Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive260

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Alifazal reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 01:52, 7 October 2014
  2. Revision as of 01:59, 7 October 2014
  3. Revision as of 02:04, 7 October 2014
  4. Revision as of 15:18, 19 October 2014
  5. Revision as of 15:51, 19 October 2014
  6. Revision as of 16:05, 19 October 2014
  7. Latest revision as of 16:20, 19 October 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk Page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page Section

Comments:

User has failed to receive consensus and has chosen instead to violate 3RR so he could add a Monument. Despite presenting no evidence he has accused me of having a "Conflict of interest"; which he attempted to "resolve" at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Despite being able to easily solve it at the talk page, he choose to go there instead. It, however, was quickly rejected by an admin who stated:

"This is not the board to come to because you're not happy with having your edits reverted. This is a board to come to when you have actual evidence of a conflict of interest problem. You have none. Please take discussion of content to the Talk page of the article."

He too has accused me of presenting no explanations as to why I removed the image despite the fact that I had already given him two reasons.

The most shocking thing about his edit waring is the fact that this is the same issue that got him blocked for two weeks due to a failed attempt at accusing me of being a sock of Middayexpress and vise versa, just so he could avoid receiving consensus once again. Instead of complying with his block he choose to continue socking; which again has got him blocked for another week. AcidSnow (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

To what AcidSnow writes above I'd like to point out that this user Alifazal actually pretended to be a separatist from Somaliland through his now blocked "User:No More Mogadishu" sock account. Besides the telling username (Mogadishu is the capital of Somalia and he claimed to want "no more" of it) he added a big flag of Somaliland to his userpage with the caption that "We greet you with the memory of the heroes who sacrificed their lives For the nationhood of Somaliland" [1]. If that wasn't enough, he also rather bizarrely added two infoboxes reading "this user comes from Somaliland" and "this user recognizes the independence of Somaliland" to the userpage of one User:Theyuusuf143. Theyuusuf143 was at the time causing disruption before he was eventually blocked [2]. Unlike Alifazal/No More Mogadishu, however, Theyusufabdi is actually from the Somaliland region. Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
As Middayexpress pointed out, a one week block seems pretty odd after what he has been doing, Bbb23. Nonetheless, I thank you for your assistance. AcidSnow (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bobi987 Ivanov reported by User:Laveol (Result:blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page: Yane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bobi987 Ivanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]
  5. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's own talk page: [10]

Comments:
I've laid out my concerns over the editor's behaviour at the incidents noticeboard. Since that report, he has been engaged in a fierce edit war on a number of articles (the most blatant example is Yane Sandanski, but there are others, such as Todor Panitsa, Boris Sarafov). Initially, I tried to contact him via the talkpage, since he was guaranteed to see it there. Later, I found out he was actually an experienced editor who was well aware of his actions. I also get the impression he is bringing his personal feud with another editor from mk.wiki to en.wiki.--Laveol T 11:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I just add some more useful info., and provide the sources. That's all. I never delete anything, unlike others. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You've been adding info directly from blogs, misinterpreted and misquoted a number of sources, and you've cluttered articles with unnecessary (mis)quotes. However, this is not the topic of discussion here. The question is why you continued to revert and revert, and doing it without a proper justification. You were warned that you needed to calm down. --Laveol T 11:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if one has got impeccable sources, this is no reason to edit-war. Here's a summary of five reverts on Boris Sarafov:
  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]
  5. [15].
At this rate (5 reverts/ 7 hours) you would break even a 15RR, if there were one. Also, you ignored my comments on the talk page. This is not the way to go. Tropcho (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Berean! Just so you guys know, it seems that this IP Special:Contributions/79.126.250.162 is picking up Bobi987's cause. Tropcho (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've increased his block time to 1 week for evasion and semi-protected a couple of articles. His IP address is hardblocked one week as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! Tropcho (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the user is back under Special:Contributions/79.126.186.106 as well as Special:Contributions/85.30.109.189. On Talk:Boris_Sarafov he doesn't conceal that he's the user who made the earlier edits (he referred [16] to the earlier edits he made as his own and he copied comments he made earlier on his talk page [17]). That it's the same user is also suggested by the fact that the two IPs are editing the same five pages Bobi987 was editing before the block (except the two with protection, Boris Sarafov and Todor Panitsa). Tropcho (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Isuruwe reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Indefinitely blocked)[edit]

Page
Ayn al-Arab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Isuruwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630398287 by RGloucester (talk)"
  2. 16:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630230975 by 97.117.187.212 (talk)"
  3. 12:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630205827 by Dekimasu (talk)"
  4. 17:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629864604 by Dekimasu (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user continually attempts to create a fork of Kobanê. That article was moved from the title Ayn al-Arab a few days ago, as part of a requested move discussion. The user did not agree with the move, and has since been edit-warring to establish a fork of the Kobane article. This article is under strict WP:1RR in line with WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, which he has clearly violated. RGloucester 17:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked Nick (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

But after the block of Isuruwe, an IP,103.21.166.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has rolled up with the same edit, so the article looks as if it needs semi-protection. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've semiprotected Ayn al-Arab for two months due to the IP activity. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
IP blocked for a year as well--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Blocks, Warnings)[edit]

Page: Alison Lundergan Grimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [19] 1st revert, restoring content that was widely discussed in talk - no attempt to join in the discussion
  1. [20] Reverted edit by me
  1. [21] Reverted edit by Binksternet
  1. [22] Reverted edit by MelanieN

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24], Talk:Alison_Lundergan_Grimes#Massive_content_deletion

Comments:

  • After he breached 3RR, I suggested to he self-reverts and engages in discussion, but he declined [25] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, it's edit-warring all right. My only defenses are (1) that they were already edit warring to keep the content out, before I showed up at this article, and (2) the material is clearly well-sourced and very relevant to the article subject's notability. Nobody has made a cogent case for excluding the material, but everybody seems real enthusiastic about removing it.
As for the material having been "widely discussed in talk", I did see a talk page section, but it seemed to revolve entirely around 3RR threats against CFredkin and accusations that he was a paid editor. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That section contains a substantial discussion which you chose to ignore (Talk:Alison_Lundergan_Grimes#Massive_content_deletion0. CFredkin reverted five times on that article, and was blocked for a week. I have no idea why you would want to follow in his footsteps. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That was the precise discussion section I was referring to that revolved around making accusations against Fred and getting him blocked, seemingly for nothing more than reverting your inappropriate edits. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a plain 3RR violation, and in his comment above Factchecker does not admit to anything wrong. In my opinion a block of at least four days would be justified based on the block history. Factchecker might avoid a block if they will agree not to edit this article or its talk page for the remainder of 2014. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not think this is a legitimate demand and thus I cannot acquiesce to it; sorry. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the penalty for lack of remorse comes after the conviction, Ed. Before that, it's called "defending yourself". ‑‑Mandruss (t) 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Haha, a ringing endorsement! Jaykay, jaykay, thanks for that. But I will say in my defense that one of the two blocks that I have received in my Wiki-career resulted from 3RR violations against a tendentious editor who was later indef blocked for disruption. There were some very sincere expressions of sympathy, including from a friendly admin, though I don't think anyone argued that I was innocent... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Cwobeel was clearly also edit warring at the same time [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] for 5RR on 20 October 03:25 to 13:50 , and is fully as guilty of edit war here. Collect (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Check the history, these were my consecutive edits to explain the deletion of each sentence in edit summaries as a courtesy. Actually, I checked these diffs and these are not reverts. These were edits. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Every single one of the five was a "revert" under the Wikipedia definition -- you cannot reasonably assert that edits which did not precisely "revert" a prior edit are not reverts - every one of them made changes of substantial effect concerning edits made by others in the immediate past. To assert that "reverts are not reverts" is not an effective plea. And they were not "consecutive edits" as you appear to initially assert here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Collect: The admin closing this report has the history available to him/her to make a determination. My position is that I worked on the article yesterday late night and in collaboration with an other editor we added material and added sources. It is all in the history. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RE Centrify/FC's claim that "Nobody has made a cogent case for excluding the material:" In fact I have twice made a substantive argument at talk for excluding the material.[31] [32] Nobody has addressed my comments; they just keep re-adding the material. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Those comments, which you did not even bother making til you had already reverted me two or three times, did not raise any policy issue and in fact suggested that you wished to inject your own political analysis into the article. And then there's the "isn't it convenient" personal attack. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Please get your facts straight. I reverted you once, then posted my comment at the talk page, then reverted you a second time. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I can see that one of the deletions was not a revert. You still didn't cite any policy, just your unsourced WP-editor analysis that was contrary to the analysis given by the source, that fundamentally misstated the facts and looked like POV pushing. You also leapt right into unnecessary personal attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I asked MelanieN at the article talk page to explain the personal attack(s), she's now moved those attacks to her own talk page, still not answering why she thinks they are necessary or from where she is getting an impression of wrong-doing. My guess is she thinks you and are in collusion. Truth is, I don't think you and I have ever interacted previously. I saw what was going on at the article and felt reverting the content out was wrong and unnecessary. That's all there is to it. -- WV 16:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
My, my, aren't we touchy! I make one sarcastic comment (which was here if anyone cares), and two people take it as a personal attack! The policy based reason for my argument is WP:UNDUE, not to mention WP:NEWS. We are not supposed to include every passing news item in an article, certainly not a BLP article. The point these two are so eager to include is a complaint filed by the opposing party, of the kind that is routinely made by both sides in any election. If the complaint achieves any lasting significance, followup reporting, action by the FEC, etc., then it should certainly be included. But to date it has not achieved any such significance. And it is certainly not significant enough to excuse Centrify/FC for their edit warring. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
"Touchy"? Not at all. But considering you've now posted personal attacks against me at the article talk page, your talk page, my talk page, and now here, I think you're trying to provoke me in that direction. -- WV 16:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think that reverting three times in a row yourself in the last couple of hours, each revert against a different editor, while this report is still open is a pretty bad idea? - Cwobeel (talk)
@EdJohnston:, I respect and will honor this warning, but it is based on a false statement by Cwobeel. It's true that Winkelvi inserted the same material three times. It is not true that I reverted three times. I actually reverted twice, both times against FactChecker. I then not only stopped, but said at the talk page that I was not going to revert a third time.[33] --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually - looking at it again, I think that Cwobeel was actually talking to Winkelvi, not to me. In that case I am even more puzzled why I was included in the warning. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:64.183.48.206, User:107.220.86.220 reported by User:Willondon (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page: White Rabbit (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User(s) being reported:
64.183.48.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
107.220.86.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


This is last calm, before the storm: [34]

In the article White Rabbit, between October 16, 14:56 and October 19, 11:12, there have been eight assertions and reverts, with one unrelated edit. Two IP editors have repeatedly made substantially the same assertion, and three other editors (including myself) have reverted it.

After "Notes", reverts show quotes from the edit summary.
None of the assertions contain anything in the edit summary.

First assertion by 64.183.48.206: [35]
First revert by Willondon: [36]; Notes: unsourced; original research?

Second assertion by 107.220.86.220: [37]
Second revert by Radiopathy: [38]

Third assertion by 107.220.86.220: [39]
Third revert by Willondon: [40]; Notes: unsourced material; original research? (wikilinks to WP:VER and WP:OR)

Fourth assertion by 64.183.48.206: [41]
Fourth revert by Radiopathy: [42]; Notes: unsourced; original research

Fifth assertion by 107.220.86.220: [43]
Fifth revert by Radiopathy: [44]; Notes: unsourced, original research (with wikilinks now)

Sixth assertion by 107.220.86.220: [45]
Sixth revert by Willondon: [46]; Notes: pls discuss on talk page before reasserting this edit

Seventh assertion by 107.220.86.220: [47]
Seventh revert by Hchc2009 [48]; Notes: As per Willonden, pls discuss on the talk page first

Eighth assertion by 107.220.86.220: [49]
Eighth revert by Radiopathy: [50]; Notes: unsourced and no discussion

Comments:

I'm not aware of any warnings (edit warring or 3RR) given to the IP editor(s). The recent edits and reverts have not been discussed on the talk page. As far as I know, the only communication is in the edit summaries, and through the fact that the assertion has been consistently reverted.

Recognizing that edit warring is independent of whether the edit is correct or not, I note that repeated assertions become more refined with a little expansion in later ones. Sure signs of original research, in my opinion.

Willondon (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NB A warning notice was left yesterday, difference [51]. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected (semi) for two weeks. The truth of the matter is I'm too tired to figure out what really is going on here, so I'm taking the easy way out.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Three warnings about unsourced content. Radiopathy •talk• 00:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Luxey reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: List of Irish Travellers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luxey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56] Didnt fully remove on first attemp
    1. [57] Completed above removal

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:
Luxey is an SPA, who does not like that one of those one the list is not a good representative of the travelling/gypsy community and wishes to remove hin from the list. Murry1975 (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment. The reverts continue, here's another. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User: Carlojoseph14 reported by User:112.198.82.96 (Result: Already semi-protected; stale)[edit]

Page: Loboc Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carlojoseph14 (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. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]
  4. [63]
  5. [64]
  6. [65]
  7. [66]
  8. [67]
  9. [68]
  10. [69]
  11. [70]
  12. [71] – by a different user
  13. [72] – from different user
  14. [73]
  15. [74]
  16. [75]
  17. [76] – protection applied solely to thwart my anonymous editing
  18. [77] – edits by another user
  19. [78]
  20. [79] – edit by another user
  21. [80]
  22. [81]
  23. [82]
  24. [83]
  25. [84]
  26. [85]
  27. [86] current

NB I edit anonymously, so all IPs starting 112.198.82 in this list are me.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

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

Comments:


Editor continues to flout WP:CAPITALS WP:OVERLINK WP:ROC WP:EDITORIALIZING. I have directed him/her to WP:OWNERSHIP, wikipedia abbreviations and WP:WIP but I doubt s/he has read them, or considered their application. Messages to me are condescending and dictatorial, e.g. "Don't accuse behind anonymous IP addresses", as well as attempting to contravene WP:PRIVACY (– depends who "I" am).

112.198.82.96 (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The article is already semi-protected by another admin, and the edit war is stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The remaining issue is the WP:CAPITALS which was copyedited and resolved by another user. Granting the page semi-protected infers that the edit by the IP user is not good. I question that the accuser still use an IP address. I think he/she must be brave enough and edit using his username. The page was formatted similar to articles on churches in the Philippines. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit war is not stale, it's ongoing. It's paused on Loboc Church because of temporary page protection limiting my means of assertion. Arrogance continues unabated. User acknowledges flouting all the rules I quoted. NB user has been editing only since May this year. I have just started editing all Philippine church pages according to WP standards, not this user's own. 112.198.82.96 (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
My edits were supported by an edit of another user (diff here), which was reverted again. [Why use different IP address with your edits if you have your own username?] --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As you can see, user continues to assert all manner of WP:OWNERSHIP and insists that WP:PRIVACY is not a matter to be considered either. Fact remains his edits are lacking in syntax and lexis, and do not follow any of the norms that Wikipedia requests. This issue is not resolved merely by page-protecting so I cannot apply anonymous edits. User needs to be told how Wikipedia works - it is not his/her personal playground. 112.198.77.39 (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not insisting that I own the article, I knew that once I posted it here, everyone owns it. I am not stating that because you are an IP user, your edits and comments must not be considered. All I am saying is, if you're proud and stand by your edits, use your own username. If my edits were not constructive, why did you revert the edits here? The article was patterned after another article I started, Maribojoc Church, which is currently in GA status. I'm serious with editing, I knew this is not a playground, that's why I always edit with my user logged in. I may not be new here, last May 2014, but I make it a point that I'm not only editing but I also contribute quality edits. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Quality edits? Pah! They display poor syntax and lexis, hardly surprising when they're copied from other sources without understanding what they say (V.Punta Cruz Watchtower). Stop banging on about anonymous editing, as though it's a sin. I'm not proud, I don't care about edit counts, barnstars, GA, all that nonsense. All I care about is to develop a page so that it can stand as a good example of encyclopaedic content, regardless of its subject. Start following the wikipedia guidelines, both regarding article content and style, and the way to treat other editors. I've already given you lots of pointers to them - about time you read them, and applied them. GA status is a joke! BTW I came past Loboc Church this morning and the big sign outside isn't fussed with inappropriate capitals. 122.53.28.42 (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Adjutor101 reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adjutor101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [88] - (Undid revision 630360726 by Dougweller (talk) Dougweller citing religous scholars, academic books, Quran,Hadith and Mirza's own writing does not constitute as dubious source.)
  2. [89] - (Undid revision 630377456 by Bladesmulti (talk) Yes Quran quotes are used as Mirza criticism. Your point is ? Also why did you remove quotes from Mirza own book. Learn to be critical !)
  3. [90] - (Undid revision 630398272 by Bladesmulti (talk) Learn to accept Criticism that is reference, even if it goes against your religious beliefs. I also replied.)
  4. [91] - (Removed http://irshad.org/exposed.php Dawat-o-Irshad, url=http://alhafeez.org/rashid/nadwi.htm, http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/qadian.htm, changed "does not hold water", now only academic books, mirza books, Quran sources+hadeeth remain)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:[92]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad#Finality_of_Prophethood.3F


Comments:

If you revert him, he will warn you to stop vandalizing.[93] [94] Bladesmulti (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I might have shown the user more leniency as the warning came late in the game (as far as I could tell - he removes everything negative from his talk page), and I don't think his edit after the warning was a revert (unless it was restoring something that had been removed), but the use of the vandalism templates on the talk pages of editors who disagreed with him was over the top. Plus, he had reverted many times before the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a note that the last edit was indeed a revert as it was restoring information that another editor had removed. That means that the user did in fact revert after the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Spiritclaymore reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Huns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spiritclaymore (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. [95] - With copyvio on the last source, which was why he was reverted three more times yesterday (a half dozen reverts in the past 36 hours)
  2. [96]
  3. [97]
  4. [98] - With the edit summary "Adding poor quality science and mot reliable just to be fair"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Huns#.22Mongoloid.22

Comments:

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And Spiritclaymore seems to think that 12 hours is more than 24 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
1) No one had replied me in the talk page of Huns and I've already waited for more than 24 hours after re-editing ----> ( my mistake is 12 hours, I waited and slept and woke up at night, Ian.thomson is absolutely correct ) . 2) Also I still do not understand why is an data being removed after it had been edited since 2014 April. Why was it able to last for almost 7 months if the moderators were doing their job, why didn't any moderator remove it until now? this leads anyone suspect that some people are biased against some certain data and wish it remove. 3) why are some edits I've been told to rephrase counts as being part of the edit war? I'm overall very suspicious. 4) The anthropology data on Huns by our Hungarian anthropologist and archeologist should at least be mentioned while stating the great possibility that it had errors subject to scientific racism. This is what I can non-biased editing because it shares both of our opinion. To remove it like basically claiming it never existed. Spiritclaymore (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Dougweller replied on the talk page, repeating the clear consensus on the talk page to not add the material. You were then reverted by a number of editors, a sign that your edits were against consensus.
That the material was there for some time does not matter, it should not have been there, and it is not there now. You have not provided any convincing arguments for the inclusion of the material. The consensus is to not include the material, and that's so obvious that Ray Charles could see it from the dark side of the moon. Your refusal to listen to consensus is not an excuse, it only makes you look bad.
As for you taking way too long to learn to not plagiarize, I've seen editors blocked for screwing up with plagiarism half as much as you did.
As for "shares both of our opinion" - Wikipedia does not operate that way, see WP:GEVAL. If scientific consensus is on one side, and the opposing view is not backed by mainstream academia, we do not create a false balance. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller, you and other moderators had reverted my edits in a very short time, it was like stalking me and removing all my other wiki page edits in a matter of minutes or less than a hour and I complied to it. Yet this time is the totally opposite, you claim not to add unwanted materials yet you obviously allowed such a unwanted for materials for a long time, or perharps not every moderator can be on their job 24 hours ( or for other reasons ) but lasting for half a year is still inexcusable. I still feel suspicious though and other possibilities of why being removed now. My feelings are 50/50 and sadly I may never know the truth and I do not have the power to restore the edit. I wouldn't be surprised half of the stuff I read would be removed later on.
There is even a wiki page of Optimism bias on moderators. It says " A meta-analysis reviewing the relationship between the optimistic bias and perceived control found that a number of moderators contribute to this relationship. " so I can't say I totally agree with all your opinions -- Spiritclaymore (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Spiritclaymmore, I should block you for breaching WP:3RR and your lack of insight into the policy but, instead, I'm going to give you some tips and let another administrator decide whether to impose sanctions:
  • You are very stubborn. You don't really listen to what other more experienced editors tell you, and you keep repeating your notions as to how things should work instead of learning how they in fact work here.
  • Your understanding of WP:3RR is flawed. All you have to do is change the article in some substantive way, and that counts as a revert. Your notion that because you have theoretically eliminated the copyright violation and rephrased the material, that doesn't count as a revert is wrong.
  • Your idea that because something was in an article for a long time, it must be okay to restore it is flat-out incorrect. I believe there are over 4M articles here, and even with all the editors we have reviewing the quality of articles (not to mention bots), much inappropriate material goes unnoticed for long periods of time. It's effectively impossible for it to be any other way. It's no one's "job" here; we're all volunteers.
  • Just because no one replies to you on a talk page does not give you implicit permission to revert.
  • Articles must be neutral and reliably sourced. However, they don't have to be balanced if the only way to achieve that "balance" is to include material that is fringe and produced by unacceptable sources.
End of Wikipedia 101.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Juno (Result: No action)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [101]
  2. [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

Comments:

Article is subject to 1RR Community Sanctions per WP:ARBAB. I let Roscelese off with a warning for edit warring on a different abortion-related article earlier this week but she chose to continue to edit war.

Elizium23 warned Roscelese about the removal of maintenance tags, a warning that Roscelese removed. Elizium23 then warned Roscelese about her subsequent 1RR violation and offered her the chance to self-revert. Roscelese, after being warned multiple times about edit warring on abortion-related articles, chose to make 2 reverts in 40 minutes and chose to not self-revert when offered the chance to do so. Juno (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing an unclear maintenance tag shouldn't be counted as a revert. Take a look at the talk page. The current version is acceptable with no need of the maintenance tag. The source still doesn't mention Scott Roeder and he's still in the article. Some of the points are pedantic. Oh no the source calls him a killer but not a murderer. Shulman was hypothetical. "I will kill you but only if this person is acquitted." The source didn't say Roeder was anti-abortion but the hot linked article on him did. If the tag and the reason for the tag was clear that could have been added to the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:REVERT, it counts as a revert. The discussion about that tag was ongoing on the talk page, the user was warned about 1RR multiple times, she was let off with a warning about edit warring on the same topic earlier this week, and she declined a chance to self-revert. Juno (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Well obviously yes it is but then so is [105] and [106]. It's already clear that Elizium is aware of the policy here. But I'm sure that should really be counted either. Not much of an edit war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That was 2 reverts inside of 23 hours and 58 minutes (as is opposed to 2 reverts in 39 minutes), if you want to file a report for that I'm not here to stop you. Juno (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes but the other abortion article incident that you are talking about happened about as close as that. There's no need to file another report. It's right here already. It's of the same incident. It was case of drive by tagging. It led to some absolutely ridiculous comments on the talk page. The article said killer and not murderer. Really? The article didn't call this hypothetical threat hypothetical. Really? And while the source didn't mention.....I'm hoping that common sense can be used here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If you read the talk page, it is a fair bit more complicated than that. Juno (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If we should strictly apply 1RR both Roscelese and Elizium23 should be blocked for edit warring. But looking at the silliness of the dispute as pointed above by Serialjoepsycho, and considering that the dispute appears moot (the sentence was rewritten and the tag removed), I suggest to close this thread. Cavarrone 11:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Her established pattern of conduct toward Elizium23 and other editors should be taken into consideration. Has she consistently been a good collaborator, or has she been disruptive? AtsmeConsult 19:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. The dispute has quiesced and people are now working to improve the article. Editors should be aware that per WP:GS, abortion-related articles are still under 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:180.216.85.183 reported by User:The Rambling Man (Result: Blocked, and blocked again for a week)[edit]

Page: Gina Rinehart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.216.85.183 (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 (in the past 97 minutes, notwithstanding the other reverts in the previous few days):

  1. [107]
  2. [108]
  3. [109]
  4. [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112], and user's talk page: [113], [114], [115], [116]

Comments:
There's a lengthy discussion on the talk page which shows a clear majority and consensus for a particular variation of "chairman/woman/person". However, that's somewhat irrelevant to the case in question, whereby a clear violation of 3RR has taken place in just over an hour-and-a-half. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The anon has returned to exact same edit warring, 3RR violation (in less than 12 hours, even). He has vowed in an earlier edit-summary to get his way no matter what [117], and seems to mean it. Choor monster (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are the new 3RR diffs: [118] [119] [120]

Choor monster (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for six months. Another admin has reblocked the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Thank you, Choor monster and EdJohnston. The IP hasn't breached 3RR since the first block (that takes four reverts, not three), but they immediately returned to edit warring again on the same page. These are aggravated circumstances. Bishonen | talk 13:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC).

User:Grammophone reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocks)[edit]

Page
Galerie Gmurzynska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Grammophone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "Restores suppressed history."
  1. 16:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "Restores properly documented and sourced history of the gallery."
  1. 21:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Responds to administrators' remarks on edit warring."


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion */ don't resume the edit war."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Stubifying */ new section"
Comments:

Resumption of edit war right after unprotection of page, following previous report of edit war. User has not engaged in talk page discussion since, but has merely posted to my talk page to explain why his edit warring isn't edit warring. (PS: If anyone wants to take over being the eyes on this article, please do. I'm tired of the game of both sides of this.) Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Two editors blocked 3 days: User:Grammophone and User:Art&Design3000. Bbb23 warned both participants in this closure of the previous 3RR earlier this month. Ten days of full protection was not enough to cool down these guys. It appears that Art&Design3000 has also been reverting using an IP. There might be considered to be BLP issues, but the negative material is well-sourced. Mostly the article needs some normal editing to restore perspective and omit the blow-by-blow of legal disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:AbelM7 reported by User:HMWD (Result: Blocks)[edit]

Page: List of wars involving Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AbelM7: AbelM7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [122]
  2. [123]
  3. [124]
  4. [125]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[126]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127], [128], [129]

Comments:
I am having problems with the user AbelM7 once again, we have had problems regarding this kind articles back some months ago, yet here we are again, last time it took weeks and various users to make him understand. He keeps removing data that is appropiate for the arcticle, especially when, as i explained to him in his talk page and edit summaries many times now that the incidents i want to add are nowhere near to be as simple as he describes them in his summaries and that there are another entries in the page that are less relevant and less fitting to be there, but he has no problem with them, AbelM7 is a user that is constantly engaged in edit wars and on his talk page there are always other users asking him to stop editing in the arbitrary and biased manner he edits (he always removes/adds data because he wants it, not because is appropiate or not, writting the same false argments again and again in the edit summaries, disregarding all the explanations that other users give to him), He has been blocked for ewdit warring and violating the 3RR 3 times before this year, with the most recent being two weeks ago [130] He does know wha he is doing, and has been warned enough times before for acting the way he acts


That's all i think. HMWD (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: AbelM7 and HMWD are blocked four days each. They both have a history of edit warring. Instead of reverting forever you could try for a talk page consensus or use WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:HMWD reported by User:AbelM7 (Result: Blocks)[edit]

Page: List of wars involving Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HMWD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [132]
  2. [133]
  3. [134]
  4. [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137], [138], [139], [140]

Comments:
Once again, HMWD has decided to start another edit war with me in the same article. We had a dispute a while back and it took weeks and interference by other users to make him understand and then we reached a compromise. Now he's back, this time trying to add an expedition and a massacre to the list of wars involving Mexico. He keeps on adding the expedition and the massacre. I keep on explaining to him (many times) why they shouldn't be there (obvious one: they're not wars) but he ignores the reasons, comes up with "both incidents involved hundreds of men and lasted from weeks to months" as a reason (they could last however long, that still wouldn't make them wars) and keeps on adding them there. This would be the equivalent of adding the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Boston Massacre to the list of wars involving the United States. I don't want to edit war with him. He seems to have created his profile just for editing on the Border War and List of wars involving Mexico with his own biased editing and doesn't show any signs of stopping. He just won't listen. AbelM7 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, HMWD has decided to start another edit war with me in the same article AbelM7, i think you must read WP:EDITWAR first, you are the reverter here, by definition you started the edit war, and keep ignoring all the reasons i've given to you and keep reverting, and every time you are reported instantly after you open a case to report the user that reported you, wikipedia is not a game or a toy. I am now wondering if you really believe that what you are doing is fair and unbiased in any way (because i've told you many times before: many incidents already included in that article are worse in every way than the ones i want to include, call it relevancy, duration, number of men involved, officiality whatever. But you don't have any problem with these), or you just like to play with the patience of other editors. Whenever you edit it takes big presure from other editors, treaths of blocking or you getting blocked to make you desist from doing your plays in other articles, you have been blocked three times for doing this before [141]. Is not that everyone else is at fault and you are right, you are the one that is at fault. HMWD (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Both editors blocked per an earlier report of the same dispute. See above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cjmooney9 reported by User:Flyer22 (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

Page: Pedophilia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cjmooney9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [142]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [143]
  2. [144]
  3. [145]
  4. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148]

Comments:
Cjmooney9 has a history of engaging in WP:Synthesis and WP:Edit warring at the Pedophilia article, and elsewhere on Wikipedia, and never seems to truly adhere to the WP:Edit warring policy or the idea of building WP:Consensus on the talk page first. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Just noting that Cjmooney9 has now reverted again, after they were notified of this 3RR report. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours De728631 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am following Wikimedia edit warring/dispute/resolution as part of my own study, and have read this article history. Editors shouldn't be using their knowledge of the Wikimedia bureaucracy to control pages. It's the very reason we might not even have a site in 5 years - willing contributors being scared off. It annoys me so I comment. From what I can tell from the talk page, the user was pointing out what he saw as factual errors, and looking to make improvements. These edits seemed small, and valid. But they were simply being deleted immediately by "Flyer22" with no explanation. Any attempts to explain the changes on the talk page, were quickly dismissed. He has then obviously used his knowledge of the bureaucracy to report the user once he had made the prerequisite number of edit attempts. I should also add both users made 4 reverts to the article. It was not multiple users deleting the changes, in a consensus. It was a single person making continued reverts. "Flyer22" could have been reported to you himself for breaking the 3RR.

These aggressive Editors know there will never be enough contributors to overrule the version they want. They handle individual editors, by reverting their edits, dismissing their suggestions on the talk page, and then using the bureaucracy to control them if they continue arguing. Until eventually the contributor leaves the site.

Edits done in good faith, by people looking to improve the article, should not be continually reverted by a single user, acting on behalf of "the article". Or the version of the article they personally want to see. It's against the spirit of the site, and it's rules. It's made even worse when the Editor then uses their knowledge of the site bureaucracy to report new contributors, to intimidate them from making contribution. The person editing the articles is often operating with good faith, in the spirit of the site. The person reverting, as they don't want "their" article changed in any way, often isn't.

This system of white male Editors, patrolling pages, and gaming the system to keep things how they want, will be the death of Wikipedia. In 5 years they won't have a page to patrol, as the site would have lost too many contributors to operate.

Ninanaly (talk)

A couple of replies:
  • The reverts were explained, in the edit summaries and on the article's talk page, by Flyer22 and others.
  • Neither Flyer22 nor any of the others who reverted Cjmooney9 violated the 3RR.
  • I can assure you that not all of the involved users are white men, because I'm not a white man.
  • This wasn't about others knowing more than Cjmooney9 about WP bureaucracy, because the 3RR was explained to Cjmooney9 on their talk page, in edit summaries, and on Flyer22's talk page. Not only did Cjmooney9 continue to revert after the 3RR was explained, but they continued to revert after being informed that they'd been reported here.
Thank you for your interest; I trust this clears up your concerns, but please feel free to ask me on my talk page or the article's talk page if you have any questions (the 3RR board isn't the best place to continue this, probably). Cheers! Dawn Bard (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Dawn Bard. Your WP:Assume good faith approach regarding Ninanaly (talk · contribs) is amazing. Me, on the other hand, however? I will state right now that Ninanaly is a WP:Sockpuppet who "just happened" to pop up in this report for their "first edit." Better to ignore the WP:Sockpuppet until it is time to report the WP:Sockpuppet, especially since the WP:Sockpuppet has reported this matter inaccurately above. To state that there was one editor (meaning me) reverting Cjmooney9 is obviously false, for example. And, no, Ninanaly, I am not a male, as is well known among many very experienced Wikipedians. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:181.188.110.223 reported by User:Creativity-II (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
WWE Libraries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
181.188.110.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 21:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on WWE Libraries. (TW)"
  2. 04:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on WWE Libraries. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Has repeatedly ignored warnings against disregarding Manual of Style and has even removed a final warning against him from his talk page. Creativity-II (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. I didn't block the IP for edit warring but for suspected sock puppetry (see User:GomezChristo) and obvious disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:1.42.15.25 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Semiprotection 3 weeks )[edit]

Page
Prime Minister of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
1.42.15.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 11:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630621850 by HiLo48 (talk)"
  3. 07:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 07:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630621537 by Dmol (talk) sure can discuss on talk page"
  5. 06:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630593755 by MelbourneStar (talk) explain your reasons, TIMELINE is to varied"
  6. 10:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC) "i like the headings , because it is more comprehensive i feel"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Prime Minister of Australia. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP continues to edit war, despite being asked to discuss changes numerous times. —MelbourneStartalk 11:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just semi'ed it for three weeks. They can make an account and edit the article again in a few days if that dedicated. Not fond of blocking ip addresses...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Hboetes reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: dif

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 10 October 2014 diff adding criticism of critics
  2. 13 October 2014 diff adding back that criticism of critics after it had been reverted
  3. 16 October 2014 diff adding back that criticism of critics after it had been reverted
  4. 18 October 2014 diff adding back that criticism of critics after it had been reverted
  5. 18:02 20 October 2014 diff ramping up now and removing criticism of Greger's ideas altogether
  6. 19:11 21 October 2014 diff again deleting criticism of Greger's ideas after it had been restored
  7. 18:29, 22 October 2014 diff again deleting criticism of Greger's ideas after it had been restored


Efforts to get Hboetes to discuss


Comments:
This is a slow edit war. Hboetes is a WP:SPA. All his edits to date have been adding information positive about the subject, adding criticism to his critics, or removing criticism. We've made extensive efforts to engage Hboetes who has never posted on article Talk page and today blanked his talk page and reverted again. Hboetes is WP:NOTHERE. Please block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) (striking to correct Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC))

Of course jytdog mentions a very one sided story. I did try to talk reason with those guys on various times.
And my initial edit was undone without decent reasoning nor listening. I don't mind criticism to Dr. Greger, but this reference is slander from someone who firmly believes eating meat is healthy and is clearly biased on the matter. User jytdog is abusing the system he knows quite well by now. This doesn't mean he isn't biased.
Please look at the whole log, also on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hboetes (talkcontribs) 19:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
that is a good call, I missed that. I apologize and have struck my remark above. Hboetes has made three comments on the Talk page:
  • 10:17, 18 October 2014 dif with rhetorical questions not dealing with policy or guidelines.
  • 17:14, 20 October 2014 diff again comments based on personal preference (calling a 2013 critique outdated...)
  • 17:22, 20 October 2014 diff just adding a bit to his earlier statement with further unsourced opinon.
again my apology for getting that wrong. Hboetes should still be blocked for edit warring and not making effort to discuss in good faith, based on policy and guideline. per his comments above. We need him to learn that good faith discussion based on policies and guidelines is how Wikipedia functions - not edit warring and strong opinions. (i have not gone into what was in his edit notes!) Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:KeyboardWarriorOfZion reported by User:Two kinds of pork (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Third rail of politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KeyboardWarriorOfZion (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. [149]
  2. [150]
  3. [151]
  4. [152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[153] and [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155]

Comments:KeyboardWarriorOfZion having edited both the article and talk page in question since July is well aware that adding to article the claim that (roughly speaking) American relations with the State of Israel is a "third rail" does not have consensus for inclusion. I was hoping my second warning today would get him to discuss the sourcing problems mentioned on the talk page. I suppose he is calling my hand, so I don't know what else to do but file this report.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 05:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem how I can't contribute BOTH in the talk page and the actual entry. I also don't know why my comments have gone unanswered in this topic when I dare challenged this Two kinds of pork fellow, and all he did was threaten me with a block when I justified my edits. CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
At issue is the fact that you are not discussing, but dictacting. Yoy participated in the discussion over the summer, and indeed the discussion is still on the page. So far it is fairly obvious that there is no consensus for your preferred version. You can try dispute resolution if you wish, but you should return the article in the status quo antebellum in the interim. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 06:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore your questioning if I'm an Israeli or an American Jew is tantamount an ad hominem argument, and could be considered a personal attack. Howecer as I've stated before, your username indicates you may have a WP:COI with respect to Israel, as many have used Zionism as a pejorative with matters related to Israel.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 06:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. The user has been reverting on this point since May 2014. There is no hint that he is ever going to accept consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:109.153.42.194 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Uno (bus company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
109.153.42.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "This company has made the news more than a couple of times. Added accident section with news backed refernces"
  2. 20:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Added to history section."
  3. 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "we don't have to censor all of them either. perhaps only the recent ones will be a fair compromise."
  4. 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630707069 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

New page hence no diff.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring after template warning on user's talkpage Charles (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bbaskbas reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: 21 Oct

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22 Oct, 13:08
  2. 22 Oct, 13:28
  3. 22 Oct, 16:31
  4. 22 Oct, 17:05

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Bbaskbas (3RR warning and discretionary sanctions notice, after the first two reverts)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Istanbul#Fringe claims about etymology (initiated discussion after the first of my own reverts today)

Comments:

New user insists on inserting isolated claim sourced to fringe author in a nationalist/populist tabloid newspaper; refuses to take note of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in discussion. Fut.Perf. 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:BQUB14-Ebuades reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)<