Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive244

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Bobrayner reported by User:Sportmedman (Result: No violation )[edit]

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies}}
User being reported: Bobrayner


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

Diffs of the user's reverts: 3 of my edits reverted by User:Bobrayner in less than 24 hours

  1. [diff] [1]
  2. [diff] [2]
  3. [diff] [3]
  4. [diff] [4] "However, this retraction remains controversial.<ref>Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck(2013)Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards Environmental Sciences Europe, 25:33</ref><ref>Christopher J. Portier, Lynn R. Goldman, and Bernard D. Goldstein(2014)Inconclusive Findings: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t! Environ Health Perspect 2014</ref><ref>A. Rosanoff (2014) Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 65, March 2014, Page 389</ref><ref>Brian John (2014) Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 65, March 2014, Page 391</ref>" Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period.[5]

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

User:Bobrayner reverted edit, I undid revert and asked to Talk[7] User:Bobrayner reverted same edit again without Talk. [8] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Attempted to discuss 3RR and Edit Warring in Talk, but User:Bobrayner does not appear to understand Three revert rule or Edit warring.[9] Comments:

Sportmedman (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I made one edit today. Not three edits. I have already attempted to explain this on the article's talkpage but Sportmedman seems to resolutely cling onto the belief that I performed three reverts simultaneously in a single edit. This looks more like a competence problem.
  • Sportmedman, trawling further back through the article history is unlikely to help your case, since other editors have disagreed with your proposed changes (example) in previous weeks.
  • Further discussion of disputed content on the talkpage could be a good idea. Not spurious accusations of editwarring, but actual discussion about the disputed content. Could we try that? bobrayner (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. SmartSE (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

4th revert was made by User:Bobrayner during same edit in less than 24 hours. [10] "However, this retraction remains controversial.<ref>Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck(2013)Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards Environmental Sciences Europe, 25:33</ref><ref>Christopher J. Portier, Lynn R. Goldman, and Bernard D. Goldstein(2014)Inconclusive Findings: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t! Environ Health Perspect 2014</ref><ref>A. Rosanoff (2014) Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 65, March 2014, Page 389</ref><ref>Brian John (2014) Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 65, March 2014, Page 391</ref>" Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period.[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmedman (talkcontribs)

What do you mean? Both edits that you link to were made by different people, and neither of them were Bobrayner? 3RR refers to the same person reverting multiple times - not multiple people disagreeing with your edit (by the way, the latter is the definition of WP:CONSENSUS) the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
How about a boomerang? Either for false accusations or for lack of competence... Thomas.W talk 12:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is a blatantly false accusation. As can be clearly seen in the page history Bobrayner has made only one single edit on that article over the past two weeks, so how on earth can you claim that he is edit-warring and has made four reverts in less than 24 hours? Thomas.W talk 11:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Tracield reported by User:Mark Miller (Result: Tracield and Iracaz warned)[edit]

Page: Port Jefferson, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tracield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Editors attempted to discuss this dispute on their individual user talk pages but no attempt was made to discuss the issue on the article talk page and the DRN filing was abandoned by this editor when it was noted that they had indeed crossed the 3 RR bright line.

The editor began a DR/N filing but refused to return to it when the discussion began. I made it clear in the filing that should either editor return to edit warring I would close the case and refer it here. The user Tracield has returned to reverting instead of discussing the content dispute where they initiated the discussion and request. It seems they attempted to wait out the 24 hrs to skirt the 3 revert rule.

I include the history here to also demonstrate that the edit war began much earlier (on April 28) and that there were quite a few more reverts that also include another editor. I will leave it up to those here to decide if both editors are guilty of the violation or if the other editors stopping has made their violation stale. This is a referral from DRN by a volunteer who gave all chance for the editor to stop and behave but it looks like they have not gotten the message.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to report that I did not know to leave the page alone after filing the DRN. This was my first filing, being a semi-new user. I will make note of this procedure. Thank you. Tracield (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Tracield and Iracaz are both warned for 3RR violation. The next person who reverts (before getting a talk page consensus) may be blocked. The dispute is too stale to issue blocks now since more than 24 hours have passed since the last revert. It is noted that Tracield abandoned their own DRN after filing it. I recommend that Tracield return to the DRN since a compromise may be possible. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you ed. I purposely left the DRN open, just in case this was the outcome.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Fraggle81 reported by User:86.142.250.139 (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: Isobel Campbell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fraggle81 (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:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Simple reverts of vandalism on a BLP. Reporter blocked. Kuru (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Miller reported by User:WeldNeck (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: 2012 Benghazi attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mark Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments: User needs to calm down and talk this out.

WeldNeck (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Diff 3 and 4 are consecutive edits. I have no idea why the editor is stating "User needs to calm down" as there is no indication of excitement or anger in the tone of my edit summaries. I began a talk page discussion, but previous to this removal the content had been taken out at least two other times and was added back with no explanation. While discussion is one way to determine consensus, editing is another natural process that determines there really is no consensus for the content. It is off topic and undue weight. While reverting is not my favorite thing, I do feel it is justified at times, but never by going over the bright line rule.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. I see three reverts, but not four. That said, it's better not to repeatedly revert. The best way to demonstrate consensus to remove the material is for multiple people to remove it. Let someone else take it out next time, and the removal will carry more weight. Tom Harrison Talk 00:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Vuzor (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive.2C_authoritarian_editor 
Page: Simon Collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Collins&oldid=605252892

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Collins&oldid=606721642
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Collins&diff=606725535&oldid=606725088

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=606729747#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simon_Collins&oldid=604981085#Request_For_Comment

Comments:

This case is documented in its entirety on the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents board in full detail. The most recent example of edit warring, happening today, has prompted the discussion to be moved to this section. Please read the discussion here [26] first. That link documents past reports, past incidents and everything leading up to this moment. The material documented in that report is being reported here as well, as it details the poor conduct of this user. This user has been reported three times: twice on the Edit Warring noticeboard, and last week on the Incidents noticeboard. That third case remains open, while the results of the first two notices can be seen in that Incidents noticeboard discussion.

Today, User:Winkelvi removed an entire section of content on Simon Collins that was recently approved in a Request for Comment session. The edit history can be seen here: [27]. One of the revisions can be seen here: [28]. All of the content in question was approved in an RfC on that article's talk page last month (see: [29]). This goes completely against the consensus reached in the RfC. This user even added a "citation needed" template when no such template was required. This is unacceptable behavior and could perhaps be considered vandalism at this point.

User:Winkelvi then reverted my reversion of that user's vandalism (see: [30]). The comment that user submitted is: "Reverted 2 edits by Vuzor (talk): No, the content I removed wasn't "approved" and consensus can change. (TW))" This is ridiculous, considering the content was approved. Consensus has not changed, so the excuse that "consensus can change" is complete nonsense. This has become ridiculous.Vuzor (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a case of forum shopping that may turn into a case of WP:BOOMERANG. The other two instances of edit warring reports Vuzor filed are from a year ago and no one was blocked at that time. Warnings were issued to both of us for one of the reports. Vuzor has a tendency to over-state and over-dramatize, I urge anyone reviewing this to not take his claims at face-value, but to look into diffs and page history to get the real story.
Today, I reverted once - that is not edit warring. Vuzor reverted three times. Two of those reverts were wholesale reverts of editing I had done on the entire article. (1 - [31]; 2 - [32]; 3 - [33]. That appears to me to be edit warring behavior. A 3RR Warning was placed on his page here: [34]. Please see the following I recently added to Vuzor's report at AN/I, found here: [35]. The report he filed days ago has received little to no attention. There is also an RfC that Vuzor started days ago which has also received no attention. It can be seen here: [36]. Both the RfC and the AN/I remain open. It is my opinion that in order to get the punitive result he wants for me, he has come here, filing a frivolous 3RR. -- Winkelvi 05:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
You made two reversions. I made two. To avoid any further edit warring, I redirected you to the AN/I page. The first and second of my "reversions" as listed in your comment were back-to-back as a result of attempting to use the "undo" button. They count as one reversion; the second was in response to your second reversion. I told you to take your reasoning for the bulk removal to the AN/I, considering you did not comment on the talk page in response to the RfC. Your first was the wholesale removal of the content approved in the RfC. User:Winkelvi has edit warred in regards to nearly everything on a particular set of pages over the past year. The user has used abusive language, fought against consensus, and attempted to prevent additional material from being added to this series of pages (found on Template:Sound of Contact). Vuzor (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation So, I'm no math genius, but it occurs to me that 2 reverts is not a violation of 3RR. Because 2 is not only not a larger number than 3, but a smaller one. Since this board is for reporting violations of either the general 3RR for the whole project, or specific 1RR violations, that makes this very easy. There is already an ANI thread about this issue, let it get resolved there. -- Atama 15:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: Sorry to comment after the conclusion was posted, but User:Winkelvi has reverted the article again. This counts as three reversions in a span of seventeen hours, including the two mentioned initially in this report (see: [37], [38], [39]). The user even erased additional material from the page. It appears User:Winkelvi just couldn't leave it alone while we sorted things on the AN/I. Vuzor (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was never two reversions from me to begin with, just one. The latest is only the second, and not for the sake of edit warring, but to restore the good edits I made that you reverted completely without consideration for the article. And, no, there was no "additional material" "erased" from the page. Nothing is being sorted out at AN/I, that's over with, too. I started a discussion on the article's talk page. Please put on your big boy pants, comment at the article talk page, and drop the stick, Vuzor. -- Winkelvi 21:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, Atama's own comment on the AN/I declares that you made two reversions initially (see: [40]):
" I just closed the AN3 report with no violation. It was easy, since the board is for reporting 3RR (or 1RR) violations, and per your own admission there were only 2 reverts. For Winkelvi's benefit, your initial series of edits that removed a lot of information counts as a revert. (I don't subscribe to the "any deletion is a revert" philosophy that seems to be a recent trend, but you removed content that was very recently added by Vuzor, and WP:3RR makes it clear that doing so is a revert.) Regardless, that only makes 2 reverts by each editor. A serious edit war that needs to stop but nothing to block anyone over (and any blocking would be equally applied to both editors).
Boing! said Zebedee was correct, you need to stop sniping at each other. This boils down to a content dispute and should be handled as such. This should be hashed out on the discussion page of the article if possible. There was an RfC, and while I see there was no formal closure (the template expired and was removed by a bot) the comments should definitely be taken into account when determining a consensus. If you can't come to a decision calmly between the two of you, you should take this to WP:DRN. I can't say, however, that any solid consensus was ever hashed out on the talk page of the article; a few editors did provide input but there was nothing actually agreed to. So I can't say that either of you is violating consensus with your actions. But you need to stop attacking each other over this. -- Atama頭 16:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC) "
This would count as the third. Vuzor (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what Atama was saying. What he was saying is that your report was for two reverts, not three. He never said I reverted more than once in a 24-hour period. My history at the article yesterday was editing, not reverting. Even if it was for two reverts, today only makes three. No violation. This is closed. I've started a dicussion at the article talk page. You didn't get what you wanted: to remove me from being able to edit the article and its associated articles (remember your request to have me topic banned?). Go to the article talk page and start discussing and stop fighting and sniping, as Atama suggested. -- Winkelvi 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The quotation itself begs to differ. I do not understand why you would deny what was clearly said. I have proposed a solution on the AN/I report. Consider it. I am negotiating with you. Vuzor (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
See Atama's clarification at the article talk page here: [41]. Hopefully, this is the end of the discussion. -- Winkelvi 05:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Alhanuty reported by User:Hanibal911 (Result: Warned Alhanuty and Paolowalter)[edit]

Page: Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alhanuty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to
[42]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:01, 2 May 2014
  2. 19:15, 2 May 2014

I just reverted twice,that's it,nothing wrong here,I didn't revert 3 times,and my edits are based on a reliable source reuters,http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKBN0DI15B20140502?irpc=932 And I am not going to break the 3 revert rule.Alhanuty (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty you do not properly understand the data from this source because source only said that because clashes hampered the transport links with Sayqal air bases and it makes it difficult to export the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons there because because it isolated air base located in the desert but the source does not say that it is the rebels besieged it. Also source only said that Dumayr air base, came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels but source not said about clashes in this base or around her. So you were wrong when noted these two air bases as besieged.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Based from the template,if a base comes under attack we put a ring on the base,so Dumeir needs a ring around it,and for sayqal,it say isolated and the rebels are advancing on it,but okay then for sayqal But So why did you report me then.Alhanuty (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are the data directly from the source: Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals are believed to be held. While the rebel attack appears more focused on Dumair and on breaking the military stranglehold which Assad's forces have imposed closer to the capital, the fighting has increasingly isolated Sayqal and encroached towards it. The diplomat said rebels have overrun the abandoned and emptied chemical base at Khan Abu Shammal, which lies between Dumair and Sayqal, and cut the road linking them. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I repeat why did you report me if I didn't the three revert rule,this page is used only if an editor breaks the rule,which I didn't.Alhanuty (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: Clearly Alhanuty broke the one revert rule (1RR) wich is in effect in the Syrian civil war template, and is not credible that he dont know that rule, wich have been widely commented on the template talk page (where he had been editing the map for many months), and also he was notified about the general sanctions, so...--HCPUNXKID 09:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The template syrian civil war map.doesn't state there is a one edit rule,also the situation between me and hannibal has been resolved,so stop.Alhanuty (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Dont need say that the problem is solved because you have grossly violated 1RR rule but in this article is permitted to make only one revert of per day. But at the same time I admit the fact that you not have broken the 3RR rule. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jiltsedge reported by User:Renzoy16 (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jiltsedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "abs cbn fakcrupt"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This has been the IP that I reported before who was adding non-factual information in various Philippine-film related articles. He keeps bugging me, telling me that I am bias towards a film outfit called Star Cinema which is owned by ABS-CBN. I don't know what's with him. He keeps starting to make an issue, but I decided not to entertain him. I just want to stop his behavior, that's all. AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 13:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Proof of his behavior while still being an IP:
  1. Vandalism in my talk page
  2. Gave him a warning. He was blocked after
  3. Previous history of vandalism in the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013
  4. Comparison of edits showing that IP and Jiltsedge are one: Jiltsedge's edit and IP's edit
Aside from these history, he keeps adding a twitter search result as a reference. We don't allow that in Wikipedia.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 13:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
See his behavior below (he created a new section with full of allegations).--AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 14:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

you started it im just stating my side — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talkcontribs) 14:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like both of you should be blocked for WP:3RR. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. Well, I didn't knew there was such WP:3RR rule. But thanks for letting me know about that. However, one thing is clear. The reported person keeps adding false information and that is why I keep reverting his edits. Personal attacks? False accusations? Repeated vandalisms? Doesn't that deserve more weight for a block than blocking someone who was only protecting an article from having false information?--AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 16:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

that's fine as long as he gets block as well you don't want a company mole in your site his spying on all of you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talkcontribs) 16:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Renzoy16 is a fancrapt of abs cbn i have some evidence
Television programs

He created all of this TV shows are from his favorite channel abs cbn his using his position to spread lies especially in the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013

i want him to stop edit warring the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013 with his bias figures in favor of Abs Cbn's movie outfit Star cinema — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talkcontribs) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the edit history on List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013 and the warning you've just had on your talkpage, looks like you'll be blocked, and quick. You need to raise issues about the film article on the talkpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Wondering who will take the block? You, me, or both? Let's be real here. Everybody knows who deserve the block, its you. Senseless rationales. Bad behavior. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6At a l k 17:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Renzoy16 is a company mol

obviously his been planted by his station abs cbn so that he could promote and campaign for his company you have a mole cant you see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talkcontribs) 15:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Blocked 48 hours. Jiltsedge, if he is also using IPs, is warned about the WP:SOCK policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:109.188.125.133 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Battle of Borodino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
109.188.125.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)109.188.124.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)109.188.127.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), probably other IPs
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[52][53]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

talk page consensus further talk page discussion

Comments:

One IP-hopping user is insisting on going against long established talk page consensus. Recommend page protection to prevent further disruption. Charles (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Article semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. If he moves on to other articles a range block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Miraclehr1 reported by User:Davykamanzi (Result: 48h)[edit]

Pages:

User being reported: Miraclehr1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:23, 2 May 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:54, 30 April 2014

Comments:
The user constantly reverts my clean-up edits for no apparent reason like he owns them. His diffs clearly had clutter, poor grammar and formatting mistakes which I've been trying to correct but he doesn't want to accept my contributions. Also refused to reply to my messages on his talk, and even after notifying him of the report he continues with the reverts. Please handle this ASAP. Davykamanzitalk · contribs 12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Is no one looking into this? Reports around mine are being resolved and mine isn't?? Davykamanzitalkcontribs 14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. This is not as straightforward as many AN3 reports, but there are definitely ownership and communication problems. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:009o9 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result:24 hr )[edit]

Page
Bundy standoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
009o9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 23:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC) to 23:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    1. 23:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Free speech and no fly zones */ 300 is the confirmed munber by BLS spokepersn Jessica Kershaw, BLS had 11,621 Permanent employees in 2012 according to official Wiki page"
    2. 23:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Free speech and no fly zones */ Becket Adams is professional journalist, Beck/Blaze already sourced elsewhere in article"
    3. 23:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Free speech and no fly zones */ Daily Caller is in the White House rotating press pool"
  2. 07:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Bureau of Land Management actions */ paste revert, references are fine Glenn Beck/Blaze already in used in artilce"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Warned of 1RR sanctions by User:Tiptoety.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Reliable sources issues */ new section"
Comments:

Repeatedly warned not to remove tags inserted by other editors without consensus on the talk page.

I disputed his use of sources and tagged them as questionable. He removed those tags in the "paste revert." I reinserted them and advised him that it is inappropriate for the user whose sources are being disputed to unilaterally remove the tags. He has, once again, reverted those tags out without discussion or consensus on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, good faith edits. Out of the half dozen inline tags that editor posted in a few paragraphs, I am double checking each for paid journalism and notability of source, I am also in the process of providing additional sources. Editor's section tag will remain until consensus is reached.009o9 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
So you admit that you intentionally violated the 1RR. OK then. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Twittspiral reported by User:SuperHamster (Result:24hr )[edit]

Page
Havergal College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Twittspiral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606854172 by SuperHamster (talk)"
  2. 03:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606852410 by SuperHamster (talk)"
  3. 03:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606849921 by SuperHamster (talk)"
  4. 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606847618 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Havergal College. (TW)"
  2. 03:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 03:39, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
Comments:

Attempted to assume good faith with user's edits, and tried to resolve issue on user's talk page. User never replied or attempted to correspond ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:122.168.177.36 reported by User:Summichum (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Qutbi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
122.168.177.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 12:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC) to 12:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    1. 12:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "This is not vandalism. And Summichum go join your KQ firqa."
    2. 12:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 12:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 12:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 05:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 05:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "this is not vandalism"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user is disrupting Bohra articles by removing content Summichum (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Note to reviewing Admins I don't know enough about Islamic issues to be able to express an opinion on who is right or wrong in their editing, but I will suggest that Summichum's edit history warrants some close scrutiny. He/she has a history of EXTREMELY bold editing that includes a lot of mass redacting of material with which he/she disagrees and sometimes labeling edits by others as vandalism. Recently I had to remove CSD tags he/she had applied to a number of articles after gutting them down to a stub. An examination of his/her contrib log showed a number of articles had been speedy deleted at his/her prompting. FreeRangeFrog subsequently reviewed these and concluded that they had been nominated under highly improper circumstances and reverted the deletions. See the talk pages of all editors/Admins mentioned in my comment for more details. On another note this editor has demonstrated a grasp of WP policy, which has been quoted in support of their very aggressive editing, that I do not normally encounter in such a new editor (only a little over 600 edits). This is true going back as far as I was able to in their contrib log. Finally the history of aggressive editing and its narrow focus suggests an agenda. But again I don't know enough about intra-Islamic sectarian disputes to be able to express any informed opinions on the merits of the editing conflicts. Anyways I thought anyone reviewing this matter should be aware of some of the deeper background. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No violation The edits are certainly not vandalism, as Summichum claims; this is a content dispute where both sides have reverted equally. I have watchlisted the article and will protect it if further edit-warring occurs. Use the talk page or use WP:DRN. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:009o9 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Bundy Standoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (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] blatantly obfuscates content


This is not a complex case, obvious WP:COI from users' actions and from user page [59]. Editor cannot support claims, dictates acceptable references (i.e. in one instance Glenn Beck (already ref'd in article) acceptable for his Left viewpoint, same source is not acceptable for Right viewpoint)009o9 (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [60]

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

Comments:

I've been trying to tone down some contentious racism accusations against a living person, but two editors insist the indecent belongs in the lede. (There are redirect to this article using the mans name.)

Example of what I'm dealing with, I added Balance:

This edit -- adding balance -- to the lede no less

After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was repudiated by Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported him, forcefully condemning his remarks as racist.<ref name="Nagourney"/><ref name="reidstmt"/><ref name="sltrib"/><ref name="LAtimes20140424"/><ref name="CBSdenounce"/><ref name="CNN201404024"/><ref name="hannity140322"/><ref name="GlenBeckPolitico"/> Ben Swann examined Bundy's comments in broader context and found that Bundy was not given a truthful representation,<ref name=SwannMediaMatters>Swann, Ben (25 April 2014). "Truth in Media: Cliven Bundy's "Racist" Remarks Were Also Promoting Hispanic Culture? What MSM Isn't Telling You". Ben Swann. Retrieved 2 May 2014.</ref> the American Thinker revealed that Bundy was speaking to the consequences of Government welfare on black families and stated, "He is no more a racist than is E.W. Jackson, Thomas Sowell..."<ref name=AmericanThinkerMediaMatters>Clarice Feldman (27 April 2014). "Cliven Bundy Delenda Est". American Thinker. Retrieved 2 May 2014.</ref> David Brock of Media Matters for America confirmed that they themselves were the source of this news. <ref name=MediaMatterBrokeStory>Jim Hoft; Kristinn Taylor (27 April 2014). "David Brock Says He Doesn't Know if Media Matters Worked With Sharyl Attkisson Before Group Attacked Her". The Gateway Pundit. Retrieved 2 May 2014.</ref> </nowiki>

Becomes this in mere moments -- I have no idea how many sentences have been rendered useless like the Ben Swann one below--the entire article is going to have to be read over with a fine tooth comb.

After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was widely condemned in mainstream media, and was repudiated by Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported him, many of whom forcefully condemned his remarks as racist.<ref name="Nagourney"/><ref name="reidstmt"/><ref name="sltrib"/><ref name="LAtimes20140424"/><ref name="CBSdenounce"/><ref name="CNN201404024"/><ref name="hannity140322"/><ref name="GlenBeckPolitico"/> Ben Swann<ref name=SwannMediaMatters>Swann, Ben (25 April 2014). "Truth in Media: Cliven Bundy's "Racist" Remarks Were Also Promoting Hispanic Culture? What MSM Isn't Telling You". Ben Swann. Retrieved 2 May 2014.</ref> and the American Thinker defended Bundy's comments as being truthful.<ref name=AmericanThinkerMediaMatters>Clarice Feldman (27 April 2014). "Cliven Bundy Delenda Est". American Thinker. Retrieved 2 May 2014.</ref>

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section summarizes arguments. Just as we do not go into extensive detail about the statements made about Bundy's racist remarks in the lead, neither we do not go into extensive detail on the counter-claims about those remarks - which are made by, at best, fringe organizations - in the lead. I did not revert your edit (which would have involved a wholesale deletion) - I edited your edit.
As I have noted, "The Gateway Pundit" is not an acceptable source for any contentious statement about a living person, and it cannot stand even for a moment. Please see the biographies of living persons policy for information about sourcing claims about living people.
I also reject any claim that I have a conflict of interest - I do not work for the agency involved in this dispute. Unless the above user is asserting that all 4.1 million federal employees automatically have a conflict of interest, which is patently absurd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

tried to provide reflist, collects all refs on page, no good009o9 (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • No violation. Not only are the diffs provided not all reverts, but some are correct within policy (i.e. negative statements supported by blogs or opinion pieces). Suggest WP:DRN as the correct venue here. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Another admin has already determined that the clear prohibition against any reverts was violated. Edit warring notice board isn't just 3RR and an experienced editor like yourself should have recognized that. 184.241.11.124 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Interesting that a random IP shows up to comment on this... block-evasion by User:009o9 perhaps? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:23.115.148.21 reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Peter Lemongello (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
23.115.148.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 06:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "It's Not True!"
  3. 05:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "{{request edit}} None of this legal difficulties ever happened its false information! Please delete it!"
  4. 05:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal difficulties */"
  5. 05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "None of this "Legal Difficulties" Bullshit is true! This is Peter Lemongello, Jr. I think I would know!!!!! Whoever is doing this better cut this shit off before I take to the police for harassment!!!!"
  6. 05:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
  7. 05:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor claims to be Peter Jr. and has repeatedly deleted sourced information despite warnings. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I strongly suggest no further action (see my comments on the IP's talk), and would prefer to see this report speedily closed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Cool. No problem with that. Sorry if I was overzealous. Seemed like a notable and well-documented series of events and I felt like it was described in proportion to the third-party coverage on it, but I can understand your rationale I think. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    • There are some references to RS's, and if this wasn't a BLP issue, I'd say they suffice, but when considering due weight, BLP, and what sources we currently have, both their small number and little depth, I'd say leave the section out. And yes, there was edit warring here (from all sides), and the issue would have probably been helped with less semi-automated edits and blanket reverts (from all sides), and more discussion (and more experience in the way Wikipedia works from the IP, but newcomers lack that by definition, unfortunately), but we are where we are, and I think this should be settled now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Article semiprotected. The IP continues to add promotional text in spite of Martijn's reasonable advice. It would be best to get a talk page consensus before anyone re-adds the material about legal problems in Florida. The article can probably do without it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox reported by User:Haldrik[edit]

URGENT. Assistance of more than one admin needed.

I filed a report against Bloodofox for violating the Three Revert Rule.

On 10:49, 2014 May 6 in the History, this report was deleted without notification by User:Spike Wilbury (improperly?) (to cover up the wrongdoing by Bloodofox?) (is Spike Wilbury a sockpuppet or buddy of Bloodofox?).

To admins: Please look into this matter to make sure proper proceedure is being followed, and the results against Bloodofox follow through.

Here, are the posts that were quitely deleted.

User:Bloodofox reported by User:Haldrik[edit]

Bloodofox appears to have a history of edit warring, where he pushes a POV corresponding to a modern idiosyncratic Neo-Pagan religion. He is currently violating the Three Revert Rule here in the Elf article. See history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elf&action=history Haldrik (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that Haldrik (talk · contribs) has come out of the woodwork again and up is to his usual pattern. This time he seems to be inappropriately refactoring sourced text and removing portions at whim and without explanation. Last time we saw him he was around August of 2013, where he was attempting to impose all sorts of "dwarfs are medieval vampires" stuff on the dwarf article. After all sorts of abuse from Haldrik, this eventually got him [blocked for 32 hours]. We saw no more of him after. I recommend an administration step in or other users simply revert him when he can't abide by policy. I have no idea what he's going on about regarding "Neo-Pagan religion"; a major scholar on the topic was just editing the article, which is what I reverted it back to (see talk). I guess this is just some sort of attack on what he suspects is my religion. Nice! Anyway, I didn't violate WP:3RR and in fact I tried to get Haldrik on the talk page, but he hasn't responded there. He simply calls me a vandal and reverts without further explanation. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Metalmicah reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )[edit]

Page
As I Lay Dying (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Metalmicah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 20:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) to 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    1. 20:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "Fixed misreported information. Added to the end of Christianity section."
    2. 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Timeline */"
  2. 20:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "associated acts are not where they only share one musician, so there would be no associated acts. Need reference as to why band is on hiatus. No agreement between members as to why. Band never said they were going on w/o Tim. It's a new band"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 01:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC) to 01:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    1. 01:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "corrected outdated information from incorrect and speculative articles. Replaced with new references."
    2. 01:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 607101563 by 3family6 (talk) Former members is the reason. Only one related actual member"
  4. 01:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 607102774 by Winkelvi (talk) The ex-band member themselves refer to AILD as their previous band in the interview sited"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on As I Lay Dying (band). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I apologize for not taking the time to fully understand the policy. I didn't know until recently that there was an edit limit and that the way I was editing came across the way it did. I also don't fully understand where to even go to respond to the warning I received. Hopefully this is step in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalmicah (talkcontribs) 02:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: )[edit]

Page: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CFredkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent edit warring despite warnings [62]

Seems to be "timing" his reverts to avoid 3RR.

  1. Revision as of 20:00, 2 May 2014 [63]
  2. Revision as of 20:15, 2 May 2014 [64]
  3. Revision as of 20:10, 3 May 2014 [65]
  4. Revision as of 21:20, 4 May 2014 [66]

Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, the edit warring on this article is being perpetuated by other editors (including user:cwobeel) who continue to restore content to the article without engaging in specifics on the article Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It might also be useful to inquire how user:cwobeel became involved in the dispute, since he/she has no prior history of involvement with the page.CFredkin (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made two edits and stopped due to the persistent edit warring. Cwobeel (talk)
# of times user:cwobeel has engaged regarding the specific issues that have been posted (repeatedly) in article Talk = 0.CFredkin (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've extended my edit intervals in order to give the editor who posted/restored the bulk of the content the opportunity to respond in Talk, since he/she appears to be on another continent. So far that has been mostly in vain. In addition I recently posted a RfC in an effort to engage other editors who might actually be willing to discuss specifics.CFredkin (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That is great that you have done an RFC after I posted this; it is much better that editwarring. I and others have requested multiple times that rather than delete content, which seems to be your way of editing, that you place {{citation needed}} or other content-related templates. That is much better than deleting long pieces of content multiple times and will allow other editors in different time zones to improve articles. Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be no actual "edit war" here, though it is evident that POV claims are being made which are not supported by reliable sources for fact (a number of opinions are given great weight in Wikipedia's voice, alas) (that the pact is primarily aimed at aiding corporations). To that extent, it is clear the proper noticeboard is WP:NPOV/N where eyes may be added to the morass. I know the topic is "dry as dirt", but spicing it up with opinions is not how to deal with it. Collect (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I note that the fourth listed revert was more than 48 hours after the first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Lokie Dokie reported by User:331dot (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lokie Dokie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 16:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 16:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606785405 by 331dot (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Harassment of other users on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). (TW)"
  2. 16:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user is continually trying to reopen closed discussions, including the linked-to one at the VP, but also on the ITN pages. They have also indicated that they are on a crusade to get their point across. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

331dot is continually trying to close sections which are complaints about him. That is quite obviously completely improper. And his accusations of harassment are nothing short of a disgusting smear. As such, I have raised my own complaint about this, and other things, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Lokie Dokie (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I will point out to others that read this that I am not the only one who has dealt with this user, or closed their posts. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And in case anyone doesn't read that noticeboard, 331dot has informed Rambling Man and Doktorbuk about this, but if they turn up here to talk shit about me, be advised they are also the subject of my complaint over there, so I of course reject anything they have to say, unless they have a change of heart and start speaking openly and honestly about what they've been doing to me today. I shouldn't have to point things like this out, but it's becoming clear to me that some people on Wikipedia (specifically Doktorbuk), will sometimes exploit the fact that perhaps not everybody is aware of what the relation is between various users, before trying to influence things as a supposedly neutral observer (I guess I'll have to spell it out though - I have specifically used one of Doktorbuk's comments as an example of what's aparently going wrong with how "consensus" is assessed at 'In the News'. Lokie Dokie (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To avoid this discussion taking place in several locations, I am willing to allow this to be closed and the discussion confined to the page this user started(and linked to above). If that is not desired, that's OK too. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As his contribution history shows, LD is being a curious nonsense across numerous pages, despite his complaint being involved with an issue in one specific part of Wikipedia. I closed a discussion for getting into a circle of insults and counter claims with no constructive purpose. Lokie has showed almost no civil behaviour in any of his recent edits, and I wager he won't start any time soon. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see, so, you saw a section opened at Village Pump, and before anyone (not already involved) had even commented, you decided it had no constructive purpose, and shut it down. Even though it was only there because the exact same counter-productive approach had been taken by Rambling Man at Wikipedia talk:In the news? And that's what you class as civil behaviour is it? Interesting. Most people would think the civil thing to do in that situation, would have been to take some step that would actually resolve the dispute (and of course, to disclose your connection with the person whose section you were closing, if you felt you couldn't stop yourself from getting involved at all). Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and "How sad, oh dear, never mind" is civil is it? Do you think the outside world would agree that this is how someone claiming to be a paragon of ciivlity would say when shutting down someone else's complaint before anyone has even answered it? You've got a real nerve, talking to me about civil behaviour. Although I have to say, your approach looks pretty normal for Wikipedia to me - completely and totally hypocritical. Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
So a new guy heads straight for ITN/C with his first batch of edits? Someone do a WP:SOCK check on this "newbie". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: No violation. It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. But if Lokie Dokie is conducting a crusade, it's going to run out of ammunition soon. See WP:STICK. And all this excitement from a brand-new editor such as Lokie Dokie raises questions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Lokie has been blocked for 24 hours for incivility and DeadHorse doktorb wordsdeeds 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
And now blocked indef for being a sock account. To quote Joe Cabot - "You don't need proof when you have instinct". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Markdrows reported by User:Summichum (Result: Reporter blocked for 2 weeks )[edit]

Page
Qutbi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Markdrows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 607130787 by (talk) . Vandalism Content"
  2. 02:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 607023477 by Summichum (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Qutbi Bohra. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user is threatening me , and has also changed my user talk page , he is trying to remove well cited content Summichum (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Reporter Blocked for 2 weeks. Was warned on earlier AN3 report (see above) and this is the third time in a short space of time. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
John Baumgardner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by QuackGuru (talk): Unsourced - removing per WP:BLPREMOVE. (TW)"
  2. 09:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Dougweller: No, the category description does not trump WP:BLP, which says that this must be "explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source". (TW)"
  3. 01:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk): Per WP:BLPREMOVE. (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 09:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on John Baumgardner. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Pseudoscientist category */ cmt"
  2. 09:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Pseudoscientist category */ EW has to stop"
Comments:

This editor was blocked (and reversal denied) for 48 for the same behavior and resumed this exact behavior almost immediately. Talk page editing seems tenditious, possible sock/meat puppetry. Same activity on multiple articles. Propose topic ban. MrBill3 (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC) See previous report. Similar behavior in other articles diff, diff, diff and diff. See also SPI with multiple examples on several articles. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, these are three edits, which doesn't break 3RR. Secondly, this is a recent addition, so it should stay out of the article until there is consensus to include it. Thirdly, the allegation of sock/meat puppetry is completely false - what actually happened is that there was an IP editor who happened to agree with me. Fourthly, I removed the category Category:Pseudoscientists because it was unsourced, and as such must be removed from the article immediately, per WP:BLP. Fifthly, it was I who started the talk page discussion. Sixthly, not one source has been offered on the talk page that supports the addition of the category. Seventhly, those arguing for inclusion are doing so on the basis that it is "implied" in (unspecified) sources, but WP:BLP demands explicit sourcing. Eighthly, the whole category is problematic, and as such I have nominated it for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Fully protected for one week. StAnselm, after the previous one can I strongly suggest that you leave this category alone until the CfD has concluded? Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Markdrows reported by User:Summichum (Result: reporter blocked for 2 weeks)[edit]

Page
Qutbi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Markdrows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 607130787 by (talk) . Vandalism Content"
  2. 02:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 607023477 by Summichum (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Qutbi Bohra. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user is threatening me , and has also changed my user talk page , he is trying to remove well cited content Summichum (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Result of this and complete notice was removed intentionally by a new editor ( probably sock puppet)being restored by me. This editor has removed material from this page earlier also to hide his activities. Result of this notice is well discussed in the next complain booked by me.--Md iet (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Md iet (Result: Already blocked, warned)[edit]

Page: 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (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: Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [67],
  2. [68],
  3. [69],

This editor has deleted the material 3 times above using one or other means even after giving clear advice at [70]. A third party Lurente also intervened at [71] and edited the article having same inclusion at [72]. Which was again reverted by sumichum at #[73], Sumichum then agreed with user:Lurente and matter was added by him at [74]. Some further well sourced material were further added by me to complete the article.

This fellow has again deleted complete material, including earlier material edited by user:Lurente

4.[75] 5.[76]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: #[77]

  1. [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79] [80]

Comments:

Regarding Raudat Tahera ceremony enough material covering complete incident available . Sumichum wants to add OR correlating medical reports material with ceremony. Medical reports were clearly comments for London incident with specific dates of 4th June[81] and stated his blatant false OR that in 'Raudat Tahera' ceremony Late syedna was used as 'prop'.

Here in this article also he is doing similar thing , mixing Mumbai ceremony with hospital reports. He has reported that 'such incapacitated condition of Burhanuddin was used to mastermind a fake succession ceremony, fooling the thousands present'. This is completely fabricated statement, there is no mention of these points in citation refered. Reports just mention that "Syedna suffered a debilitating stroke in London in 2011"...'It is inconceivable that someone his age and with neurological deficits would have such a profound, yet transient recovery'. These reports were described for London incident, nowhere related with Mumbai ceremony which was done after a long period. He has deliberately used Wiki to make propaganda of his POV, blaming complete community and its faith. How can he use words like 'such incapacitated condition', 'mastermind a fake', and 'fooling' words by his own. While adding his OR part, he is removing other well related complete well sourced material(which was even edited by third editor Lurente), to push his POV only.

There are pending case for disrupting against this fellow: [82] [83].

This fellow has unnecessary blamed genuine editor to humiliate them: [84] [85].

And doing disruption continuously and blaming others and trying to make such a mess that admin to protect the articles :