Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive239

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

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

Page
State-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MaxFerby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Previous version
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599063331 by Darkness Shines (talk) as no reasonable arguments for merging Soviet Union and Russia follow"
  2. 23:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599051873 by Darkness Shines (talk) for ignoring talk page discussion arguments"
  3. 22:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599047799 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
  4. 22:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on State-sponsored terrorism. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Russia and Soviet Union */ Re"
Comments:

The guy has been at this since the 6th of this month. Can an admin explain WP:CONSENSUS to him please? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The [1] shows that Darkness Shines failed to explain his position, thus ruining consensus. From my side, I did 3rd revert after having no response, and didn't break three-revert rule. I consider Darkness Shines attitude offensive. -Edited- MaxFerby (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that Darkness Shines seems to be engaging in a bizarre form of historical revisionism - ascribing 'state terrorism' to a state that didn't exist at the time - I think that MaxFerby may have a valid point here. No comment on which, if any, contributor was edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
DS is arguing, it seems to me, that "Russia" is a kind of historical umbrella, rightly or wrongly, for the purpose of article organization: come on Andy--that's not historical revisionism. MaxFerby, that DS "failed to explain" doesn't mean much. Now, I don't see how one side could argue that they're innocent and the other is guilty. I really don't want to block either one, or protect the article--I'll leave that decision to the smart folks who run this joint. But that this has to stop is clear. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:No1lovesu reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: 2014 Kunming attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: No1lovesu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

It appears that the user is motivated by trying to make a point - that Xinjiang separatists are not necessarily Uighurs. However, considering the actions of Kunming police rounding up Uighurs and the widespread coverage stating Uighur separatists were the suspects it seems somewhat disingenuous. When I warned him shortly before going to bed and came back the next evening to find him saying "since you haven't answered me yet it must mean I'm good to continue doing what I will" I decided it was time to take this here. Simonm223 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I simply posted a point (definitely not mine) WHICH is directly from the original source and original text; I'm not even sharing any of my own point of view. As we can see, the Chinese government never say such thing like it was Uighur Muslim who committed the crime in Kunming. They used the terms "Xinjiang Separatist terrorists", so we have to post exactly the same term "Xinjiang Separatist terrorists" in that page. This is NEVER a matter of if the Chinese government is being "disingenuous" or not (according to their the actual action), since this is not the editors to judge, but the readers. Besides, I have been waiting for 24+1 hours for a respond and I thought that means an "okay" for me to keep doing what I was doing (I should have read the rule from WP:TIND anyway). No1lovesu (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You were repeatedly reverting to restore edits that you thought should be in the article and that basically all the other editors disagreed with. And as for the 24 hours + 1 thing - the edit warring warning I put on your talk page explicitly mentioned that situation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it is you sir who thought all the other editors agree with you; maybe it is you who were repeatedly deleting my reasonable, fair edits; maybe it is you who are overreacted. (I read that, there is a "may")No1lovesu (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The edit history shows that my edits have been in-line with the general consensus of other editors on page - they have not reverted my edits, nor have I been in dispute with other editors. However three different editors reverted your edits. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jsjsjs1111 considered my first edit was WP:OR, which I have already explained and fixed the language; the second edit was reverted by you. I thought my second edit was not 'neutral' enough so I made a third edit, which is once again reverted by another user User:Ohconfucius who simply undid all my edit (including that part doesn't relevant with this topic)without saying a word at that time. I'm not sure if that actually means 'basically all the other editors'.No1lovesu (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese government never mentioned the terms [Muslim] and [Uighur], yet some medias and some people say that they did since they consider "Xinjiang separatists = Uighur separatists", which is clearly a [fact]; the Chinese Foreign Ministry denies such wording and states that this is not okay to link the terrorists together with any particular ethnic, which is also a [fact]. I have no idea why posting fact in the related article would even be a problem. No1lovesu (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. No1lovesu is warned not to edit-war in the article, particularly against the edits of multiple other editors. Instead, they should not only discuss their changes on the article talk page, which they did, but not change the article without a WP:CONSENSUS in support of their change. It looks like most recently in their last edit to the talk page, they have understood why their edits were unacceptable to other users. Simonm223, next time you file a report here, please do it differently. A revert is made up of one edit or multiple consecutive edits. If it's multiple consecutive edits, you have to list something that shows the effect of the series. Also, the diffs you displayed above were not in a 24-hour window. That doesn't mean that the user wasn't edit-warring, but it does mean there was no violation of WP:3RR. You should make that clear. Finally, a brand new addition of material that was never before in the article is not a revert. I believe the first diff you listed is in that category and therefore doesn't count as a revert. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:218.86.59.82 reported by User:Leondz (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Artificial intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 218.86.59.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
  5. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:
This one user keeps inserting unwanted material in the article, and being reverted by other editors (including me). It looks like a plug, or similar. In any event, the material / links being inserted aren't relevant at this high level, and sometimes don't even have text. Experts in the field, experienced editors, and the article's major contributor have all reverted this non-signed-in user, and tried to contact them, but to no avail. Leondz (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. This is a very slow edit war if you even want to call it that. The last edits by the IP have been on March 11, March 9, and March 6. Before that you have to into February.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Bsuorangecrush reported by User:Mosmof (Result: Declined )[edit]

Page
2013–14 Iona Gaels men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bsuorangecrush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599237864 by X96lee15 (talk)it says await next opponent and they have an autobid. How much more proof do you need?"
  2. 04:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599221941 by X96lee15 (talk)final paragraph from their own website"
  3. 01:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599220558 by X96lee15 (talk)nope, they are in. Guaranteed."
  4. 00:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599207117 by Mosmof (talk)I'm not being a crystal ball, I'm using basic logic, they are in"
  5. 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599146765 by Mosmof (talk)They will be in the NIT. PERIOD!! will not get a NCAA bid out of the MAAC and have an autobid to the NIT, how much more crystal can you be?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2013–14 Iona Gaels men's basketball team. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

User is entering future, unverified (albeit presumed) tournament berths on college basketball articles, and ignoring what appears to be consensus on project talk page. See similar edits on 2013–14 Davidson Wildcats men's basketball team. Mosmof (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

the last 2 was with a source from Iona's own website proving me right and I wrong wrongly reverted. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
honestly, at this point, fine, just wait. I'm right but we can wait until Sunday. But when a source from the schools own website says they are in the tournament then that no longer seems just presumed. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined In an edit conflict, I blocked before seeing the the response here. I've unblocked, satisfied that this has ceased, but any continuation in this incident for 2014 basketball tournament invitations should result in a block > 24 hours.—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Doris Day[edit]

Just curious -- it appears an IP editor is trying to goad me into 3RR on a semi-protected article, which requires IP edits to be approved, and is at this moment still a pending revision. Is this a 3RR case given the obvious vandalism of the edit in question?? Thanks, Quis separabit? 22:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Another editor just rejected the IP edit; however if you could give a general answer about how to handle this kind of case, i.e. involving semi-protected articles and unhelpful IP or vandal editing/mischief. Thanks, Quis separabit? 23:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is another example? What I want to know is, if a page is protected, is it a violation of 3RR to reject a proposed violation any number of times, as opposed to undoing it. Is there any difference or are both covered under 3RR? Quis separabit? 01:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This doesn't belong here. If you have a question about the policy, it belongs on the policy talk page. In any event, you are exempt from edit warring if you revert vandalism, but the vandalism has to be blatant and obvious, not just something that isn't reliably sourced or otherwise problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BrettRickles reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Right-wing populism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
BrettRickles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:55, 9 March 2014 (The 2 polls are the most recent for 2014, until future polls state otherwise the "most popular party" tag to UKIP remains.)
  2. 07:21, 10 March 2014 (Undid revision 598946540 by GimliDotNet (talk) Like I said before, until other polls state otherwise the tag ought to remain.)
  3. 20:36, 10 March 2014 (Until future polls are released the "most favorable party" tag sticks with UKIP as it is correct as of date.)
  4. 22:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599038051 by GimliDotNet (talk)"
  5. 20:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Until future polls are released the "most favorable party" tag sticks with UKIP as it is correct as of date."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Please consider whole history of user edits, this user was warned on Monday and then left it just over 24 hours to revert. Has attempted to push pov into this article and UKIP GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 06:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Also compare [17] and [18]. user is attempting to push POV into UKIP related articles. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 08:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one day Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Citizen150 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page
Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Citizen150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599163064 by Gaba p Reverted to appropriately cited material and deleted content in violation of wikipedia's terms of use. Please refrain from future reverts to avoid being banned."
  2. 17:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599160262 by Gaba p (talk)"
  3. 16:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 16:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  5. 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ted Nugent."
  2. User_talk:Citizen150
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Talk:Ted_Nugent#Obama_Comments_RFC
  2. Talk:Ted_Nugent#Ted_Nugent_2
Comments:
Endorse, was just about to open a section about this editor. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Endorse. Yet another revert despite discussion on article talk page and user talk page. --NeilN talk to me 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Add the use of misleading summaries, note that sourced content was removed (which the editor had attempted to remove earlier) but the summary hides this fact. Regards. Gaba (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakrtalk / 12:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Rararawr21 reported by User:Krimuk90 (Result: warned)[edit]

Page
Academy Award for Best Actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rararawr21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598932437 by Krimuk90 (talk) It is very difficult to read and horrible to look at. If you really have an issue with it, fix all acting Oscar pages so that there's consistency"
  2. 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599149519 by Krimuk90 (talk) These articles are not bad. You're "fixed" article is hard to look at."
  3. 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599150321 by Krimuk90 (talk) If it's not your article, then why do you care? I am not changing the info, just the format."
  4. 16:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599150668 by Krimuk90 (talk) I am not vandalizing the page, I am just trying to get it to match the other pages. Only a minor edit."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Academy Award for Best Actor. (TW)"
  2. 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Academy Award for Best Actor. (TW)"
  3. 16:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Academy Award for Best Actor. (TW)"
  4. 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Academy Award for Best Actor. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Asked to start talk page discussion in edit summary here, and talk page messages.

Comments:

Despite several warnings and talk page messages, the user has flouted WP:3RR with snarky edit summaries. KRIMUK90  16:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I was only making superficial edits to match the other Academy Award acting pages but I was consistently overriden and accused of vandalism for no reason. I did not change any information on the page, just the format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talkcontribs) 16:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize though. I was not aware that I was edit warring as I am relatively new to editing on wikipedia. Frankly, I think the previous version of the page is difficult to read. I edited it to not only make it easier but to match the other pages for Acting Oscars. But then I was told I was vandalizing the page although I did not edit any of the information. -Rararawr21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talkcontribs) 16:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So revert to the original version, and build consensus first. As I said earlier, I will revert my edit if other editors agree with you. Until then, stop edit warring and revert back. Please. -- KRIMUK90  16:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You still have given me no way to do that. Instead, you decided to override every single one of my edits (that again, did not change the information at all), instead of giving me constructive advice as to how to edit the article properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talkcontribs) 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Emm, what? I said start a talk page discussion and repeatedly told you to stop edit warring. That is constructive advice. -- KRIMUK90  16:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

But I'm new to editing on wikipedia so I had no idea where the talk page even was. And no... it was not constructive. But don't worry, I figured out where it was and posted it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talkcontribs) 16:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, it's funny you didn't cite being new here when you posted all those snide remarks in your edit summaries. And also, please revert back to the old version so that consensus can be reached. Thank you. -- KRIMUK90  16:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

My edit was reversed and I will not edit the page again so I don't know if this case against me is still ongoing or what hooks happen with it. I have brought the issue to the talk page. I do think however that the person who reported me was overly harsh and was a "biter". But I have leaned to instead go o the talk page with large scale edits And how to try to reach consensus. I will follow this routine from now on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talkcontribs) 17:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Rararawr21 should consider himself warned of the three revert rule and edit warring, in general. However, given the evolving consensus on the talk page, it does appear that Rararawr21 is discussing those changes instead of revert warring (for now), so I don't currently see a reason to block. Feel free to re-report if problems arise again. Krimuk90: In the future, please consider using {{uw-3rr}} instead when edit warring is involved. The blanking and vandalism templates aren't intended for use in situations where someone is making good-faith edits. --slakrtalk / 12:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:217.150.110.194 reported by User:Wtwilson3 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
2000–09 in fashion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
217.150.110.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 13:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 11:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 11:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  5. 11:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2000–09 in fashion. (TW)"
  2. 13:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on 2000–09 in fashion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

No response to warnings. Reverted again after 3RR warning. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I blocked the IP and User:Jamesbutch whom I suspect is the same person. Both edit the same articles and play with the date ranges in the headers. In this instance, Jamesbutch's edit agreed 100% with the IP's edits. In other articles, they play around in tandem, almost like they're refining the ranges in separate edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Slow Edit War reported by User:Zellfaze (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Alive (Jessie J album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:


Previous version reverted to: Old revision of Alive (Jessie J album)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23]
  6. [24]
  7. [25]
  8. [26]
  9. [27] Though after this edit it gets changed to something else completely by the same user
  10. [28]
  11. [29]
  12. [30]
  13. [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:
Hopefully I filled this out correctly and filed this in the right noticeboard. There appears to be a slow moving edit war involving a lot of editors over which songs on this album had singles released. As far as I can tell it is only "Wild", "Its My Party" and "Thunder" but I have tried to not get involved in the dispute except to try at one point to mediate it a bit. Most of the edits are coming from IP users, though there is one registered user involved as well. I don't know that anyone meant any malice or anything like that. If I had to make a guess none of them read the talk pages or edit history and don't realize that others have been editing the same section of the article. I'm not really sure what to do about this situation, so that is why I am bringing it here. I'll be sending messages to everyone's talk page after I save this page. Zell Faze (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

All users mentioned have been notified. Zell Faze (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. There is no administrative noticeboard for which this kind of problem is appropriate. The "war" is far too desultory. There simply isn't enough activity. Similarly, if you took it to WP:RFPP, even assuming that you could convince an admin that the IPs are wrong (vandalism, obviously unsourced), it would probably be rejected because of insufficient activity. Bottom line, there isn't enough disruption in the article to warrant intervention. So, the best way to proceed is what you've done, which is to start a discussion on the talk page and hope that editors contribute. If no one is really interested and you don't really want to get involved, it probably will go nowhere, but someone has to propel it for it to be resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Thank you for your help. I'll know how to proceed in the future. I thought I'd bring it up in the spirit of WP:NOW. Maybe I'll add an HTML comment in the infobox if no one sees the talk page. Zell Faze (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Corn Cheese reported by User:Jgstokes (Result: blocked 24 h)[edit]

This user has repeatedly inserted links to a blog that are counter to Wikipedia policy on the article Resurrection. He has been repeatedly asked to take his issues to the talk page, and instead of doing so, he reinserts the links. He will not listen to reason. It is my opinion that this user is only interested in pushing his own agenda and not in compromise of any kind. It is also my opinion that his attitude is detrimental to the future of this article. I have not been the only one to revert him. However, I have reverted him at least three times and am posting here to prevent an edit war. If this could be taken care of ASAP, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Next time, please use the template at the top of this page - it really does make things easier for the person reviewing. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Corn Cheese's only fault was to wikify the citations, he/she did not add them to the article, neither were they deleted by Jgstokes. Much ado for nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman reported by User:OAlexander (Result: No action)[edit]

GiantSnowman (administrator) is blocking any meaningful expansion of the article Seth Burkett. I have applied "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources." as per WP:PRIMARY. The application of the source by me in the article is in no way suitable to exaggerate the work of the article subject, and therefore acceptable. The user has also failed to attempt to level with me in any way, but rather reverts without ado. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, matter has already been raised at WP:AN, see diff. GiantSnowman 14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatever Forumshopping and Boomerang means: I request no administrative trickery will be applied against me. I see myself as content provider, not a specialist of, at least to me, esoteric rules. My complaint I maintain. In which place it will be resolved matters not to me. Just, in this way, to contribute with such annoyance for improving trifling articles, that is not definitely not worth my while. I have stopped contributing before. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User: Ravensfire reported by User:Csp0316 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


User reverted edits of long-standing material and remove an entire section, and when I tried to preserve the material he warned me for 3RR. User had some issue with section and major changes have been made since.

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:


Comment: see section above and note that (a) Csp0316 has been reverted by multiple editors, (b) that Csp0316 has been warned regarding WP:3RR, and (c) Csp0316 has had multiple editors explain what the problems with the disputed section are on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Response - I've obviously not breached the 3RR limit. CSP0316 is trying to force an unsourced list that multiple editors objected to for various reasons. I have tried on the talk page and the user's talk page to point out the problems and how to handle it (ie, use the article talk page). CSP0316 has ignored all advice and warnings about 3RR. WP:IDHT is strong with this one. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – Two reverts don't break 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Csp0316 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Csp0316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "consensus supports current version, see talk"
  2. 06:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599543771 by AndyTheGrump (talk) see talk"
  3. 06:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599545992 by Gamaliel (talk) JFK section deleted. take discussion to talk, and focus on single issue"
  4. 14:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599578319 by Dbrodbeck (talk) edited those items, see talk"
  5. 14:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599586413 by Ravensfire (talk) removed items that weren't implemented or are controversial, see talk"
  6. 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599588258 by Ravensfire (talk) see talk, and pls allow time for changes"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit-warring on Conspiracy theory */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Verifiability of conspiracy theories */"
Comments:

Agree to stop pushing for inclusion of proven conspiracy list, which was subject of all the warring.Csp0316 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Csp0316 is warned. If they make any further edits to the article which don't have consensus on the talk page they may be blocked. I take note that they have agreed not to push for inclusion of the list of proven conspiracies. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping us find a possible path around the problem. Hopefully this won't come back. Ravensfire (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Ravensfire: I am keeping an eye on this, however feel free to ping me if problems persist. → Call me Hahc21 19:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Will do - thanks. I think they mean well, but are fairly new and don't get Wikipedia yet. I'm hoping they'll learn. Ravensfire (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I read this report and was willing to block if they persisted but I preferred to be a bit more cautious and wait too see if they changed their mind. Glad they did. → Call me Hahc21 19:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Milneg reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [34]
  2. [35]
  3. [36]
  4. [37]
  5. [38] Another revert - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Wallis Simpson#Edit warring; Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wallis Simpson; User talk:86.154.204.73 and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 82#Wallis Simpson

Comments:
The IPs 81... and 86... are the same editor as Milneg. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring as well as persistently linking to external sources labelled as copyright violations. → Call me Hahc21 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Stemoc reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: this

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1 (earliest today)
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4 (most recent today)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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


Comments:
Edit-warring with two other editors (myself, who made two edits today, and User:Nmasst, who made some more) to maintain the presence of an image there is no consensus to have on the page. Has additional reverts to maintain this image in the past, with additional editors (here with Over Hill Under Hill last month). Was warned then not to continue reverting, and again here before he made his final revert. Would also note several of his edit summaries are inaccurate; each of his edits involve adding the image against consensus. pbp 02:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Firstly, the user in question, User:Nmasst has uploaded the same image 3 times, twice it was deleted on commons because it failed licensing right so he uploaded it a third time on enwiki and when he realised that admins would remove his edit to Nick Offerman's page, he removed his image and left the page blank, I restored it to the previous image which has been there before this user added his "copyright violation" image. The MAIN image currently used on the page is FREE and has been there for identification purpose since October 2013. I did not break any 3RR policy, I just reverted the users who kept removing the "FREE" image just because they "did not like the picture"....There is no consensus, its just 2 users and a vandal. I won't be surprised of Nmasst is one of the 3 ..--Stemoc (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you did: you re-added the same image four times in the last 24 hours. That breaks 3RR. If there are three users (and it's four, counting Over Hill) and only one of you, then you don't have consensus on your side and we do. If you had consensus, how come YOU'RE the only person who's made an edit to add that image this calender year? pbp 02:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This was Nmasst's last edit after removing his picture, he left the page blank, but before he added the pic, the picture used on the page was the FREE one. That FREE picture has been there since February 18th when Lady Lotus changed it to the current picture. It doesn't matter how many times i re-add a picture, 3RR does not apply to vandalism. The user KNOWINGLY removed the picture as his copyright violation image kept getting deleted. If anything I request user Nmasst be BANNED and maybe even checkusered if need be...If an image is available, it will be used to identify the person and thats exactly what happened, you are digging graves here Purpleback, there is NOTHING wrong with the current picture, its the CORRECT depiction of the person in question.--Stemoc (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You just called me a vandal, which is completely inaccurate. My edits were not vandalism, nor were Nmasst's, as both of us believe (with good reason) that that picture shouldn't be on that page, and we had prior consensus (consensus that you alone have ignored). If four editors believe that a picture shouldn't be on a particular page, and only one user (you) believes that it should be kept on the page, that image is removed. That's not vandalism, that's consensus. You've violated consensus, and you've added an image where there was no image four separate times (not counting the warring you did with Nmasst on Saturday) in the last 24 hours, meaning you are not 3RR exempted and should be blocked. I have not committed vandalism, I have enforced consensus, and made only two reverts in a 24 hour period, so there's no rationale for me to be thrown in one of your graves. pbp 03:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If you believe Nmasst or me should be blocked, I'm going to need some diffs. Requesting checkuser on Nmasst isn't done here (it's done at WP:RFCU) and he hasn't broken 3RR. Neither have I. The only person who's broken 3RR is...you pbp 03:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you believe, the picture in question is an ACCURATE depiction of Nick Offerman, we have already discussed this a month back on his talk page, why are you bringing it up again?, this is NOT for 3RR discussion unless you are being bias and using this as an excuse to REMOVE that picture from his page? This page is not for personal vendettas, its to discuss 3RR and I reiterate, I did not violate any 3RR rules, I reverted a vandal who removed the current picture because his own picture wasn't allowed and then i was reverted by you, I did not violate 3RR but you should read about the 3RR exceptions, i was REVERTING TO THE ORIGINAL edit before the user removed his "Non-Free image". how exactly is that a vandalism? you used my re-addition as an excuse to get the image removed. Please stop wasting my time. I'm an Image-reviewer on commons so I know a non free image when i see one and i was reverting back to the ORIGINAL FREE IMAGE. Nmasst is a vandal who is violating copyright images across 2 wikis..at this stage, Nmasst is a "vandalism -only account" as his only edits suggests.....Stay On-Topic please.--Stemoc (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
'Tis you who have gone off-topic, because accuracy matters not. Just because an image is perceived to be accurate doesn't mean it automatically gets a spot in an article; the images that go in the article are determined by consensus (there was no consensus in this case to have the image in the article). Likewise, perceiving oneself to be accurate is not an exception to 3RR (BTW, the image isn't accurate, it looks nothing like Offerman looks now or looked for all but about two weeks of his life). Removing the image was an acceptable action by Nmasst as numerous editors agreed with him that it shouldn't be there. That means your clock started the first time you reverted there being no image, and your clock is at 4 now. Therefore, you violated 3RR. I can't lay it out in any simpler terms, if you don't understand that, you really need to stop removing images until you get a little more clue. As for vendettas, again, you're the one with a vendetta, a vendetta to add in that ridiculous image no matter who disagrees with you. pbp 04:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Consensus applies to those articles which have MULTIPLE images not which only has ONE. It doesn't matter if it looks nothing like Offerman to you, that is an "ACCURATE" picture of Nick Offerman, I have tried for months to get him another image, its not forthcoming, I did my part and since there is no other option, this will be the PREFERRED image of choice..Free images don't grow on trees, they are ridiculously hard to come by and/or acquire. We were lucky to get him an image for IDENTIFICATION purpose...and again, Nmasst removed the picture because his picture wasn't allowed, infact he added the same picture not once but , twice it was reverted by me, Nmasst is a VANDAL. I'm not in the habit of reporting users, even if they are vandal. he even lied on commons claiming he worked for Nick Offerman when he infact stole that image of someone's tumblr account.--Stemoc (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
───────────────────────── Stemoc: A good-faith removal of a picture that at least two other editors (Purplebackpack89 and Over Hill and Under Hill) endorse is not vandalism, and if you continue to edit war over reinserting it without seeking consensus—regardless of violating the three-revert rule (which, I should clarify, your current reverts are not an exception to)—you will be blocked. Reverting an alleged copyright violation is one thing, but if editors are simply removing a picture because they don't think it fits or is accurate, which they have clearly expressed in both their edit summaries and on the article's talk page, then it is, again, not vandalism. I strongly recommend you take your dispute to the article's talk page and/or seek dispute resolution. --slakrtalk / 13:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If we allowed certain groups of users to remove every picture on wikipedia which they "didn't like", we would not have any pictures on anyone's articles...Over the last year I have added hundreds of pics to articles and the Nick Offerman picture took me that much time and its a really good and HIGH QUALITY image too and just because someone did not like the picture, we should remove it? Free High Quality images are IMPOSSIBLE to come by, remove that and there won't be a pic on his page for atleast 3 more years, well no free ones. If someone removes a "free" image from a page, that is vandalism, and that is what Purpleback did...what consensus are they talking about?, that was discussed in February, the image was REINSTATED and he decided to use Nmasst's vandalism as an excuse to remove it..There is no dispute here, if the picture was of a poor quality, i would have never reverted them in the first place, but its NOT. I even made an alternate copy yesterday from the same event and its still a high quality picture....there is another picture on his page taken from Sundance, i added that as well as a compromise even though its of very poor quality and they'd rather have that. I'm sorry but you are wrong, Nmasst even claims to be "working" for Nick Offerman, so now you are siding with liars?. Well done, now people would be removing images willy-nilly, "because they can"...--Stemoc (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – Five days. Use this time to reach agreement on the talk page. (You can ask for an admin to close the discussion if you want). User:Stemoc has stopped reverting the image but User:Lady Lotus and User:Purplebackpack89 have taken up the struggle. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I got involved because I find the arguments of PB not valid, all I've heard is "it's a terrible picture" "looks nothing like him" "i don't like it" just because he dyed his hair blonde. I knew of the actor but wasn't familiar with his name, so that picture was more than enough to recognize him. You have one guy who claims to be removing the picture on behalf of Offerman (wow) and then others who won't even have the image in the body of the article. They act like it's cursed and shouldn't be seen by anyone. And I was told by PB that if "if you and Stemoc don't like it, too bad". That's a valid argument? Since when. LADY LOTUSTALK 18:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston, there is agreement on the talk page already. At the present time, I count six editors who want the image removed, and only Lady Lotus and Stemoc wanting it kept. That's a pretty clear consensus, but Lady Lotus seems to act like editors can't vote to remove an image from an article (they can). FWIW, Lady Lotus has now taking to canvassing other editors here and here. I am frankly appalled from the abuse she and Stemoc are giving to the majority of editors who want the image removed for perfectly legitimate reasons pbp 18:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Canvassing is the intention of influencing the outcome, I did no such thing. I asked one trusted colleague and another that I know works a lot with images their opinions, not knowing what their actual opinion is. I never said "hey, agree with me on this". And I don't consider just because he's blonde in the picture a default for it being a horrible picture. That's basically your only reason for not wanting it is because he's blonde when usually he's not. Look, if there were a better, free picture out there with him with his mustache and brown hair, of course we would use it. But that doesn't exist right now. And I've already said that if you have a legit reason for not wanting the picture up, then you could call it getting consensus but you're crying "I don't like it, they don't like it, so there!" It's childish how you're playing it. LADY LOTUSTALK 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
You, PB, are also incredibly unwilling to compromise. I've tried adding the pic along with the out of focus pic to give users a sense of what he looks like. You wouldn't have it. I tried adding it the body of the article just so users would get a sense of what he looks like. You wouldn't have it. There are only 2 free images of him available and because of this outcry, neither of them are used because you won't have it. It's not consensus if it's just "do as I say" and you have enough people to agree with it. LADY LOTUSTALK 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
A majority of editors want it gone from the article. From anywhere. Why should I bend to a small minority to have the pic in the article? You don't understand how things work around here. If a majority of people express an opinion of removing something, it gets removed. Your failure to understand this is at this point disruptive. pbp 20:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Citizen150 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Citizen150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599275071 by Gaba p (talk) Reverted to approved and cited material previously discussed in talk page"
  2. 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599483849 by NeilN (talk) Once again, reverting to content approved in the talk page. Need others to stop warring."
  3. 21:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599484464 by NeilN (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ted Nugent */"
  2. 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ted Nugent */"
Comments:

Editor has just come off a block for edit warring on same article and has not made any effort to continue discussion before reverting. BLP concerns too as outlined on talk. NeilN talk to me 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous 3RR complaint was here, at 12:27 on 12 March. Since this editor is ignoring the consensus against his changes and is likely to continue indefinitely I recommend a block of at least a week. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. --NeilN talk to me 22:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made a full post at ANI recommending a topic/community ban since they have explicitly said they do not intend to stop warring. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Another revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Nugent&curid=10519138&diff=599626985&oldid=599501646 Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Let's hope he gets it this time. → Call me Hahc21 20:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ajaysabarish reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result:blocked indef for vandalism )[edit]

Page
Indian astronomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ajaysabarish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 13:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian and Greek astronomy */"
  3. 13:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian and Greek astronomy */"
  4. 13:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian and Greek astronomy */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
  2. 13:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Unexplained section blanking past warnings to stop. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked by Materialscientist. → Call me Hahc21 14:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Csp0316 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Csp0316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599757789 by Dbrodbeck (talk) it's either keep this or remove the other. the first is more out of context second is his actual view on subject"
  2. 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599751102 by (talk) not out of context, not fringe. read the essay."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC) to 18:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    1. 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Rothbard: shallow vs. deep */ restore author's primary thesis on CT"
    2. 18:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Rothbard: shallow vs. deep */ replace purported 'crank' link with RS"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 17:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC) to 17:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    1. 17:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "qualification, not fringe push"
    2. 17:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "unclear meaning in this context"
  5. 01:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "qualification"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Verifiability of conspiracy theories */"
  2. 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Clear bias by LuckyLouie and Mangoe */"
  3. 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Inconsistencies between intro and body */"
Comments:

I believe this user was warned to stop edit warring yesterday, but has gotten back on the horse so to speak. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning is here, scroll up, or [40]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours DrKiernan (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:41.132.179.212 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: Both users warned)[edit]

Page: Whoniverse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.132.179.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User has repeatedly attempted to modify Whoniverse to fit their belief of what the term means, despite multiple other editors disagreeing with them.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

G S Palmer (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This has all been explained at length on the article's discussion page. A discussion that User:G S Palmer has declined to be a productive part of. In short, the article contained long, essay-like paragraphs that were totally unsourced. After attempting to discuss improving it on the discussion page(and being with with people dismissing the suggestions out of hand), another user told me to [45]. Again, I first attempted to discuss it with other users, but meeting the same earlier response, i did what User:GraemeLeggett said. User:GraemeLeggett and I have since added proper WP:RS, reworded POV sentences, and removed large sections of unsourced OR text. The article was starting to improve. However, User:G S Palmer has decided to revert things back to the way they were, ignoring discussion, and even removing the WP;RS that were added by User:GraemeLeggett and me. I have asked another Admin to arbitrate the dispute. Now I see this report. It's all there in the article's edit history, and on the article's discussion page. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, it's not "multiple other editors". There was User:Mezigue, whose entire argument seemed to be removing "citation needed" tags [46] [47], and then only made "jokes" during the discussion. Also User:Deb started the discussion, but seems to have abandoned it, despite having made various Wikipedia edits since her last post on the discussion. And now, User:G S Palmer, who arrives, restores unsourced material after the discussion had seemingly ended [48], [49], [50] and then says this [51]. However, as noted, I am not the only one. Both Mezigue and Deb have left the discussion after I started making edits, yet both have made Wikipedia edits since then. And GraemeLeggett has been extremely helpful in restructuring the article. It's only after all of this that User:G S Palmer appeared, reinstating the unsourced material, ignoring the discussion, and actually deleting WP:RS that GraemeLeggett and I had added. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
To 41.132.179.212: "I first attempted to discuss it with other users, but meeting the same earlier response...". This means that there was no consensus in your favor. Therefore, your edits are the ones in the wrong.
Had you actually read the discussion page and/or my post here, you would have seen that this response was people refusing to even engage in the discussion, and making sarcastic comments. You still haven't explained why you keep reinstating material that is completely unsourced, why you refuse to engage in a proper discussion, and why you removed WP:RS that [User:GraemeLeggett] and I added to the article. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
To Administrators: This user appears similar to a user who tried to do something similar over at Master (Doctor Who). They employed many of the same tactics, such as creating gigantic paragraphs of "evidence" on the talk page and accusing other users of personal attacks and violations of Wikipedia policy. G S Palmer (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
That is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In fact the relevant part is that there I was explicitly told not to use WP:OR, WP:POV or WP:SYNTHESIS, all of which [User: G S Palmer] is using here. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No action taken. Both editors Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned and adviced to take a constructive approach towards improving the article. Edokter (talk) — 20:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jllproductions reported by User:AcidSnow (Results: Blocked)[edit]

Page
LGBT rights in Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and LGBT rights in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jllproductions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts (Has used two accounts):

  1. LGBT rights in Somalia Revision as of 22:43, 15 March 2014
  2. LGBT rights in Somalia Revision as of 23:08, 15 March 2014
  3. LGBT rights in Somalia Revision as of 23:11, 15 March 2014
  4. LGBT rights in Somalia Latest revision as of 23:29, 15 March 2014
  5. LGBT rights in Iraq Revision as of 22:29, 15 March 2014
  6. LGBT rights in Iraq Revision as of 22:59, 15 March 2014
  7. LGBT rights in Iraq Revision as of 23:02, 15 March 2014
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [52] I had already told this user several times to go to the talk page, but he refused to do so. I had to make a section myself.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. [53] I had told him to stop in many of my edit summaries.

Comments:

This user has used multiple accounts to edit war on several pages; both actions are not allowed according to Wikipedia polices. I have constantly asked this user to stop and use the corresponding talk page numerous times in my edit summaries. He has instead, refused to do so and continued to edit war on several pages. He has also removed sourced content on the LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia page. In fact, he has even made several personal attacks against me on my talk page by saying I have an ego problem, that unable to admit that I am wrong, and need to deal with his edits! Yet, he tells me to stop giving him "a hard time". If any admin has time can you please look at this account also, as they both use the same edit styles, edit the same pages, and don't use edit summaries? AcidSnow (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Indiansociology reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 h block and 1 year WP:CASTES ban)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]. diff is just the most recent: they've had umpteen prior warnings and also a WP:GS/Caste notification.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ahir#Repeated_reinstatement_of_puffery

Comments:

This is a long-running slow edit war. It has in fact been going on for longer than indicated above and has involved either socks or meats from the Ontario area. I'm fed up of it and ideally I'd like to see WP:GS/Caste used here, not just a short block: a topic ban is in order. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Indiansociology is also fed up.Sitush is removing well referenced edits citing arbitrary reasons.Not waging in any edit war.Request administrators to have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansociology (talkcontribs) 03:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Banned from all articles covered by WP:CASTES for one year. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:99.229.246.140 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Psionics (edit |