Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive263

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:TheSawTooth reported by User:Widefox (Result: No action)[edit]

Page
Jason Minter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TheSawTooth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Widefox (talk): Reverts harassment tag. Disputes notability, disputes conflict of interest, disputes harassment. Let debate conclude. (TW)"
  2. 09:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverts tag bomb"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Jason Minter. (TW)"
  2. 11:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jason Minter. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 21:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "delete - non-notable" (AfD not talk since listed there by another editor)
  2. 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "comment - massive undisclosed paid editor problem linked to Fiverr"
  3. 11:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "claims not backed by sources (and disruption addressed at the talk page)"
Comments:
  1. 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Disputes no connection. Do not revert everything just discuss case by case and let me make corrections. Also disputes disruption of my attempt to fresh improve."
  2. 14:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Nikthestunned: Disputes removing good faith revision. Discuss on talk and request what you disagree I will correct it. You have also revised my other improvements that you do not dispute. (TW)"
  3. 14:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632422746 by Nikthestunned (talk) Disputes Three revert rule. It is my third revert as my first edits were new work. I will not revert so just discuss revisions on talkpg!"
  4. Locked [1]

Warned:

  1. 20:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Electronic Recycling Association. (TW)"

I'm reporting here to prevent this article being locked like Electronic Recycling Association. A massive sockfarm undisclosed paid editor issue at WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez is linked (but denied), (there's more info at ANI and 2x SPIs linked there). Widefox; talk 11:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Note I was not involved in editing Electronic Recycling Association, and have not seen ANI yet. Widefox; talk 11:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
He is involved because he has added my name to tag in talkpage of ERA and he has added my name to his list on conflict of interest noticeboard without proof. I have replied everywhere to ask him for proof but he does not have proof. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you either provide a diff that I have edited Electronic Recycling Association or withdraw the claim that I was involved in edit warring that article until it was locked, thank you. Widefox; talk 12:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Your editwar was on talkpage of ERA [2] [3] but I left you alone even then your intention was to harass and tag in this new topic. If I leave it alone this time you will do it on third topic as well. So I have reported you. ERA was locked but you have continued to stalk me. I move that admins look at ERA talk page and see my efforts that how much I am replying and building consensus. I am discussing every single source. Widefox is trying to block me so that I can not edit at all because he does not have proof. So now he is using this method. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
So we agree I have not edited Electronic Recycling Association and was not involved in the edit war there. Widefox; talk 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
You were at talkpage but I did compromise. Otherwise you were tagging it again. Now you are tagging at Jason Minter and I did compromise again. I have answered your concern on talkpage and made one correction as well. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Widefox is on 3RR. I have revised to status quo but I shall not revise again because I have read 3RR. I have warned widefox for 3RR [4]. I will not revise if he revises more but he is creating havoc. --TheSawTooth (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. SawTooth has not come close to breaching 3RR on the Minter article. The dispute is over templates. SawTooth's edit warring at the ERA article was more troubling given the promotional, undue content they were adding to the article, but that battle is stale. At this point, it seems to me that the allegations are better raised at other boards rather than this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: For future reference this dispute was also discussed at at ANI (permanent link). It is also claimed that there has been socking at Electronic Recycling Association but that evidence is hard to summarize briefly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:213.7.112.229 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

Page
Julien Blanc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
213.7.112.229 (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, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634397115 by Dawn Bard (talk) I'm trying to make the article less biased against Blanc. I also removed redundant descriptions of the material Blanc posted and instead added an img"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC) to 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    1. 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Work with Real Social Dynamics */"
  3. 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Work with Real Social Dynamics */ uncited, unrelated and biased content"
  4. 13:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634372105 by Philip Cross (talk) Again, see WP:NOTNP. This is way too much detail."
  5. 13:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634372186 by Philip Cross (talk) well then find better sources, the tweet made by police does not claim his visa was revoked"
  6. 12:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Please stop undoing every single one of my edits. I am trying to make the article more neutral. The prices are redundant. Undid revision 634367806 by Philip Cross (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Julien Blanc. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
Sorry for too many reverts, I wasn't aware of the 3-revert rule I have to admit. Another user kept reverting to a heavily biased page. There was also spam at some point by a real social dynamics "fan" stating his own experience with the company. I accept if this means I have to blocked however — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.112.229 (talk)
Thanks, this seems reasonable, and now that I look at the page history, you weren't the only one with more than 3 reverts. Given that Blanc is currently a highly visible, controversial, public figure it's best to hash out major edits on the talk page, but you weren't the only one at fault, and a lot of your edits weren't reverts at all.
Note to admins: I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination, the IP seems to get it, and did make some helpful, non-revert edits. I do think the page should be protected, and someone has already requested that at RPP. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Skrippner reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked and semi-protected)[edit]

Page
Stanley Krippner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Skrippner (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 14:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC) to 14:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    1. 14:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Fixing reference error raised by ReferenceBot"
    2. 14:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
  2. 15:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
  3. 15:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */ The previous material was unauthorized and was done by someone with the alias "Goblin Fcae" also known as "Dan Skeptic". He is making false accusations about parapsychologists! Thanks you, Stanley Krippner"
  4. 16:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */ This material was unauthorized and was placed on the page by a person with the alias "Goblin Face""
  5. 16:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */ added pertinent material and deleted inaccurate material"
  6. 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */ removed inaccurate material and added pertinent and correct info. SK"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "(/* November 2014: Edit Warring)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal restored, content based only on primary sources removed */ new section"
Comments:

Discussion on BLPN here, WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stanley Krippner. Discussion on talk page of article regarding similar behavior by a series of IPs here, Talk:Stanley Krippner#Adding in fringe material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I've blocked Skrippner for one week for violating 3RR and for making personal attacks. I've also semi-protected the article for two weeks because of similar edits by IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Juno (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Social Justice Warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]
  4. [9]
  5. [10]
  6. [11]
  7. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13] (warning was subsequently reverted)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

For reasons that I will not presume to know, NorthBySouthBaranof made 7 reverts on an article in 2 hours. This was after he or she was warned on his or her talk page, invited to discuss the matter on the article talk page, and after he of she nominated the article for deletion. I have every reason to believe that he or she will continue this pattern of behavior on this article, which is likely to attract continued editing. Juno (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not all of those edits are reverts by any stretch of the imagination. The article is being brigaded by IPs and SPAs who wish to depict a fringe version of reality as fact, expressing a clearly-pejorative opinionated term in language that makes it a factual conclusion. I believe I hit four reverts accidentally, and was about to self-revert when I was reverted. I have not since reverted, but I have inserted reliably-sourced language which accurately describes the term as pejorative and applied by ideological opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll check again but I am pretty sure that all 7 of those edits are full or partial reverts. You continued to revert after being warned on your talk page and after being warned on the article talk page. Juno (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
And you and a brigade of IPs continued to insert unreliably sourced claims (based on Know Your Meme, a user-generated wiki which is categorically unusable as a Wikipedia source), totally-unsourced categories ("Cyberbullying") and the factual, in-Wikipedia's-voice claim that A Social Justice Warrior is an online activist, typified by a young liberal American woman who "uses social justice issues like sexism, homophobia, etc. to push a political agenda" rather than making it clear that the term is a pejorative opinion held by detractors of feminists and others. I assume you think it's OK to use Wikipedia as a platform to advance your agenda that "social justice warriors" are bad people and should feel bad, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, this edit is not a revert, it is a rewrite of the lede that removed unreliable sources and completely-unsourced claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the incident at all, but let me remind you of WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. Removing unreliable sources is usually a good thing, but it certainly "reverses the action" of the user who added them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't make accusations about me and what I believe, I've rendered you the same respect.
First, the edit that you cited above as not a revert was virtually the same as this revert, made by you 5 minutes earlier, which in turn bears the same effect at this revert made by you 10 minutes earlier, which in turn is literally the same edit as this revert made by you 59 minutes earlier, which is exactly the same as this one, 26 minutes earlier. That edit was a revert in a long-string of reverts and if you're accused of making 7 reverts in 2 hours and your only defense is that you think that you only actually made 6 reverts in 2 hours you might want to reassess.
Second, if you though that there was a problem with the text, you're supposed to discuss that on the talk page, not edit war, and you know that. Juno (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Or, given that that page likely falls under the general Gamergate sanctions, requesting temporary protection from IPs would have been an easy step. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:The kyle 3 reported by User:Shrike (Result: )[edit]

Page
2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
The kyle 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "edited the page regarding the use of "terrorists" as a term-- "perpetrators" or "attackers" works better if you're concerned about neutrality-- as well as the alleged PFLP connection"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 18:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC) to 18:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    1. 18:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Attack */ removed the reference to what the perpetrators allegedly screamed as they carried out the attack. It's irrelevant unless they screamed out their specific reasons for carrying out the attack."
    2. 18:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Perpetrators */ replaced "terrorist" with militant because there are many forms of armed Palestinian actions as we all know"
  3. 04:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Attack */ removed the part about the perps shouting "Allahu Akbar" because it doesn't contribute to the article."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and is under WP:1RR I have proposed to the user to self revert.
  • The user removed two times reference to screaming by the killers--Shrike (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I formally alerted the user of the arbitration decision. They did violate WP:1RR. Technically, they can be blocked for such a violation even without the alert as the alert is required only for imposing discretionary sanctions. However, I generally don't block without the alert. A quick glance at the user's contributions since creating the account this month demonstrates to me someone who is biased, sarcastic, and unduly aggressive - with a clear agenda. In my view, if not now, sooner or later if they continue in the same vein, they should be topic-banned at a minimum.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:Signedzzz (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. [15] after block - same general changes
  2. [16] before block
  3. [17] before block
  4. [18] See last report here
  5. [19] change to talk page which recharacterized the block and separated the part about the block from the related discussion by removing = and =

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] as shown in this report and here by another editor before the block

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] their detailed rational for changes already rejected. I reverted and then explained because we already discussed these changes and rejected them here

Comments:This is a 1RR article under active community sanctions. While there may not technically be a 1RR violation, the size and scope of the edit in the lead of a high traffic article against consensus appears to be edit warring, again.
Other editors involved in discussion and restoring the article 2 days ago: Gregkaye P123ct1 Myopia123 Dwpaul

(I was shocked the other day. I didn't think the original edit counted - I guess it does.) I don't see the harm in proposing an improvement to the lead. This editor seems to think that nothing should be changed in the article because it's been discussed. I regularly edit Featured Articles, occasionally quite drastically, and no one's objected yet. Yes, I corrected the title he'd added to the talk page saying "blocked for disruptive editing" - because the block notice on my talk page clearly states "1RR violation". zzz (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposing and discussing is fine - deleting information now for the 3rd tine after 4 other editors tell you not to and you were blocked for edit warring not ok. Perhaps editing in another part of the project would be more appropriate ? Legacypac (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Heres the talk page discussion [22], where he makes spurious objections to every single thing I said (calling it all "ridiculous" etc). And then immediately waters down his disapproval when another editor points out that my edit is a net benefit. This article needs any help it can get - it's linked to from the Main Page. zzz (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think I'm done with the article. I 'm glad to have proposed an improvement to the lead (and glad someone noticed despite this editor's best efforts). Other than that, it's probably doing fine without me - several editors seem to concentrate all their efforts on it. zzz (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No I said right off the bat that there may be some value to some of the edits and have been engaging in productive discussion about the potentially useful stuff. Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Ha! You described every single point I made as lacking "basic understanding", "nonsense", "more nonsense", "ridiculous", etc. And then, finally, "There may be some merit to parts of these changes, but on balance they are not good". How kind. You left yourself a lifeline. You seriously need to think about your priorities. zzz (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked for now. Signedzzz, if you seriously stand by your statement "Honestly, I think I'm done with the article.", I shan't waste any further time on this report in good faith. But if you wish to edit the article further, do mention, and I'll consider investing more time in reviewing this report. Do tell me what you wish. Wifione Message 16:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI - User:Wifione. Back pushing for same changes. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC) [23] and now Signedzzz has changed the article again in the same place substantially against consensus, so it appears he was not serious about standing by his statement here Wifione Message .Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Wifione This editor said he was no longer interested in editing this article. He has made this edit today ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Gregkaye (Result:Warned Blocked)[edit]

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [24] (See first sentence of Lead)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18 nov 1.25 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij) → 1RR broken
  2. 17 nov 13.59 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij)
  3. 14 nov 13.46 (sentence about Khawarij added to end of Lead, against consensus) → 1RR broken
  4. 13 Nov 22.53 (whole para added to end of Lead, against consensus)
  5. 4 Nov 1.17 (last Lead para wording changed against consensus)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25], [26], [27], additional indirect notification, pinged

Comments:

ISIL is 1RR and here goes:

I personally sympathise greatly with the editor's position as the actual content of the edits concerned are definitely those that I think would be beneficial to make. Never-the-less, their form constitutes vandalism and deception al-be-it to a typically limited extent and it violates a consensus which may have been achieved at a time when misrepresentations were present on the talk page but it was "consensus" none-the-less. It is also possible that to an extent, Mohammed, may have some difficulty with English. He (presumably he) does not tend to respond to questions on the article talk page and I am not aware that he has ever responded on to initiation on a User talk page. This all smacks of rudeness. It would be hoped that Mohammed can become more of a team player and he should be aware that his lack of response does not contribute to a collegiate atmosphere (which is otherwise notably lacking in many aspects the ISIL related discussion). I hope that some kind of action can be taken but in a way that if Mohammed chooses to remain/return that encouragement is given to be more of a team player and, ironically considering the topic, less of an outsider. I hope that the form of this report is acceptable. Gregkaye 12:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned... Let's hope the user learns. Wifione Message 16:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Apparently, he didn't. Wifione Message 01:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dalandau reported by User:AnonMoos (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Flag of Mandatory Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dalandau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Not exactly sure what this means, but baseline version of article before recent nonsense is [28] 00:25, 21 July 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[29] 01:29, 18 November 2014

[30] 01:57, 18 November 2014

[31] 02:09, 18 November 2014

[32] 03:09, 18 November 2014

(Plenty more where those came from)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] 17:27, 17 November 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34] 03:51, 18 November 2014

Comments:

User does not meaningfully respond when serious problems are pointed out with his edits, but merely cuts-and-pastes in the same source material which many others have found irrelevant, and full steam ahead on the edit warring... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Aleksig6 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page
Shabbat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aleksig6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */ Added external link."
  2. 00:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */ added a link to a stand-alone site instead of a blog."
  3. 01:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634624966 by NeilN (talk) THIS IS NOT A BLOG. STOP REMOVING MY LINKS !!!"
  4. 01:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634626075 by NeilN (talk)"
  5. 01:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634626373 by Discospinster (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Activities prohibited on Shabbat. (TW)"
  2. 01:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shabbat. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Note links are to same blog on different sites. NeilN talk to me 01:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, already blocked by discospinster. --NeilN talk to me 01:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sageleaf reported by AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Murcanyo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sageleaf (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 23:17, 17 November 2014
  2. Revision as of 22:22, 19 November 2014
  3. Revision as of 23:01, 19 November 2014
  4. Revision as of 23:50, 19 November 2014
  5. Latest revision as of 00:20, 20 November 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In my Edit Summary and on their Talk Page

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

Comments:

Despite being fully aware of how the term is used to describe ethnic Somalis even in his own source (acknowledges it here), he has still chosen to Edit War and violate 3RR. Shockingly, he is also aware of the consequence for doing so (informed here and here). He has also refused to go to the Talk Page to discuss the dispute. AcidSnow (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Wifione Message 02:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. AcidSnow (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AcidSnow reported by User:Sageleaf (Result: Reporting editor blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murcanyo&diff=634610826&oldid=634293797]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]
  2. [diff]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
User AcidSnow has engaged in disruptive editing at the article on Murcanyo. The original post written, indeed the creation of the article by myself, was edited without any proper reasoning. Moreover, after having explained four times(!!!) why the change was wrong. The user has also edited another article, Bayla, without providing any reason. The user appears to show a blatant disdain for providing proper reasoning when editing.

There are five things wrong here. One, I have made three reverts (see the Revisoon History here) so I have yet to violate 3RR. Two, even then I was never informed of this report which is a violation. Four, even then I have yet to engage in "disruptive editing" on those articles or anywhere else on Wikipedia which you have accused me of doing. Even then, I did provided a valid reason which is clearly seen on the Talk Page (which you have opted not to go to) and in my Edit Summary (see here). Five. I also proved a reason to editing Bayla as well, once again see the edit summary here. If anyone is engaging in disruptive editing it's you with your baseless accusation. In fact, here are some other examples: Original Research (for Hobyo see here: [35] and [36] for Alula see the whole Revision History here) and edit warring (see here for Alula: [37][38][39] and see here for Muycano:[40][41][42][43] and [44]). Your report is a clear example of WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
He just informed 11 miniutes after reporting me. He is also continued his edit war on Hobyo. AcidSnow (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours Wifione Message 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you once again Wifione. AcidSnow (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:RoyalGurjar (Result: Malformed)[edit]

Previous version reverted to Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

{{subst:AN-You have involved repeatedly reverted the authentic information which was displayed since long time and being provided by many experienced writers -[[3RR warning]] }}

Comments: User continues edit war even after recent release of block. RoyalGurjar (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: Malicious report - reporting editor is likely a sockpuppet of User:Gurjeshwar, currently under a block for edit warring. kashmiri TALK 14:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Result: Malformed report. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurjeshwar which is a sock complaint about the submitter User:RoyalGurjar. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

' This is unfortunate that I as a individual user has been mentioned as sock puppet user of Mr. gurjeshwar or else. I strictly oppose it. Mr. Kashmiri is also may not be right every time. If he has adament with some user then he hs not any right to blame other innocent users only because to oppose his nature of work. I hope a honest effort be made to exclude me from this edit war. I shall write on wiki article with proper references and a healthy discussion be always welcomed if it is challenged. thanks RoyalGurjar (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Padresfan94 (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Care Net (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: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [46]
  2. [47]
  3. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese made 3 reverts on the Care Net page in 1 afternoon. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


I'm busy trying to improve the article by discussing the issue on the talk page with the user I was initially in disagreement with, and the second edit here is the result of our discussion and compromise. Padresfan is a SPA stalking me (check out that lack of participation in the discussion) and I expect this report to be the WP:BOOMERANG this user deserves. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
So you don't deny that you made 3 reverts on an article under community sanctions? Padresfan94 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A couple of thoughts: first of all, while this article arguably falls under the abortion general sanctions, the article did not bear a talk-page notice nor an edit notice notifying editors of those restrictions (I've since added them). I'm loathe to block someone without warning on a page which displayed no visible indication that it was subject to 1RR, and would be inclined to instead warn Roscelese and insist she adhere to the 1RR on the article now that notice has been given.

    Separately, we generally make allowances for reverting sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors and other inappropriate alternate accounts. Padresfan94 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet, and a combative agenda-driven single-purpose account on top of that (e.g. [49]). As such, I'm inclined to block the account indefinitely, but first would like additional administrator input. MastCell Talk 22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not seem appropriate. If Padersfan94 is a SPA or suspected sock puppet (and looking over his/her edits, I'm not actually convinced that's the case) but if that is actually the concern, then the issue should be brought to the appropriate board. It doesn't justify edit warring or violating community sanction. Also, I recall Roscelese was very recently brought to this board by another user: Juno [50] regarding violation of the 1RR on abortion related articles, for an article I was editing, and I purposely did not comment because although there was a 1RR violation, the issue was resolved and I don't believe blocks should be punitive. It was closed with reminders of the 1RR restriction on abortion related articles to all participants. A violation of 1RR shortly after reminder seems to warrant some type of action--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Of the 3 reverts that Roscelese fired off that afternoon, only 1 on them was directed at material that I wrote. Even of you want to entertain that "I had to break 1RR because this guy who already passed a chekuser is totally a sockpuppet" nonsense, that still wouldn't explain the other 2 reverts. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You "already passed a checkuser", Padresfan94? What do you mean? Please name the checkuser who checked you. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
Roscelese already filed a sockpuppet investigation against me when I was editing as an ip. Give me a moment to go find it. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This I can now see that it was actually Contaldo80 that filed the report. As he and Rosclese edit the same articles at the same time from the same POV you will understand if I occasionally get them confused. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The comment that you linked to was a direct response to this, and no, I'm not a sock.
Per the idea the Roscelese didn't know because the talk page didn't bear a notice: the talk page has a header for Wikipeoject:Abortion, the word Abortion is mentioned twice in the 3 sentence lead and the contested material involved abortion. Do you honestly not think that she knew the article pertained to abortion? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you were one of the two IPs named in the report, there was no CU done, so your contention that you have been checked by a CU is not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry then, I though that that had happened. In any case, I'm still not a sockpuppet and Roscelese still violated 1RR twice in one afternoon after being warned repeatedly against doing so. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I've dug some more and have struck my comment. I can't disclose the details, but, again, assuming you were one of the IPs in the report, it is highly unlikely there was a technical connection between the IPs and User:Esoglou. As a consequence, Esoglou, who had been blocked for a week, was unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I don't really buy the "wasn't notified about 1RR" argument. However, I am very much swayed by the "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument. I don't know this subject area well, so I don't know the particulars of the various sock masters, and I don't have any time to do research to get some kind of indisputable proof, so I won't stick my neck out to far and block them now. But I recommend that whatever admin decides to close this consider reminding/warning Roscelese about this, rather than blocking. Anyone mind if I issue Padresfan94 and the other editor (can't recall the name, they have all of like 5 edits) a warning, along the lines of "do not revert Roscelese again", under the General Sanctions? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I object to this. If there is evidence to bring a sockpuppet investigation against anyone (and I've yet to see anything to convince me there is, but I haven't followed it closely enough to say for sure) then that investigation should be brought to the proper board. Absent that, giving anyone a warning to "not revert Roscelese again" seems inappropriate considering this user appears to have a history of edit warring on the topic area of abortion. I see no reason that Roscelese should be given free reign to revert (especially in violation of community sanctions) while others are warned they cannot revert her.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a sockpuppet. But even if you didn't like that the " "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument" would only explain 1 of the 2 differednt 1RR violations that Roscelese made on the same page in 4 hours. After being warned repeatedly and having had been previously blocked for the same issue. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is like the hundredth complaint about Roscelese related to edit wars on pages connected to women's rights. Many of those complaints involved retaliatory allegations by Roscelese or those who share her POV, that the other editor was "stalking" her, "harassing" her, "hounding" her, etc. She's also had several warnings about abusive use of accusation templates. I know because I'm currently a victim of related conduct -- I made a request for page protection and dispute resolution to stop an edit war, and the response was a torrent of personal attacks and then a ban request by people with whom she tag-team edits. She has a remarkable ability to respond to complaints about her behavior by making distracting allegations against her accuser -- here, that s/he's a sockpuppet. She's been involved in at least 4 different edit wars with multiple people over women's rights articles in just the last week. As I understand it (I am not a master of the admin tools), there have been several blocks, and quite a few block violations in the past. I respectfully request that a warning be given as to the entire subject matter of gender issues, and as to abusive use of personal allegations against other editors. Since this has come up so often, I also respectfully request that it be the final warning before a subject-matter ban is contemplated. Djcheburashka (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone mentioned me here so I'll chime in: Roscelese is a valuable editor but this a problem area for her and she stepped over the line, again. There can be no claims of ignorance: if you look at her talk page 3 different editors (myself included) warned her for violating or nearly violating 1RR on 3 different abortion pages since mid-October alone. This is her second time here for violating abortion 1RR in a month, and her block log shows that this has been a long-running problem. She was left off with a stern warning earlier this month, it didn't do any good.
She clearly violated 1RR, twice on the same page in one day. (something she admits to) She clearly knew it was wrong. She is not sorry. This is far from the first time. Juno (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Since this has somehow not been closed yet, I'll point out, again, that the second "revert" here is an edit that the user I was in disagreement with asked me to make and endorsed on the talk page after I'd made it - is anyone really suggesting that it's a good idea to let 3RR be gamed in this way? "Ha ha, you made the edit I suggested you make, now you're an edit warrior!" - and that the third is an obvious sockpuppet and single-purpose account who exists to follow me around and edit war. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What about the other two RR's on a 1RR limit that she's violated on similar pages three times already in the past? What about the other simultaneous edit wars? And what about the groundless accusation that her accuser is a sockpuppet who's been "stalking" and "harassing" her? If someone with a view opposed to hers had made this number of reversions, Roscelese would be shrieking for his head --- she's done so consistently on far, far weaker grounds. With the number of violations here, over this long a period of time, not taking action would send the message that a different set of rules apply to her than to everyone else. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So does this editor just get to break 1RR at will? Padresfan94 (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems we just need an admin to wield the mop. Perhaps poke admins who put the 1RR in place? I don't know which side of the abortion debate which editors are (I've followed no links) but I think we should follow policy. No one seems to be disputing that a bright line was crossed. It's been reported in the proper place. We shouldn't lie to our users. If it's a bright line, it must be treated as such. (I'm posting this even though I have the feeling I'm supporting action against someone I'd agree with.) Wait, We generally make allowances for reverting puppets... so it would be helpful if an admin indicated which of the edits they think were reverts of sockpuppets. --Elvey(tc) 03:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It is unfortunate because sanctions are intended to be preventative, not punitive, and that Roscelese has taken advantage of her unblocked status to continue her months-long edit war on another article, Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism‎‎. While this article is not under the same Abortion-related sanctions, and WP:3RR is not broken, she has nonetheless exhibited extremely disruptive and tendentious behavior here and elsewhere, which would be handily remedied by making another notch in her ever-lengthening belt of edit-war-related blocks. Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Stale. No-one is ever going to be blocked for something that happened a week ago, especially given the non-obvious violation that apparently occurred. I have prevented anything further occurring on the second article by fully protecting it for 3 days. Those involved - use the talkpage. You know the drill. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Common sense should apply here. The edit warring policy that governs 1RR makes clear, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring. If there is no edit war then 1RR doesn't apply. What I notice here is it seems very important here to bludgeon Roscelese with the policy, but KatieHepPal first violated 1RR. No one felt the need to inform them of the 1RR policy on carenet. The need here is to punish Roscelese. This is what is being asked. These rules were not made to punish. They were made to stop disruption.If we are to stop disruption shouldn't we instead block Padresfan94 for gaming the system? Padresfan94 has every opportunity to drop the stick yet they continue here. Since their revert [51] they haven't taken further part in carenet. They haven't went to the take page to take part in the discussion about this change. They haven't made any further edits to the article. Since Padresfan94 has this months long content dispute with Roscelese at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism I wonder if that's the reason they are trying to manipulate the edit warring noticeboard.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding KatieHepPal, she's a new user who it could be argued was unaware of the sanctions before MastCell added the community sanctions warning to the article talk page. Anyway, the suggestion that Padersfan94 should be blocked for reporting a clear violation of 1RR is disturbing. To me, this seems to send the message that the rules don't apply to Roscelese, and if you attempt to get the rules to apply to Roscelese, you will be punished/blocked. I've edited with Padersfan94 on a few articles, and have so far seen no evidence she's a sock, but if someone has evidence, it should be taken to the appropriate board, not used as an excuse to violate 1RR community sanctions. Honestly, I'd probably feel differently about all this if it were an isolated incident with Roscelese, but as Juno and I have pointed out above, there's been a repeat occurrence of Roscelese violating 1RR on abortion related articles. [52]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
An astounding assumption of bad faith on the part of Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs). If Padresfan is acting in bad faith, if Padresfan is a sock, then prove it, instead of making unsubstantiated allegations against her good name. If Roscelese can be prevented from disruption by a block, then it should be considered on the merits of her pattern of behavior, and I see a lot of foot-dragging and excuse-making here over the week since this report was filed, not a good basis for declaring it "stale". It is OVERDUE because further disruption has already occurred. It is OVERDUE because we will be back here before too long in another report, because Roscelese has exhibited a remarkable lack of remorse for this disruptive behavior and it is becoming clear that the slaps-on-wrist, and even the lack thereof, are not getting through. Elizium23 (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact. It's not an astounding assumption of badfaith but a reasonable assumption of bad faith. A week ago Padresfan94 made this edit[53]. This was the first and final edit by them. They didn't take the concern they had to the talk page. They didn't later revert the article to get rid of the change that had seemingly concerned them. There no suggestion that Padresfan 94 should be blocked for reporting a 1RR, they should be blocked for manufacturing a 1RR. And BoboMeowCat you are right KatieHepPal is a new user and was likely unaware of the sanctions. However that doesn't mean that she shouldn't receive a friendly and helpful notice about these sanctions so she is made aware. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Glancing at KatieHepPal's talk page shows she was made aware of the sanctions a few hours after her second revert on care net page, the same day this edit warring report against Roscelese was filed [54]. Regarding Padersfan, I wouldn't call it a "manufacturing of a 1RR" when a 1RR violation actually occurred (two of 'em actually)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Guys, Black Kite has already taken an administrative action and closed this report as stale. If there is any further disruption, file a new report. Please discuss on relevant talk pages from hereon. I'm closing this report. Thanks. Wifione Message 02:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:HCPUNXKID reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
User talk:Mondolkiri1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
HCPUNXKID (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Proposed deletion of Free Donbass */ new section"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This is a violation of a topic ban that this editor received. He has already broken the terms of the topic ban once, and was explicitly warned not to engage on talk pages. Now he is asking an editor to proxy for him. Please take action, and allow the topic ban to be enforced. RGloucester 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh so interesting, I'm from Setúbal, close to Lisbon in Portugal... do you need my phone number, so that I me abused the police fore being against?... who? I wonder! And also a fellow that I've met meanwhile, who may be supporter of Pablo Iglesias... So, imagine that supporting Pablo Iglesias, Alexis Tsipras, Beppe Grillo, Nigel Farage so on it's a crime in Wikipedia! OK, come on, of what are you accusing me and the editor from Spain? If it's a matter of concern today I updated all the maps of the ASEAN countries, in accordance with an Indonesian fellow I've... OK, ban me if you wish, then talk with, I don't care. He won't beat you! Hahaha! Mondolkiri1talk 00:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I may have exploded a bit here, but this was so funny!Mondolkiri1talk 00:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1, I respect you as an editor, but it seems like you've recently fallen slightly into the absurd. To be honest, I have no idea what you are saying here. The fellow was topic banned under WP:ARBEE, and it was made explicitly clear that talk pages were included in that topic ban. Therefore, the topic ban must be enforced. I didn't do anything to him, other than note his bad behaviour. Even if he wasn't topic-banned, he engaged in a clear bit of canvasing and bad faith, which is frowned-upon anyway. RGloucester 01:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note RGloucester, why don't you directly contact @EdJohnston: for a faster resolution of this issue? I've pinged him. If he doesn't respond, write directly to me and I'll resolve this. Overall, this is not an edit warring issue. But like I said, directly contact me if Ed doesn't reply. Thanks. Wifione Message 02:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Wifione: As an addendum, HCPUNXKID has posted spurious, paranoid accusations on my talk page for deigning to PROD the article in question which I've nominated per WP:FAILN. It's bad enough that he's trying to enlist proxies, but using his account in order to attempt to bully anyone who doesn't see any merit in articles he's clearly marked as untouchable by merit of WP:OWN is unacceptable behaviour under any circumstances. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Iryna, I can block HCPUNXKID for disregarding the topic ban. Yet, I'll await EdJohnston's views on this. Thanks. Wifione Message 03:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Wifione: I contacted EdJohnston before coming here, but he hasn't edited for a while. I posted this request in line with the principle of WP:NOTBURO. This is a clear violation of the topic ban, and there is no reason why it cannot be dealt with here and now. RGloucester 04:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
EdJohnston edited eight hours ago. So there is a high probability he would be around. The reason this cannot be dealt with here and now is because (a) EdJohnston placed the topic ban and there is good form in allowing him to first take action (b) there is no hurry and there is no fear of immediate disruption to the project. (c) A topic ban is given to avoid blocking an editor. Blocking an editor who is under a topic ban can be done, but only in case the editor repetitively refuses to realise the delimiters of his ban and poses a danger of disrupting the project as of right now. In effect, I am not going to take any action until Ed replies or is absent for a couple of days at least from the project. Do note that that does not stop any other administrator from taking any other action as they may deem fit in the meanwhile. Wifione Message 04:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The editor has been blocked, and all resolved. Thank you for your response. RGloucester 04:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week by EdJohnston. Wifione Message 05:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lagoonaville reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: No action, discussion in progress)[edit]

Page
Barelvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lagoonaville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "tawassul is islamic term Undid revision 634704085 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
  2. 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Do not remove Undid revision 634703855 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
  3. 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Consnsus overrides Undid revision 634669645 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
  4. 08:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "These are the terms associated with the practices. Undid revision 634664878 by MezzoMezzo (talk)"
  5. 08:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Its True. Undid revision 634664006 by MezzoMezzo (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Barelvi. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User also violating consensus on the page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I take it to the talk page but nobody talking to me.Lagoonaville (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
And another revert. Now 5 reverts in 24 hours. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Lagoonaville: will you please stop reverting immediately? Luke, can you continue discussing on the talk page? Lagoonaville has surprisingly opened up a discussion on the talk page. So I am not blocking the editor unless they revert again. Wifione Message 16:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
ok let us discuss.Lagoonaville (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Bicycle user reported by User:Atshal (Result:Warned, for now Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [56]
  2. [57]
  3. [58]
  4. [59]
  5. [60]
  6. [61]
  7. [62]
  8. [63]
  9. [64]
  10. [65]

Three different editors have posted on the user's page regarding the editing: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

(There were also earlier discussions, but these are the latest additions to the talk. The user has never responded, despite a reminder on his talk page.)

Comments:

The only edits this user has ever made is about this cycling related Matthew Parris article [68]. This leads me to believe that this account is probably a sock puppet dedicated solely to reinserting this material - two other account or IPs have made similar changes to the Matthew Parris page over this time.

User:213.104.77.141 [69]

User:Velo venturer [70]

I would also like to add that this is not some kind of personal issue between me and this user. Four other editors have reverted these changes and two other have left messages on the users talk. Atshal (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Because nobody seemed to have warned the user about edit warring. While I've warned the new user, I'm not closing this report. Please add below if the user reverts you or any other editor again without discussing on the talk page. If that happens, I'll block the user. Thanks. Wifione Message 16:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't want the user blocked at all, just for this material not to be repeatedly reinserted. Cheers. Atshal (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Atshal. Everyone out here is a volunteer, including you. We really don't have time to ignore repetitive edit warring after we've left clear warning notes on the user's page. If we don't block the user, it would only result in the disruption continuing and more time being wasted of other volunteers. That's purely my experience. I've given the editor a clear warning. Please write back if the disruption continues. Wifione Message 02:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Wifione. Unfortunately the editor has made exactly the same edit again today, even after the warning and also a polite note from me asking them to contribute to the talk discussion. S/he has also deleted some material about some books that Parris has published [71]. Atshal (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The user also has started some kind of BLP attack. Do please write back or start another report if the user continues this behaviour once the block expires. Thanks for keeping a watch on the article. Wifione Message 16:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:173.67.166.147 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
King v. Burwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
173.67.166.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Legislative intent */ Added Content About Gruber Remarks...Restoring History...that is being censoredGaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* other gruber quotes */ mastcell"
Comments:

Slow Edit warring from IP repeatedly readding in info without consensus and without discussion. See Special:Contributions/173.67.163.239 for same edits with same edit summary, and User_talk:173.67.163.239 for warnings & attempts at drawing the IP in from both myself and MastCell Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, you should have warned the IP about edit warring. I've left a warning note now. If the IP again reverts, I'll block the IP. But not right now. Other than that, let's see how it goes. Thanks. Wifione Message 16:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wifione The IP was warned by MastCell in the previous IP (239) the day before yesterday. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. You're right. I missed that. Thanks for the pointer. Wifione Message 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gpcv77 reported by User:George Ho (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: 2014 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gpcv77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. 19:00, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC)
  3. 23:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. 16:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. 17:21, 16 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:50, 17 November 2014‎ (UTC) by George Ho / 19:06, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC) by Favonian

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

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. George Ho, you don't indicate that you attempted to discuss the problem with the user. You also didn't notify the user of this report as you are required to do. The user has not breached WP:3RR, although their behavior, in my view, constitutes edit warring and is blockable. As far as I can tell, even with the limited number of edits by the user, they never talk. I'm not taking any action at this point because of the procedural problems, but if the user persists, I may do so. In the meantime, another administrator may take whatever action they deem appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The user has done it again; I warned him/her about gaming the system by manipulating loopholes of 3RR. Must you take action? --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Would the edit summary here not constitute a 3RR warning? Chronologically, it comes between the edits numbered 2 and 3 above. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The simple answer to your question is no. Edit summaries are not proxies for discussions or for warnings. That said, I don't believe I complained about lack of a 3RR warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Yankees10 reported by User:Meunger11 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Le'Veon Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yankees10&action=submit User being reported: Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft. As of week 12 of the 2014 Season, he was the #2 overall running back (behind #1 DeMarco Murray) in the league[2] with an average 4.9 YPC, up significantly from his 2013 YPC of 3.5[3]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%27Veon_Bell

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11/20/2014: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft.
  2. 11/20/2014: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft.
  3. 11/20/2014: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yankees10&action=submit

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

Comments:

Meunger11 (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:MEOGLOBAL reported by User:Gezginrocker (Result: Full protection)[edit]

Page: Media of Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MEOGLOBAL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [74]
  2. [75]
  3. [76]
  4. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78] (User keeps on deleting the notice from his talk page)

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

Comments:

User:MEOGLOBAL has removed a large and well referenced section from the Media of Turkey article. I have warned him about not to edit war, and to leave comments at the talk section. However, he removed that section again. When I warned him again, he wrote "I will write this article from bonnet to heels" and he put an "under construction" template to the article. He appears to have a problem with the added section because of his political views. I gave him a 3RR warning, but he deletes it from his talk page as you can see at diff history above. Because he insists on edit warring and attemp to "re-write" the article, I request a ban for the user. I also require protection for the article, because he is constantly making changes on the article, most of them without any references. For example, this section he just added has no references, there are format errors and is written in poor English. Gezginrocker (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I will talk very clear. He added 3RR warning on my userpage which shows that what is his relationship with Wikipedia. I deleted to Pool Media section because of significant information, but he thinks because of my political view. If my political view would support goverment, I would remove all article here. I don't understand that how one guy can talk about someone's political view here. MEOGLOBAL (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
At his second edit, he gave the reason as "He wants to put this section because of his political view." Yet, he accuses me of "talking about someone's political view." That's really absurd. Gezginrocker (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • you will get nothing by bring some specific sentences to here. I don't know what makes you think that people will support you by you taking people's specific sentence for support yourself. This is Wikipedia, not a simple forum web site. MEOGLOBAL (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.Gezginrocker (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You won't say anything about problem of trustworthy source? Is that it? MEOGLOBAL (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Felino123 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19 nov 17:301RR broken (He reverted the correction and disrupted the article again)
  2. 19 nov 17:21 (I reverted the disruption)
  3. 19 nov 17:17 (Disruption)
  4. 19 nov 16:53 (Correct version before the user's disruptions)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81], [82], [83] , [84]

Comments:

ISIL's article is 1RR.

This user was reported yesterday for violating the one-revert rule. He was warned. Today, he violates the 1RR again disrupting the article against the consensus and pushing his personal POV aggressively. This is clear vandalism. I have also put links to talk pages, in which other editors warn him about reverting rules. Talking to him and warning him for violations of the rules doesn't work, so I think further action should be taken.

PS This is my first report so if I have committed any mistake filling this report, then I am sorry.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Wifione Message 01:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wifione, As the person who raised the last report, User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Gregkaye..., Please let me comment:
To be fair the edits that have been marked above as "disruptions" are arguably relatively reasonable. In several incarnations of the ISIL article Islamic criticism of the group self designated as "Islamic State.." has understandably been placed first in the sequence of presented criticisms. Furthermore a move similar to the moves made by Mohamed has since been made in the main article by P123ct1 in an, I think, sensible as shown here. The edits can even be argued to have been desirable
  • Not that it matters now, but my edit was very different, even if it used similar words. The positioning of the words was crucial, and in that sense my edit was very different. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Notification issues: Please not