas interview of her talking mexico makes you upset because it doesn't support your claim of her being a proud mexican.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I don't, but there's an open ANI case (Wikipedia:ANI#Lupita_nyong.27o), which was open by 68.194.18.81 (talk · contribs). Both 68.194.18.81 (talk · contribs) and 69.120.212.166 (talk · contribs) are geolocated in the same city (Bronx, New York), so although 69.120 hasn't broken the 3RR rule itself, the user has been edit-warring from before. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And now the IP has broken the 3RR rule despite the warns to stop [46][47]. This IP editor is here just to have a war. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
And the IP continues [48][49], is it needed more evidence? © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg BlockedUser:69.120.212.166 is blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BetterThanSuchAsYou reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Template:Culture of Canada sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BetterThanSuchAsYou (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. [50] - (no edit summary)
  2. [51] - (Canada finds unique cultural expressions in its pornography no less than it does in it humour, its cuisine, or its cinema)
  3. [52] - (template to reflect actual article content)
  4. [53] - (he adding of one item to a list is a minor edit)
The editor is involved in a few edits wars at once 2014 Crimean crisis - Culture of Canada - Template:Muhammad Ali.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The editor has gone to the talk page as seen at Template talk:Culture of Canada - however 4 editors have expressed concerns in edit summaries with BetterThanSuchAsYou still reverting all of them (including me). Clearly no consensus to add the link thus far.-- Moxy (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Not sure the editor is here to actually help the project - as per the edit that added to the Culture of Canada hes a Legendary Canadian bisexual porn cock "woodsman". we had this same problem a few years ago on the same template..bit odd -- Moxy (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

BetterThanSuchAsYou also unilaterally renamed Crimean War to First Crimean War; renamed 2014 Crimean crisis to Second Crimean War; and edited 2014 Crimean crisis to identify Viktor Yushchenko as the "incumbent" Ukrainian president and his successor as "acting President in-pretence". Upcoming events might (or might not) end up vindicating these changes, but at the moment they are premature, and in any event they should have been discussed first. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:mufaddalqn (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff] 06:37, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,630 bytes) (-2,891)‎ . . (unexplained removal Undid revision 597920445 by OccultZone
  2. [diff] 06:00, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,629 bytes) (-230)‎ . . (Most of the links are authoritative news sources , hence removing "biased" banner) (undo | thank
  3. [diff] 05:58, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,859 bytes) (-147)‎ . . (Most sources are valid news sources and are authoritative , STOP trying to encourage edit wars)
  4. [diff] 05:21, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,222 bytes) (-2,299)‎ . . (partisan sources removed, the references are from personal blogs of one of the claimants, we need independent third party validation) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Summichum

    • Both Muffadalqn and Occultzone have removed content without gaining consensus. The links are third party non partisan. I had warned Occultzone first but he even removed his notification from his talk page , so did I. I had also gave an edit warring notice to Muffadalqn but he persisted in adding unsourced or slanderous information. Summichum (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On the contrary it is summichum who is adding slanderous information. I had in no way added any slander. you can verify in the history.infact I had added information pertaining to subject sourcing reliable source such as 'Times of India' . In fact it is summichum who is citing web based petition and forums as source. Mufaddalqn 08:17, 3 March 2014

Muffadalqn is taking one side removing well sourced content regarding Mufaddal who is characterized by the succession dispute. Summichum (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I am removing only content that is libelous to the person whose biography this article is. Mufaddalqn 08:21, 3 March 2014‎
  • summichum removed the tag and other blp issues without discussion. contantly reverting edit done by anyone else, without discussion.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Mr.Sumchum, please restrain from doing unnecessary edit, removing well reported facts and encouraging edit war. We all know that you have joined Wiki to favour your POV. We know that there is succession dispute and Wiki is not a platform for publishing your POV. NPOV will prevail. Your constructive inputs and well reported facts are welcome. If you act as an agent for someone, Wiki will never allow you and have means to control you.--Md iet (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Comments:
User:Summichum is clearly using this article as propaganda against Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it might be unintentional but accusatory statements like "We all know that you have joined Wiki to favour your POV" is a troutworthy assumption of bad faith. If it was meant like a NPOV warning I'd suggest using templates to help make it more clear. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hell in a Bucket:, just count how many reverts User:Summichum has made in last 24 hours. I had warned him, but all he did was copy-paste that warning on my talk page. OccultZone (Talk) 08:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Cmoibenlepro reported by User:Psubrat2000 (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: 2014 Crimean crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cmoibenlepro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Crimean_crisis&oldid=598001444

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [58]
  5. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments:

The people making these comments are not some random people on the internet. They are important European and US politicians. And Gary Kasparov. It is important in the context of how the world and the Ukrainians are seeing the situation develop.Psubrat2000 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC) -->

  • Comment. Both these editors broke 3RR on the article in the space of little more than an hour. Before today, the OP had roughly 15-20 edits/year, and hadn't edited in about 18 months; the target had only four prior edits. Both, however, show enough familiarity with Wikipedia processes to make one wonder if either or both are just bad-hand accounts used in a POV-pushing dispute. No other editors, as of right now, appear to have supported either set of edits. It therefore appears appropriate to block both and give other contributors a better opportunity to work on the pertinent issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I often edit from IP, without logging. Good-hand, bad hand, eeither one.Psubrat2000 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User keeps adding comparisons with Nazi Germany in the article lead.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:81.100.136.89 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Wantage Hall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
81.100.136.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC) "No, "All that Student life stuff" is fact. The skeleton article you keep turning the page into is unsatisfactory for anyone wanting information about Wantage Hall. Indeed editing is needed, but not to the entire article."
  2. 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) "Indeed waffle in part, but as a resident the traditions can be be confirmed. You cannot reference student tradition. This article is being made unessasarily short. Must be someone from St Pats."
  3. 22:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) "This page should not be a stub"
  4. 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Wantage Hall. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

First edit in sequence was a revert to this edit, with a few tweaks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over the history of Wantage Hall. Much is unfortunately un-referenceable as traditions and other day to day life aspects are not widely reported. It would be a worthy compromise to keep the page as a purely historical reference, so will not re-edit without references I find from the University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.136.89 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e, User:LimosaCorel and User:131.123.177.19 reported by User:DavidLeighEllis (Result: )[edit]

Page: Lent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log),
LimosaCorel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
131.123.177.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Too many diffs to list; massive edit war shown in page history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62] [63]


Comments:

2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e has added a sentence to the article that is not supported by the source he added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lent&diff=598056601&oldid=598056566 He claims that "In the 20th century, certain Lenten customs, practices and traditions derived from Roman Catholic tradition prior to the Reformation also became part of mainline Protestants, evangelicals and Anabaptist traditions as well." This sentence is to be found nowhere in the source. I added a source that demonstrated that Lutherans and Anglicans mantained the tradition and he removed it. Unfortunately, the article remains in the incorrect version after protection from Drmies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:LimosaCorel has also been a part of this edit war, as evidenced by these reverts. Warned here. Novusuna talk 04:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You know why? It's because they're the same user - that's why they revert to the same version as one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 4:24, 4 March 2014‎

  • This dynamic duo, guised as a trio, has effected massive disruption by their misconduct. It has engendered reports at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Massive edit war and possible socking and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LimosaCorel, as well as here. IP 131.123.177.19, you are not blameless in this matter; for I believe you were well aware that your conduct was unacceptae – making you a willing participant in an editing activity that playfully mocked this encyclopedia; and the community of serious editors who invest thir time to build it. I am anxious to hear your account; for you did nothing but disregard my admonition on your talk page; to stop your part in the edit war.—John Cline (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Had no intention of mocking you or this encyclopedia. I thought your message on my wall was a result of 2606:6000:80C1:6900:84B:49D8:1AD1:157E/User:LimosaCorel's threats so I did not take it to heart --your message said that I was vandalizing when I was clearly not. The dispute is about the aforementioned man pushing the ultra-conservative agenda of the banned SSPX on this encyclopedia. I was trying to introduce neutral edits here, as noted by your friend, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lent&diff=598057666&oldid=598056601 and on the discussion page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lent#What.27s_wrong_with_this_material.2C_eh.3F Unfortunately, Lent starts in a day and that article still contains his biased viewpoints. The duo reverted, even after the article was locked. If you must take action against me, then so be it, but if the aforementioned man continues to edit, the integrity of this encyclopedia will be compromised. This duo has introduced other biased edits to this encylopedia, such as this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&diff=598042159&oldid=598012970 and has told those who disagree with him to "Fuck off my Pagan you bareback mancunt pig slut", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LimosaCorel#NEVER_write_anything_like_.22Fuck_off_my_Pagan_you_bareback_mancunt_pig_slut..22_on_any_page_again If these things don't raise any red flags, then I don't know what will. Be well.

  • Ahem, if there is to any help, Lutherans have NOT historically observed Lent. That was one of the things that was removed after the reformation. Hafspajen (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:76.31.187.169 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Texas Longhorns football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.31.187.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [65]
  2. [66]
  3. [67]
  4. [68]
  5. [69]
  6. [70]
  7. [71]
  8. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

ElKevbo (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakrtalk / 08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:74.73.35.53 reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Alonzo Holt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
74.73.35.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 05:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 05:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 05:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on Alonzo Holt. (TW)"
  2. 05:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Alonzo Holt. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Repeatedly adding hoax content to a BLP and has now violated WP:3rr. Not to mention it is User:Biodude73 evading their block. Pretty open and shut case. STATic message me! 05:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week --slakrtalk / 08:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Carriearchdale (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Brendon Villegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendon_Villegas
User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=595527775&oldid=595527701

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598114840
  2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598117800
  3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598106283
  4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598101393

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#edit_warring_3

[link]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brendon_Villegas Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carriearchdale&curid=41581894&diff=598121200&oldid=598063560

Comments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&curid=6398673&diff=598120707&oldid=598120343


Also after following the protocol of warning the user about edit warring, the link is above, said user that was warned on his talk page reverted the warning itself and made a person attack by saying the editor or edit was "bizarre"

then same user that is being reported here for edit warring went to my own talk page and put a "FINAL WARNING" for vandalism when first of all there was no vandalism and secondly you can't give a final warning for some perceived offense if there have been no previous warnings at all. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carriear