Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive255

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:KahnJohn27 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Robin Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 11:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC) "Zelda Rae Williams can be inserted in the infobox since she is notable."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Robin Williams. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Williams' children */ comment"
Comments:

Editor has been warned several times at the article talk page about not changing the content per discussion and consensus. There is an edit warning/direction imbedded at the info box which the editor has ignored at least twice. His behavior at the article talk page and at editor talk pages has been disruptive. He was also given a NPA warning a week ago for personal attacks at the same article talk page. I will be surprised if the most recent revert from him will be the last for this particular bit of content at the Robin Williams article. Asking for a preventative block based on obvious edit warring behavior with intent to continue regardless of discussion and warnings. -- Winkelvi 17:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. We don't preventatively block editors, and there's no basis for filing an edit-warring report.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm quite confused. This policy [1] says differently. If admins don't preventatively block, then what does "preventative not punitive" mean in light of the policy link I posted above? -- Winkelvi 02:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Two edits is not, in this situation, an indication of ongoing disruption, which would be a preventative block to prevent this ongoing disruption. If your interpretation were correct, you would need to be blocked as much (if not) than the editor you're in a dispute with, not least of all because you misused rollback in an entirely inappropriate way in a content dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
If I did use regular rollback, it was inadvertently. I usually always use Twinkle for reverting. I don't misuse rollback and am very careful with it. If it ever might appear I have misused rollback, it was in error - a mistake only. And, sorry, but I completely disagree that I am being disruptive in this situation. Look at the user's history at the Robin Williams page. Look at his interactions with other editors at the same article's talk page. I truly doubt anyone involved in this disagreement with KahnJohn would say it is me being disruptive and not KahnJohn. User:Masem being one of the other editors who has "Experienced" KahnJohn's edits and behavior at the same article. But as far as the edit diff you included, no, it was not a misuse or inappropriate, but very appropriate considering the circumstances and the consensus already reached on the article talk page. -- Winkelvi 03:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You are still responsible for your mistakes just as everyone else is. You are being just as disruptive as the other editor (which isn't saying much because there's nothing terribly disruptive going on), but it's disingenuous for you to call for the block of an editor when your actions match theirs, even more so when you add the misuse of a user right to it. To my understanding, using twinkle in such a way would add (TW) to the end, but it's still terribly inapproriate; no edit summary and marking the edit as minor when it is anything but that is inappropriate. If you feel that your use of rollback was appropriate there that's a pretty clear sign that you need to have rollback rights removed until you learn when you can and cannot use rollback. Using rollback to edit-war is never appropriate, even if you think consensus has been reached (which I don't see in that discussion at all). - Aoidh (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess you're not understanding what I've said. I am almost completely certain I did NOT use regular rollback on that edit. I am 99.99% certain I used Twinkle rollback - it's not the same as someone having rollback rights using those rollback rights. Anyone in Wikipedia can get and use Twinkle to rollback. Once again: that revert was not done with rollback that is granted as a user right and privilege. And I most certainly was not demonstrating edit warring behavior. You're way off base, here. -- Winkelvi 04:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I'm going to comment and then I don't want anyone to post anything more. First, Winkelvi, you're confused about preventative blocks. The way you're using the word, what you really mean is preemptive, meaning you think there's going to be disruption so you want a block before it happens. We don't do that. A normal preventative block is when there's already been sanctionable disruption, and you block to prevent further disruption. Here, there was no sanctionable disruption. One revert in 24 hours (you listed two but they were more than 24 hours apart) is hardly edit warring. Second, in one of your reverts of the other user, you did it with an explanation. To me, that's not a rollback. In the later one, you reverted without an explanation. That is a rollback as far as I'm concerned. We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:UA Victory reported by User:Antonioptg (Result: Antonioptg blocked)[edit]

Page: Russo-Georgian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UA Victory (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:The user UA Victory deletes contents without a valid reason other than to defend their own view of the facts.--Antonioptg (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This dispute has a long history. Start reading here. The user that reported me is a possible sock puppet of the Italian IP-hopping editor that was trying to push his POV a week ago. I reverted this registered editor's first two edits because they contained copyvios. He later changed text that violated copyright, but refused to address my concerns on talk page. --UA Victory (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
When I restored the last stable version, he reverted my edit and that was the first time I tagged this user's talk page for disruptive editing and WP:COPYVIO. However, he again continued edit warring without giving valid reasons on the article talk page. When he reverted my edit for the last time, I didn't continue to revert him, but he tagged my talk page for edit warring after 50 minutes. --UA Victory (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


I have looked at the Russo-Georgian War: Revision history. User:Antonioptg does not use edit summaries in his/her edits to the article. This makes it hard to assess what he/she was doing. I assume that User:Antonioptg does not have roll-back (roll-back has this unfortunate feature). Talk:Russo-Georgian War: Revision history shows that whilst both editors use the talk page, neither has been in the habit of leaving edit summaries there either. Since 3RR has not been broken, and UA Victory clearly is willing to discuss edits, recommend no action at this time.

If UA Victory thinks that User:Antonioptg is a sock he/she should do a WP:SPI.

Please could both of them start doing edit summaries.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually use edit summaries when I edit articles. It's true that I don't use edit summaries for talk pages, because I've always assumed that when users edit talk pages, it's clear that they leave replies. I also believe that this Italian user is "he" since in Italy Antonio is a male name. Although I would like to discuss the changes, he avoids to address my objections. However I don't agree that there were no rules broken, because his very first edit contained text that infringed copyright; you can fact-check his added text against the cited sources. --UA Victory (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnValeron reported by User:Yworo (Result: No action)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [8]
  2. [9]
  3. [10]
  4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

Yworo (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Yworo, who identifies himself as a Wikipedia:Rouge admin, has falsely accused me of edit warring. This is apparently based on two edits I made to Gavin McInnes on August 30, 2014. In the first, I asked via my edit summary that User:greenrd justify his preceding edit by copying an external article's direct URL from his browser and hyperlinking it to the words "online publication" in the disputed sentence. He did not do so. Instead, he undid my intervening revision and commented testily in his edit summary, "for the last time, it's still there. the URL is the same. It's hidden by a Javascript banner so there is no other URL." In my next good-faith edit, I politely repeated my edit summary request that User:greenrd copy the external article's direct URL from his browser and hyperlink it to the words "online publication" in the disputed sentence. I also requested that User:greenrd explain to Wikipedia readers how to access a secret "hidden" link not visible to the naked eye. I again concluded my edit summary by saying thank you. And as before, User:greenrd did not comply with my simple, straightforward request to make his edit explicable to ordinary users of Wikipedia. Yet Rouge Admin Yworo nevertheless felt compelled to accuse me of edit warring! Finally, and with great difficulty, I managed to locate the Continue link in question. So I concede the article is not exactly "withdrawn." However, it's all but impossible to find. In any case, I emphatically deny Rouge Admin Yworo's allegation of edit warring. All of my edits were in good faith, meant solely to not mislead the Wikipedia reader. JohnValeron (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
User was warned at 3 reverts, reported at 4 reverts per Wikipedia standards. All the required documentation is present. User seems to persist in believing that being "right" (which he isn't) is justification for edit-warring, which he has definitely committed. It isn't. Yworo (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and both users were at 3 reverts and I warned both of them. The other editor has not persisted past 3 reverts. Yworo (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, my 4th revert listed above was made in the heat of anger and was strictly the result of Rouge Admin Yworo baiting me minutes after falsely accusing me of edit warring. So there's that. JohnValeron (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It was not a false accusation, the template is intended to be used after a user has made 3 reverts in 24 hours, before they make their 4th revert. And correcting an article in good faith (as I did after verifying that Greenrd was indeed correct) is not "baiting", that's a personal attack. Really, have you bothered to read the page on edit warring? There is both a clear definition of what precisely edit warring means on Wikipedia, along with a description of how and when to warn and report people. And you shouldn't edit when angry. Yworo (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right. I should not edit when angry. But you did bait me. JohnValeron (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I did not. I researched the issue, then issued a warning to both edit-warring parties before attempting to correct it. I suggest that you deal with your anger issues rather than projecting "blame" on another editor who has been editing in good-faith for nearly ten years. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You made NO attempt to resolve this at Talk:Gavin McInnes before accusing me of edit warring, which naturally angered me. You could have used Talk:Gavin McInnes to patiently explain why I could not see the nearly invisible Continue link that was at the root of the problem. You made no such effort. Instead, you manipulated me to get me blocked, which I suppose is your self-appointed mission as a Wikipedia:Rouge admin. JohnValeron (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You were edit-warring, plain and simple. I followed standard process, as I've been doing for at least the last seven years. Most editors read the related material and definitions, realize that they were indeed edit-warring, and stop. Your untoward reactions are not my fault. This conversation is done. Yworo (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
In what you list above as "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:" you confirm that you made NO attempt to resolve this at Talk:Gavin McInnes before accusing me of edit warring. And yet you insist that you were only following procedure? Rubbish. JohnValeron (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I explained what I was doing in detail in the edit summary. You didn't start a discussion either before you started to edit the article. Stop blaming other editors for your own faults. I am in no way required to discuss in the particular manner that you insist. I wasn't the one edit-warring, you were. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I too explained what I was doing in detail in my edit summaries. The difference between us is that I did not rush to falsely accuse, bait, and report a fellow editor. JohnValeron (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. You were repeatedly baiting User:Greenrd while repeatedly reverting him or her. I followed process, you fucked up. Period. I will not accept your accusations, and you can also be blocked for making personal attacks. You are not psychic, and have no fucking clue what is going on in another editors mind. You are just denying your own responsibility and being a jerk. Bye. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoa! See what I mean? After that vile little tirade, Rouge Admin Yworo accuses me of making personal attacks! What a hoot. JohnValeron (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I see you've been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment before. I've told you I did not intend to bait you. Insisting that I am lying is rude, and continuing to harass me about it is a blockable offence. You just don't seem to get that warnings are intended to help you avoid trouble. Take your passive-agressive bullshit off Wikipedia, please. Yworo (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How utterly predictable. Rouge Admin Yworo now turns detective, dredging up an offense from three years ago to influence the decision in this case. To what low will Rouge Admin Yworo stoop next? Stay tuned. JohnValeron (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
As I've said before, I'm not an admin. The rouge admin page is Wikipedia humour, a joke, as is the "Rouge non- admin" userbox on my user page. If I were an admin, you'd already be blocked. The only thing that has any bearing on whether or not you will be blocked for edit-warring is your attitude. I'd currently estimate that you have a 99% chance of being blocked. Only by admitting you were edit-warring will you avoid a block. If you continue to blame me, the admin responding will be sure that you don't "get it" and need a block to have a bit of time to think about it rather than blaming others. Cheers! Yworo (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Blame you? My dear fellow, not a bit of it! You've been the perfect gentleman in all of our encounters. You are by no means a rogue. JohnValeron (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, it's rouge (non-)admin, not rogue (non-)admin. That's part of the joke. Yworo (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. Per this comment JohnValeron has conceded that the pro-transphobia article is not really withdrawn, but can still be found by clicking past a warning screen. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo reported by User:TL565 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: War in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soffredo (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] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623482315
  2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623482661
  3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623509072 "There's no point in going to the talk page about it."
  4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623521078
  5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623521842

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

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

Comments:
User keeps reverting and doesn't want to go to the talk page. He doesn't listen to what others are saying and continues to re-insert his edit. This is not the first time he has been blocked on this same issue. TL565 (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and as I said in one of my reverts, I realized you were trying to push me into 3RR with your unexplained reverts. Let me explain here. The DNR, LNR, and Russia all claim to be sovereign states. They should all be represented at an equal level. Novorossiya is a confederation and does not claim to be a sovereign state, so shouldn't be alongside Russia. There's a common misconception that Donetsk and Luhansk are provinces of Novorossiya [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 03:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how many reverts you make. More than 3 in 24 hours, you will likely be blocked. Yworo (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, well it wouldn't have happened if I wasn't tricked into this with unexplained reverts. I was actually explaining my edits. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 03:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And that seems to be a personal attack. What, you're psychic so that you infallibly know what another editor's intent is? Isn't "he made me do it" a little childish? Take some bloody responibility for your own actions and keep track of your own reverts! Who the hell else do you expect to do it for you, your mom? Yworo (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Uh, no? I had justified edits. They did unexplained reverts and ended up reporting me. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not your edits are "justified" has no bearing whatsover on the issue. It's a simple count of reverts. That's it. Yworo (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, if your prediction is right, I'll be blocked after suffering from a personal attack !! :: )) [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 03:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't make you do anything. You didn't want to go to the talk page after multiple people reverted you. By saying that i was luring you into 3rr, you admit you broke it and pretty much asked for it. TL565 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, had you read my reasons and done some research yourself, you'd know my edits were justified. As I said There's a common misconception that Donetsk and Luhansk are provinces of Novorossiya. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Soffredo, comments about being "tricked" are not very helpful. You've been told repeatedly in the past to take such matters to the talk page, rather than to keep reverting. Instead, despite being blocked multiple times for such nonsense, you continue the same old behaviour: ignoring the talk page and reverting away over the course of days. Please learn that reverting is not the right way to solve a dispute, discussion is. RGloucester 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There'd be no revert dispute if the person who reported me didn't cause those last two edits. They were unexplained reverts why I explained why I edited. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Stop making excuses! It doesn't matter if you think you're right, you still broke the rule. TL565 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Well this 3RR post wouldn't even exist if you hadn't done your unexplained reverts. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 03:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Not counting your reverts is never another editor's "fault". Grow up! Yworo (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
All of a sudden you care if it was explained or not? You're the one who said it was pointless to talk about it and were going to revert it anyway. TL565 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
All of a sudden you care if it was explained or not? Are you joking? I noted your unexplained reverts twice. Look at the last two links you initially posted. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 03:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you even get what I said? I said why do you care if they were not explained when you said that it was pointless to discuss the issue? You believe you are right no matter what anyone else says and revert anyway. Stop pointing fingers and just admit it. TL565 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User: Damián80 reported by User:Xaxi32 (Result: Indeffed filer)[edit]

Page: El color de la pasión (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Damián80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diffs between two revisions

  1. [14]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

Hi! I need an administrator to do something with that person. He only undoes my edits and if I asked him to explain he didn't even answer. Also he is making false accusations on me being sockpuppet of User:Sky0000. But soon tests show that I am not his puppet. He has already been punished 3 times as you see in block log. He undoes others reverts too. I just want that in Cast section will be more information. But he does not let me or others do that. Please, don't let him continue. Xaxi32 (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) (The edit history from 2014 August 31 06:00 UTC and earlier shows two reversions from each of you. This board is generally only for violations of the three-revert rule, but I believe I need some clarification on this.)
Damian did give a reason in revision 623495387, "Unnecessary", and I would agree with that. I can't speak for another user, but I believe it's trivia that doesn't belong in the cast list.
Please defend yourself against the claims of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky0000. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know but I am sure that he undoes my edit again. Please don't decline the case. Also he has undone that revision from other user too 1 time. That means he has performed same undo 3 times. Xaxi32 (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is what I say, being a new user, it is rare for me to know me, and know how to do is go here complaint. In the past he was told this user that these edits were wrong, and not wanted to understand. Although Xaxi32 denies being a puppet, his acting clearly betrays.--Damián (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The user has already reversed more than 3 times. And still the same. For more messages and explanations to be given still ignoring them. plus it seems to be a puppet of Sky0000. He is now reversing the user Ohnoitsjamie, is possibly using an ip to defend his edition.--Damián (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked. I indeffed Xaxi32 as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sarabveer reported by User:Vigyani (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Akhand Kirtani Jatha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sarabveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 17:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 00:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC) "This article has No Copyright Errors, I will add more references soon! I found alot of books I read about the AKJ."
  4. 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has been previously warned for edit warring on a different article. So I believe they know about edit waring. I have also told them repeatedly about BRD cycle and requested them not to edit war. Multiple editors have reverted their version, but still they persist with a version, which violates many other policies such as WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:NPOV. The attempts to resolve can be seen at article talk page, and mine and their talk page. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Plase Tell of any copyright errors in my article, since I don't see any. And My article is neutral. My article had facts that I also have references for. Sarabveer (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you paid attention to WP:NPOV, have you thought why multiple editors are reverting you ? --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Only you and some other guy that did it today. Not that many, And I Fixed More Copyright errors. Now Ill read this and fix it. I'm assuming after i fix it, again, There will be no issues. Sarabveer (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@User:Vigyani Also, since you are the one screaming at me :P, please point out what part of my article is not neutral Sarabveer (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Only if you revert back to the actual version. See WP:BRD. You made changes, I reverted, and then we discuss, that is the rule here on WP. I can explain you all the problems with your version. I had tried it, but you anyhow went ahead to implementing your changes. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You never tried anything, if you did, please list the problems here with my Current article. Sarabveer (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems. -"WP:NPOV" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarabveer (talkcontribs) 13:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


User:Glamorousselenaofficial reported by User:Damián80 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: La viuda negra (telenovela) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Glamorousselenaofficial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
The soap opera ended on June 8, 2014, and for some reason the user insists on eliminating the parameter end date. I have asked to add references and does nothing. The second season of the telenovela has not yet been confirmed, in the final chapter just says, "is history will continue." And that the only thing used as arguments to remove a parameter from the template.--Damián / talk 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This editor has been having difficulty with understanding how Wikipedia works for a while now. I have had to put two warning notices on their talk page this month. There does to seem to be a bit of a language barrier in play, and while I know that's not really an excuse, it could be a reason for the lack of understanding. -- Winkelvi 04:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I recommend you to block Damián80, because he only undoes others reverts. He has deleted a lot of information of telenovela pages and he has already been punished 4 times for edit-wars. [16] Last time he begged unblock til he got unblocked before deadline. And actually he is the one, who starts edit warring.He thinks that Wikipedia is for him but it is for everyone, because of that he doesn't let others edit. I don't even edit telenovela pages because, I know that Damian undoes it. I hope you'll make right decision. Dasi34 (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


Just filed an SPI for Dasi34 as a sock of Glamorousselenaofficial. -- Winkelvi 07:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not his sockpuppet. Tests will confirm it. Dasi34 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I've asked her to check if Dasi34 is a puppet account Sky0000. Just wait until it is confirmed.--Damián / talk 12:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Boleyn (Result: )[edit]

Page: George Waters (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


I originally posted this at ANI, but was informed that that was not the best venue, as Joe's behaviour was uncivil rather than a personal attack. However, the edit warring issue is clear.

I edited the page George Waters (disambiguation) ([17]) with the edit summaries 'tidy per MOS:D' and '+1'. It was a very small tidy, the kind that I make a dozen of a day without issues, and following the guidelines for disambiguation pages. Joefromrnb then made the following edit undoing mine, with an edit summary ([18]): don't red-link personal names (unless, of course, you're a member of the disambiguation cabal, in which case all rules, up to and including BLP, cease to apply); the level of arrogance is simply staggering. The blp he referred to was actually a long-dead MP. He then undid another part of my edit ([19]) with the edit summary that's quite a misleading redirect and then another part of it with the edit summary WP:LINKSTYLE ([20]). I then thought that if I linked in my edit summaries directly to the policies I was following, Joe would understand, so made this edit [21] with the edit summary Please see MOS:DABPRIMARY; as this isn't an article, the guidelines are different, this [22] with Please see WP:DABREDIR and then this after I had read the comment about how the [my] level of arrogance is staggering ([23]) with edit summary: Instead of leaving rude edit summaries, please read MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. This was Joe's response, undoing all my edits with the edit summary don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't r [24]. I was quite upset and looked at Joe's talk page to see if I should continue a discussion, but User talk:Joefromrandb showed lots of messages about his previous edit warring. I decided to completely leave the page and leave a message at WP: Wikiproject Disambiguation for a third person to look it over. Unfortunately the discussion did not go well: [25]. User:DuncanHill saw the message and restored the deleted entry: [26] with edit summary: legitimate redlink per " there clearly should be a corresponding article AND there is an existing article to link to (e.g., a blue link) elsewhere on the page". BLP does NOT apply as long dead. Joe deleted it with [27] an edit summary: (forum-shopping to the walled garden of a Wikiproject does not in any way override site-wide consensus; rv meatpuppetry). Joe was determined to remove the MP's link, but DuncanHill created George Waters (MP), edit summaries such as [incoming red links removed, this is now not only in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, but much more importantly, with Wikiproject Disambiguation ([28]) aren't helpful.

The edit warring continued onto Mallow (UK Parliament constituency), where George Waters (MP) was listed [29], going beyond WP:3RR.

It also went onto George Waters, where Joe had seen that I had added a 'sections' and 'morecat' tag. See the page's edit history: [30]. I didn't get involved or respond, but DuncanHill reverted when Joe persistently removed my tags. In Joe's edit summaries, he described my edits as 'trolling' and wrote 'But it doesn't need the same fucking tag twice'.

It doesn't look good for WP when editors behave like this. Personally, I found it really upsetting. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Boleyn has previously reported this issue at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852#User:Joefromrandb and at WT:Administrators' noticeboard#Please help. See also WT:WikiProject Disambiguation#George Waters (disambiguation).EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thanks for giving the exact link, but this was stated at the top of the page. I was informed that ANI wasn't a good venue for it. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Pitch till you win, eh? Joefromrandb (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I don't know what to do with this. In my view, this should have remained at ANI. I don't see sufficient discussion there for Boleyn to believe it should have been transferred here. Of course, at this point, the edit warring is stale, another reason for not bringing it here. I nonetheless came close to blocking Joe for his disruptive edits and particularly for the personal attacks - no, not just incivility, which does not include calling other editors trolls and meat puppets (what is your basis for using those labels, Joe?). Then, I got bogged down in how long the block should be. If you look at the history and the last time he was brought to ANI in December 2013, this is a continuation of the same behavior, so by all rights, he should be blocked for longer than a month. Such a long block for such a good editor gave me real pause, so I'm punting this whole thing back at any other administrator who wants to handle it. It's a shame that such a solid and honest editor can't control his mouth (fingers?), but there are other examples of this, and I was reluctant to sanction him for such a long time. Nor did a warning make any sense as god knows he's had enough of them; another one would be really abdicating my responsibility as an administrator, as opposed to just sort of abdicating it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Bbb23 is entirely correct in that Boleyn received bad advice misunderstood a statement [31] on WT:AN as advice to bring it here, and Bbb23 is somewhat correct in that unilateral civility blocks by an admin on a non-troll / vandal are often controversial / more disruptive than the behavior they're addressing. (I'm saying "somewhat" here because being hesitant to block is not "abdication," it's prudence and good judgement. I certainly don't see any harm in yet another warning). I've requested Joe retract their personal attacks and am awaiting reply. Given the prior Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Joefromrandb was non-admin inactivity closed with no obvious conclusion -- the next steps would either be Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Joefromrandb2 or arbcom. (I don't have enough of a read on Arbcom 2014 to know if they'd consider sufficient dispute resolution as having taken place to accept a case.) NE Ent 15:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC) corrected NE Ent 16:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Boleyn actually didn't get ANY advice to bring it here. she was advised that they having been around long enough, they know the right places to take things. Their ANI talkpage discussion suggests they postulated 3 separate things: edit-warring, incivility, and bullying. The were reminded that AN/3 takes care of edit-warring (didn't need to say while it's ongoing), long-term incivility is the remit of WP:RFC/U, and that they had not even provided evidence of WP:HARASS or bullying behaviour. Why they brought a stale AN/3 report here is beyond me ... joe's continual attitude towards others is patently obvious (see even his response in this thread) the panda ₯’ 15:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The ANI was archived quickly without any real discussion actually being had. When I queried why, I was advised that this would have been a better venue for this type of behaviour - apologies if I misunderstood that, but it really shouldn't be so hard to find help/advice. Just because an editor (in this case, myself) has been around a long time, doesn't mean he/she always know the exact venue to get help - I try not to get involved in disputes/edit warring, so it's not exactly my area. This is a real problem with Wikipedia - behaviour like Joe's upsets editors and damages the community, and it isn't easy to get help/advice in these cases, so incivil (nasty) editors continue to put people off editing Wikipedia. Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Your original ANI didn't contain anything immediately actionable by admins, so it was archived. We're apparently not permitted to block - or unblock - for minor incivility. As per multiple suggestions, a new WP:RFC/U is always open to you, seeing as many issues are being brought forward the panda ₯’ 16:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The "meatpuppetry" comment was not directed at Boleyn, so I'm not going to discuss it here unless it's specifically requested. "Trolling", I'll admit was an inappropriate overreaction on my part; mea culpa. With that said, this is forum-shopping at its finest. This is not the page to complain that Joefromrandb is an asshole. AN3 is for administrator intervention against vandalism edit-warring. What intervention is being sought for an edit-war that is four days stale? "Punitive sanctions" is the only logical answer. Even more troubling is the fact that Boleyn is "reporting" me for an edit-war in which she was my counterpart. So while I admit to edit-warring and acknowledge that I should have handled the situation differently, Boleyn is playing the victim here. She says: "...the edit warring issue is clear"; indeed it is. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Surlyduff50 reported by User:31.49.243.63 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: White people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Surlyduff50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments: In edit war with AndyTheGrump. Credible arguments on both sides, but edit warring is unacceptable and both should be punished.

31.49.243.63 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See below: but note also from Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Stale, this happened a day ago, and we don't use blocks as punishments. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Page
Criticism of Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Akshatra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Restored to best version. Revert as usual."
  2. 18:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "You need to revise it. Only added the sources."
  4. 18:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "The content was unsourced. This is explained."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Criticism of Hinduism. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Discussion on user talk page and User_talk:NeilN#Criticism_of_Hinduism. NeilN talk to me 18:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a new editor first of all. Secondly friend User: NeilN you need to understand that I added the sources to the articles as best as possible. Though there can be something wrong in commentary or it is written like an Essay. Thirdly I removed the unsourced content. This is what I did. I have no intention to harm wikipedia at all. And If I unfortunately did then I request for fogiveness. Thanks. Akshatra (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Akshatra: I realize you are a new editor. That's why I gave you a "soft" warning about WP:3RR and again reiterated the need to use the talk page. However if you agree to use the talk page to discuss instead of just reverting back in your content then I think this report can be closed with "no action". --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN I already went to your talk-page for a nice polite discussion before you reprted me. You can come to talkpage of the article. May be we can discuss over there peacefully. with regards, Akshatra (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If User:Akshatra will promise not to revert again until consensus is reached then this report might be closed with no action. His comment above falls short of that goal. If he won't make that agreement, the WP:3RR rule should be enforced. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

okay fine User:EdJohnston I am already discussing on the talkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshatra (talkcontribs) 19:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, still reverting --NeilN talk to me 19:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN What's your problem? You are removing the sourced content. I will also report you next time if you revert it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshatra (talkcontribs) 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

My "problem" is your broken promise, you reverting three different editors, and your use of unreliable sources. --NeilN talk to me 20:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am just reverting the fabricated things on that article. It is you who keep supporting such fabricated things and to push a POV. Bladesmulti is an orthodox hindu. You are making a big mistake buddy by removing edits. Akshatra (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours, since Akshatra did not accept my 19:31 offer but continued to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:31.49.243.63 (Result: Declined)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments: In edit war with SurlyDuff50. Credible arguments on both sides, but edit warring is unacceptable and both should be punished. The fourth edit summary mentioned a weak BLP reason, perhaps because user knew he was breaking 3RR. Note this BLP reason was not mentioned before as a reason for removal. User has a long history of blocks and has not learnt from them: a more serious block might be necessary:

  • Indefinite block: Legal threats
  • 24 hour block: Edit warring
  • 24 hour block: Edit warring
  • 72 hour block: Incivility
  • 12 hour block: Personal attacks and harrassment
  • 24 hour block: Edit warring
  • 1 week block: Personal attacks and harrassment
  • 2 week block: Personal attacks and harrassment
  • 24 hour block: Disruptive editing
  • Indefinite block: Personal attacks and harrassment
  • 10 day block: Edit warring


31.49.243.63 (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I hope Andy is blocked from editing Wikipedia in the future. He is one of the nastiest people on the scene here and I think he is tolerated because partly people think he is funny and partly because of a long history of doing some good things. To me his negative nasty output of slamming people and aggressively doing most anything to get his edits marks him as a really bad apple. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't request that you be blocked for this flagrant violation of WP:NPA? You have made no comment whatsoever on the issue at hand (which has already been closed) but instead have chosen to make an entirely off-topic personal attack. Of course, were you to raise this so-called 'negative nasty output of slamming people and aggressively doing most anything to get his edits' at an appropriate place, I would be obliged to point out your own numerous failings in this regard... AndyTheGrump (talk)
Four points:
(a) The edits were over 24 hours ago.
(b) See Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users".
(c) The anonymous IP has started an RFC (improperly worded, in contravention of the requirement that the 'Statement should be neutral and brief' - it not only lacks neutrality, but brings up this WP:ANEW filing in the statement...) on the images in question - arguing for their inclusion. I would have to suggest that they are clearly involved, and that this filing may be seen as a way to win the debate through questionable means (or possibly as a way to get at me personally)
(d) Most importantly, there is a clear WP:BLP issue involved in unsourced labelling of identifiable minors by ethnicity and nationality. As the talk page indicates, I had made my reservations (which were clearly BLP related) clear to User:Surlyduff50 - the suggestion that I mentioned BLP solely to get around 3RR is self-evidently false.

As for my block record, it isn't good - but neither is it quite as bad as the raw data above might suggest. I would recommend looking at the full block log, and noting the unblocking summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Stale, this happened a day ago, and we don't use blocks as punishments. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Director reported by User:Silvio1973 (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [47]
  2. [48]
  3. [49]
  4. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] [53] [54] [55]

Comments:
On the 1st July 2013 User:Thehistorian10 replied to my previous request of 3O stating that he was tempted to agree with my edits, but the suggestion was ignored by Director. I proposed to Director to propose alternative wording or sources, but he declined the offer. The general impression that I receive is that we face an issue of WP:OWN. However I must confess that it astronomically difficult to deal with Director. And it looks I am not the only one (if I am not wrong, I am the third person reporting him in less than 2 weeks).

Well, let's take it as a start. However it is ironic that in the end the version protected is the one of the user who performed the violation of 3RR. However, let's see how it goes. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Janagewen reported by User:FleetCommand (Result:Blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Template:.NET Framework version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Janagewen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [56] (Original contribution)
  2. [57]
  3. [58]
  4. [59]
    • Reverted by 36.72.25.57
  5. [60] (WP:3RR violation)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor is NOT a vandal, yet in all the honesty his edits are only slightly better than vandalism and his behavior is miles far from civil. He has already accosted I, Codename Lisa and Jeh and even used the filthy F word. (I mean F***.) He adds all caps sentences like "AS COMPANION OR AS PART OF WINDOWS", disregards WP:BRD and talk page consensus, removes contents that are verifiable against the source (e.g. "SP1" from Template:.NET Framework version history) added footnote that is not verifiable, despite being contested at least twice earlier. Moreover, he maintains a condescending attitude and contends that "the page is a mess" in spite of User:Codename Lisa have undergone a lot of trouble adding sources (see [61]). Please compare with S.Örvarr.S's civil behavior in the same page.

Although it is arguable whether he has violated 3RR or not, I contend that if I had reverted once more, he would have responded once more with a counter-revert without thinking. Fleet Command (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? That's your rationale? I wonder what would you do if Jeh or Codename Lisa later reverted you. After all, contributions without source or against the given source are eventually reverted... the nice way or the other way. Fleet Command (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't revert him, but I did reply to a bit of speculation he posted to the Windows XP talk page: [62] He then deleted my comment after replying to it, and then deleted the entire section. After being corrected on this per WP:TALK, he copied his material to his own user page (fine so far) and added a new "Not Welcome Buddy List" section, featuring both myself and CodenameLisa. He deleted this list shortly thereafter [63], and admitted it was a mistake [64], but this is not exactly a collaborative attitude.
His talk page entries are frequently... the kindest term I can think of is "difficult to comprehend". Here's another example: [65] I can't for the life of me figure out what he's trying to say with that; the entire mode of expression seems strange.
He also has a problem with learning the ways and rules of Wikipedia by observation. He often, when corrected, is apologetic [66] but often seems to proceed to another "issue."
I'd say the net result is "mostly harmless, but slow learner." As FC said above, J. is most definitely not a vandal; I have every reason to AGF. But I fear we're on a collision course with WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR. Jeh (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


I think you've got issues mate. May I suggest that you calm down and put things in perspective...? That kind of thing is unlikely to boost your sympathy count here. Or anywhere else for that matter. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Note. I'm considering sanctions; while I look, please note that Janagewen has been blanking comments (their own) from this discussion, and that's the reason some other people's posts look inconsequential. User:Janagewen, you're not supposed to blank comments in discussions, not even your own, when they have been answered. Doing so can make the person who answered you look confused or insane. If you regret what you wrote, instead use <s>..</s> to cross it through. Look in edit mode to see how I did this: that's the way. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC).
Well, dear Sirs and Madams, I know I am not welcome on Wikipedia.org. I just necessarily removed my improper replies. So do please not revert them, OK? I don't want to bring trouble or confusion. Now at this moment no matter what I do is always wrong! So I beg remove my account to get rid of troubles and confusions! Thank you! I beg you all do not comment anymore, my mental could not endure. I wish you people would leave me a reason in the future to visit Wikipedia.org, no matter what would happen to my account. Janagewen (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I didn't restore your posts, because I understood that you regretted them. But I hope you understand for another time my point about crossing them out instead. You are very welcome to edit Wikipedia after the block (for which see below), just please try to do it more calmly. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC).
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Probably not a 3RR breach — it's a little confusing — but certainly edit warring. Also, while self-reverting when one is at risk of breaching 3RR is of course fine, the amount of back-and-forth self-reverting here, [67][68][69][70], raises worrying WP:CIR issues. (Note that the edits are consecutive; it's a monologue.) As do some other things. Anyway, blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

User:Nomnompuffs reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Gender of God (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nomnompuffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [72]
  2. [73]
  3. [74]
  4. [75]
  5. [76]
  6. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79], [80], [81], [82]

Comments:


Edit-warring, personal attacks, vandalism-only account. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Correction: no, I guess I haven't blocked Nomnompuffs, as they had already been blocked for 48 hours by another admin. But I have blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

User:DevonSprings reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
DevonSprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86] entire blanking of paragraph
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Reverting after repeated warnings. Posts a comment on the article talk page, then reverts to their preferred version. Even after pointing out WP:BRD, they reverted. Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The page uses a reference that does not relate to young earth creationism. It uses a reference that refers to young human creationism. Just because the people don't want to believe there is a difference, the difference is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talkcontribs) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This user does not understand how to contribute collegially. The wiki needs protection from further disruption which appears certain given the expressed attitude. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Texasreb reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: )[edit]

Page: Confederate States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Texasreb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Comments:

On August 28, 2014 Texasreb was blocked for 48 hours; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive254#User:Texasreb reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 48 hours). Upon his return today he made the exact same revert that he was blocked for:

  1. [87]

After I reverted him a 2nd revert was made by Texasreb:

  1. [88]

Among his responses to the block on the article's discussion page is the following:

  1. [89]

which suggests that further discussion is unlikely to be productive. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a repeat of the same violation for which I issued a block a couple of days ago. It looks like he will keep going indefinitely unless a further block is issued. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Oldschooldsl reported by User:Tutelary (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Endurance International Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Oldschooldsl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623533065 by Tutelary (talk) --- Does not apply, because this is a historical fact concerning the worldwide web"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 04:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) to 04:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    1. 04:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623532029 by Tutelary (talk) ------- This is historically accurate. Why the agenda to remove it?"
    2. 04:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623532113 by Tutelary (talk)"
  3. 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623531572 by Tutelary (talk)"
  4. 03:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613515646 by Tutelary (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "r"
  2. 04:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 04:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */"
  4. 04:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring Follow Up */ r"
Comments:

This editor has previously not edited for over three years (since 2011) but has since taken a vested interest in this exact topic. This is a content dispute; and I will admit that, but they're already at 5RR and I feel that only a block for edit warring will get them to discuss their changes rather than to continuously revert. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment When I saw the last revert this morning, I left the user a message stating that he had violated 3RR and inviting him to self-revert.[90] That message got no response; it's been nine hours since the user's last edit. I've reinstated the tag that was deleted from the article. Personally, I'm inclined to wait until the user's next edit to act. If he engages in discussion, we have no problem. If it's a revert, then he's saying by actions that he intends to continue to edit war, and a block to prevent further disruption is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

C.Fred

It is true that I have not edited a page since 2011. I don't usually see a need to get involved in WikiPedia. In fact, I'll confess my ignorance in that I don't exactly know how to use it or else I would have reported the user Tutelary from the beginning (something I don't even know how to do). Editing WikiPedia is somewhat complicated and there is so much "shortcode" that I find myself lost.

However my inexperience or lack of activity or even lack of seniority is irrelevant in the quest for obtaining historical factual information, which is what WikiPedia is all about. And someone writing and erasing history is not what an Encyclopedia is for. WikiPedia defines an encyclopaedia as:

An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (also spelled encyclopædia, see spelling differences)[1] is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.[2] Encyclopedias are divided into articles or entries, which are usually accessed alphabetically by article name.[3] Encyclopedia entries are longer and more detailed than those in most dictionaries.[3] Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

The argue made by Tutelary is that when X site goes down its not historical enough to warrant an entry and on the face value principle he would be right, except for the fact that we're not talking about a single website or even a small provider. When a large provider essentially becomes part of the backbone of the internet and its network outage takes offline so much of the internet that CNN, ABC, CBS actually do a report on it... That is something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldschooldsl (talkcontribs) 16:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Oldschooldsl is warned for violating WP:3RR on 31 August. If he continues to revert the article before getting consensus on the talk page he may be blocked without further warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Discospinster reported by User:101.163.108.17 (Result: Reporter blocked)[edit]

Page: 2014 celebrity pictures hack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Discospinster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [92]
  2. [93]
  3. [94]
  4. [95]
  5. [96]

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

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

Comments:

Removal of external links relevant to the topic. Links in no way violate any Wikipedia policy, clearly this user is just a silly kid getting his kicks by vandalising and edit warring. 101.163.108.17 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER and WP:ELNO point #3. We don't post links to stolen material. Grow up. --NeilN talk to me 14:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment Reporter already appropriately blocked by Discospinster. We don't link to stolen personal images per ELNO, BLP and common decency. Acroterion (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Matt 20123 reported by User:Theironminer (Result: )[edit]

Page: User talk:Matt 20123 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Matt 20123 (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. [97]
  2. [98]
  3. [99]
  4. [100]
  5. [101]
  6. [102]

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

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

Comments:

This user continued to remove sections on his talk page without replying. My section stated that his edits were inappropriate and should leave a summary of his edits. I tried telling the user he can just reply after he removed the section, yet he removed it again. I then gave him a notice that I'm reporting him

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theironminer (talkcontribs) 06:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

User once again removed section from talk page with no response. - Theironminer (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Gringoladomenega reported by User:Qed237 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Atlético Madrid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Gringoladomenega (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 23:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) to 23:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    1. 23:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 23:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) "Griezmann is a left winger! In European media, including the English, he is known as João Miranda."
  3. 23:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC) "http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/joao-miranda-set-manchester-united-3673176 and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2654243/Manchester-United-target-Miranda-reveals-talks-English-Spanish-clubs.html"
  4. 22:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
  5. 16:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
  6. 11:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC) "Ángel Correa not part of the first team"
  7. 11:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
  8. 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
  9. 23:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
  10. 23:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Griezmann is a winger; # 23 is known in Spain as João Miranda; # 25 is known by the nickname Bono."
  11. 23:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Atlético Madrid. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[103]

Comments:

He has made many hidden reverts (against multiple editors) adding name to player and changing position without any discussion. The source (officiall club webpage) of the squad he makes changes to says one thing and he wants an other thing for the player names. Now he even moved page Miranda (footballer) to João Miranda (footballer) just to be able to add the player name in Athletico article. Has history of edit warring and vandalism (blocked three times in six months). He also went to talk page of one of the other editors User talk:83.84.245.25 and added warning I gave to him (including a diff of his incorrect edit). Does not seem to understand he should not edit war and cant always get his ideas through.