Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:New England Cop (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Zalman Schachter-Shalomi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malik Shabazz (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. diff1
  2. diff2
  3. diff3
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning to Malik Warning to IP

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

Comments:

This is a slow motion edit war between Malik Shabazz and the IP 173.73.23.229. While the letter of the law has not been violated certainly the spirit of the law has been. (This is my first time making this manner or a report. I apologize if I have failed to fill it out entirely and correctly.) New England Cop (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Malik Shabazz has not violated any policy; certianly not 3RR or anything of that nature. May I ask:

1. Why are you reporting this supposed edit war, when you were not involved in it?

2. If you cared so much about it, why are you not trying to resolve the issue on the article's Talk page?

-- Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP is clearly inserting highly controversial information sourced with non-reliable sources. Someone needs to revert it. The spirit of the law is to improve the encyclopedia. That is what Malik Shabazz is doing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. Your report is appreciated, NEC, and I certainly don't find it unreasonable; I think you worded the issue rather well and it is arguably a slow-moving edit war. And, just to be clear, any uninvolved user is welcome to bring up a report here. However I don't think this particular incident is disruptive or severe enough to warrant any administrator intervention. The IP was trying to make a change, which Malik disputed while giving a clear reason, both on the IP's talk page and in the edit summary. Malik directed the IP to the article's talk page, but the IP has made no effort to discuss their proposed changes, and instead has just continued to edit war over it. Because of this, I can't particularly hold Malik's actions against him. In fact, I think he handled himself pretty well. He had the power to block the editor or protect the page, but he restrained himself and merely reverted the IP. I don't think that's all that unreasonable on his part. No harm in asking for an uninvolved review of the situation though, your concern is appreciated! Best, Swarm... —X— 04:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Swarm, for your thoughtful reply. I agree with this outcome, tho perhaps the IP should be formally warned about any future edit warring? Maunus and Softlavender, during my law enforcement career I always thanked and encouraged uninvolved civilians when they reported a crime or concern that they were not personally involved with. Does Wikipedia require me to be personally involved in every subject before bringing it to the attention of the appropriate authorities? Moreover, we NEVER asked them to get involved before making a call to 911 and reporting a situation. New England Cop (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it is fine to report things without being involved. But rather than reporting problems it is always better to participate in solving them through consensus building at the page where a problem is observed. When an edit war like this happens, stepping in as an uninvolved mediator is the best help you can give. Reporting issues is generally reserved for egregious problems that has proven not to be possible to solve through collaboration, and which requires some kind of administrative action. Our policies are not laws to be enforced in the same way that laws are in society, they are helping guidelines that help us in building an encyclopedia together. This means that reporting an infringement of policy is not to be done just to get the person who did it punished, but rather to solve an issue that cannot be amicably solved through discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
There's some confusion here. You are offering instructions about mediation and such that I can find nowhere on this page. I thoroughly read the instructions here and came across nothing of what you describe. New England Cop (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this page tells you how to report people if they you need intervention. It doesnt tell you when not to request intervention. That knowledge comes from understanding how wikipedia is a collaborative project based on consensus building, and from knowing the Basic values and principles we operate under (look particularly under the last two pillars: No firm rules, and consensus building). I am sure similar things exist in law enforcement, the knowledge of when not to arrest someone, is probably not written in to the manuals.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Everything we do in LE is documented. Going with your gut or gestalt isn't good police work. I'll bring up violations to the authorities and not go vigilante as you might want me to. New England Cop (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not law enforcement, and we dont do police work here. And really we have no authorities either, just some people with mops to clean up messes. Participating is not vigilantism it is collaborating to build an encyclopedia which is what this project is about. It requires discussing how to do things. ANd the philosophy of the project is that the outcomes of discussions are better when more people participate. I think you may want to rethink the law enforcement angle here on wikipedia, it really doesnt work that way. Maybe you should rather thing of it as building a house together: if you see two other bricklayers arguing about how to make the wall, then stepping in and giving a suggestion on how to overcome the problem they have is going to get the house built quicker than running to the foreman.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea how to build a brick wall. If the masons were arguing I definitely wouldn't try to get involved. My first stop would be to the foreman. New England Cop (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, just remember that what matters here is getting the wall built and that that is what we try to do together, the only valid reason to be here. The rules and policies are here to help us get the wall built, nothing else. SO for example even if Malik Shabazz had broken the 3rr rule he might not have been sanctioned, because what he was doing was clearly in the best interest of the encyclopedia, whereas the insertion of controversial bad information and the IPs failure to discuss when approached by others was a problem for the encyclopedia. We dont use rules punitively, only preventively. And if it is against the encyclopedias best interest we dont use the rules at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:LawrencePrincipe reported by User:Xanthis (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Glengarry Glen Ross (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LawrencePrincipe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [[1]] [his original deletion]
  2. [[2]] [reversion]
  3. [[3]] [reversion]
  4. [[4]] [reversion]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[[6]] [[7]] [[8]]

Comments:

LawrencePrincipe deleted some material on the Glengarry Glen Ross (film) page which is the subject of an open RfC, complaining that it violated WP:LEDE wiki style guidelines. I reverted the edit and asked him to discuss the matter (both on his user talk page, and on the article talk page) offering possible solutions that would satisfy his style concern while the RfC was open and explaining why, in my opinion, it was important that the material remain visible until the RfC was closed -- particularly so that less experienced editors (such as myself) could easily examine the disputed references and also in the hope that the "failed verification" citation notes would attract editors to the talk page during the remaining time of the RfC.

I offered several suggestions for how his WP:LEDE concern could possibly be addressed during the remaining week of the RfC. He will not consider any alternatives, and insisted that his deletion must stand.

He threatened to close the RfC himself -- which he then did ("per WP:SNOWBALL"). [[9]]

He has accused me of edit warring. I am not very familiar with Wiki policy is on edit warring (this is my first time on a AN; perhaps I am calling fire down upon myself!) but to my mind it doesn't seem right that he will not stop his deletions or discuss possible solutions . . . or that he would unilaterally close an RfC in retaliation.

I look to you all for guidance. Xanthis (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I've reviewed the situation and I've found that user's behavior to be absolutely unacceptable. Falsely citing policy, closing an RfC where he was involved, blatantly misjudging consensus, edit warring over something that's being actively discussed, and then turning around and having the audacity to warn you for edit warring, unbelievable. You can see my comments at his talk page as well. The RfC closure has been overturned by a different admin. Given that there's not only edit warring but other disruptive behavior in play here, Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Swarm... —X— 06:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:142.129.113.158 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
142.129.113.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 05:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC) to 05:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 05:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Provided a more balanced representation of conventional wisdom on the frequency of false rape accusations. Gave more credence to those who cite the false rape numbers at 8% by naming the FBI specifically instead of "others"."
    2. 05:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "removed the paraphrase of Michelle Anderson as it has no citation and is merely anecdotal, intentionally vague and in no way authoritative as mentioned at length on the talk page."
    3. 05:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "removed and others, too vague and doesn't contribute."
    4. 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "deleted the sentece, "Studies have found that police typically classify between 1.5 and 8% of rape...." it has no citation, sources and anonymously discredits itself"
    5. 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    6. 05:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    7. 05:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    8. 05:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 06:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC) to 08:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651007305 by EvergreenFir (talk) So you undid everything else why? Why did you bring back the Michelle Anderson quote? Why did you delete the FBI source?"
    2. 06:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Deleted DOJ 2% statistic it has no citation anywhere and I can't find this figure on the internet..."
    3. 06:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 06:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Gave context to the sentence"
    5. 06:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "deleted or more. they say 8% not more."
    6. 07:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    7. 08:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 16:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) to 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 16:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "changed False to unfounded for FBI. No reason given for retaining Michelle Anderson quote or unfounded 1.5 - 8% figure so deleted them. We have to be Scientific not politically correct..."
    2. 16:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "See talk. Do not revert to old article without responding to valid criticisms..."
  5. 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651105335 by EvergreenFir (talk) Had no response to the fact this article contains false information and is the consensus of one woman..."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on False accusation of rape. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Figures without citation */"
Comments:

Violated 3RR after warning. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:The Destroyer Of Nyr reported by User:Yerevani Axjik (Result: indef)[edit]

Page: Party of Democratic Action (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
  5. [14]
  6. [15]
  7. [16]

The user had been already blocked for edit warring on 2 March 2015, and unblocked on 10 March 2015. He received warning from an administrator that if he continues with edit warring he would be blocked. He got this warning on 10 March 2015, as you can see on the reported user's talk page. Still, he continues to revert edits calling them "vandalism" (and they obviously aren't - those were very well sourced informations, like you can check in the history of mentioned articles) and "neo-nationalist" (what ever that means) "propaganda".

Also, the reported users calls Serbs - Chetniks, a historical group from the World War II that has really complex history and it's an offensive term. [17].

Hello. Obviously, the user doesn't know what they are talking about. They insist a referendum is illegal because it did not have 66% turnout, although voters were physically blocked from participating by the military. Also, he insists on calling Serb and Croat writers with a murky biography reliable sources. And he also called muslims "Wahhabis", another controversial term, if we are talking about these things already. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The user also violate 3RR several times, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Democratic_Action and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_independence_referendum,_1992 (after having a warning on their talk page already). The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Destroyer, look. I don't (I don't know who are they) insist on anything. I used reliable sources - namely, from the International Law Reports published by the Cambridge University (Bosnian independence referendum). I have never, not once used any Serb writer in any of the mentioned articles. I did however used one Croat writer, one Bosnian Muslim writer and two British as well as one Italian writer. Still, you labeled this Bosnian Muslim author a "Yugoslav communist", which he obviously isn't (even if he was or is, it doesn't mean anything, it's ad hominem attack). And nobody ever refered to Muslims as wahhabis, although, there is a branch of Islam called wahabbism... so...
And, no. I reverted you only once, after which I started a discussion at the talk page. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only are your sources laughable, but also your way of thinking. Concluding that a referendum was illegal because it did not have 66% turnout for the sole reason of voters being physically prevented by military from voting says a lot. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You are basically building the entire rest of the article assuming that idea. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's what the source says, not me. Also, not any source mentions what percent of voters was physically prevented from voting. This is not a discussion about article. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a discussion about the article, but as that article is the subject of dispute, it must obviously be mentioned. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article and nobody removed anything from the article - except you. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you are building the entire rest of the article on the base of that claim. All the paragraphs about how the referendum was illegal are directly countered, negated and annuled by that fact. Also, this report should be the opposite way around, if anything. You continued vandalising even after having been warned, and seemed completely oblivious to any calls or attempts to resolve the dispute on the talk page. I tried to act in good faith, but cooperation requires two people. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I continued vandalising after being warned what sir? I haven't edited not a single article involved in edit warring. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You did, I warned you for edit warring on these articles. Check your talk page. And don't try to delete it now, it would be too obvious. Also, you did not even respond to it, or to the previous vandalism warning, which says a lot about your will to cooperate. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Check my edit history. I can't delete that. Check the time you "warned me", and check the time since then in my edit history (contributions). --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Comments:

I have only tangentially been involved with the focus of User:The Destroyer Of Nyr's editing, but I've seen enough of what happened to have some idea. From what I've seen, his main way of editing is to make changes to reflect his preferred point of view, which involves mainly removing sourced information and replacing it with information - perhaps also sourced, but not always to equally reliable sources - that suits him better. He claims he is removing unreliable sources or other incorrect information in his edit summaries, while that may certainly be up for debate. If you look at his edits since he was unblocked, the vast majority of it has been this kind of editing; since being unblocked, he has removed more content from Wikipedia than he has added. Any attempt to restore the removed content is then simply undone with "vandalism", which reveals another of his editing traits: anyone going against him must be a vandal, and therefore all means are warranted to stop it, including edit warring. To be honest, given that the admins involved in his block were very clear that they wouldn't unblock, yet he got another chance from a very lenient administrator who made it clear he was on a short leash, I'm baffled that the user has continued to display the same behaviour he was initially blocked for. Clearly, the user does not understand the reason for being blocked, or simply doesn't care and thinks his own personal goals are more important. Thus, it seems that he is not here to help Wikipedia, and I believe the block should be reinstated and no further chances given. CodeCat (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

And I believe you have nothing to do in this dispute. I do not see that you have any kind of authority to talk on this subject, especially not telling admins what to do, or calling them lenient. Please return to your own matters, not stop by and cheer for someone in a case that obviously has, not even in theory, anything to do with you. This paragraph above is a purely subjective hate-spew. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Destroyer - you do not read your sources at all. You just paste various links around, so me and other users must read them whole just to tell you you read them wrong. I'm getting sick and tired of this. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk · contribs) is an obvious edit-warrior who is not willing to cooperate. An admin gave him a last chance – he has not changed his approach. --Zoupan 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

So it seems we have an entire bandwagon here? Obviously, some people have a problem when your POV doesn't match theirs. Also, I was perhaps TOO compromising in constantly calling the user to discuss the matter on the talk page and only mildly warning them, when it seems I should have taken the step he took first. This is simply an attempt of a group of people with an obvious objective (just check their talk pages and contribs, you will find quite a link between them) to change history. Luckily, the entire world knows what happened and is happening, so nobody believes that sort of ludicrous, unsourced propaganda anymore. Also, I am getting the feeling we might need a Wikipedia arbitration on some important facts soon, because it appears that, every day you check certain pages, it seems a whole different history happened than yesterday. Somebody should seriously consider this.The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not read them wrong. This is exactly the reason I warned you - DISTORTION of content. You seem to interpret sources and texts in the way it best suits your agenda. Anyone reading your edits on Party of Democratic Action and Bosnian independence referendum, 1992 can clearly see that. Having a POV obviously is not a problem, it is natural, manipulating sources to match it, however, is. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely. It's pretty clear to see that this user was blocked indefinitely for long-term edit warring, was given a "last chance" unblock, and pretty much immediately continued edit warring after being unblocked. I really don't see any other option at this point. Swarm... —X— 02:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Haxz.999 reported by User:TheMeaningOfBlah (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: WrestleMania 31 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haxz.999 (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]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not available


Comments:

Clear violation of WP:3RR. Also appears to be insulting other users and claiming that YouTube is a reliable source. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined What the hell are you guys doing over there?? While being "right" isn't an edit warring policy exemption, this content dispute is so ridiculous I'd say it mitigates the situation a bit. No, Youtube itself is not automatically considered a reliable source, but in this case the source isn't merely "Youtube", the source is a video hosted on WWE's official channel on Youtube. Ergo, it's official and can pretty safely be considered a reliable primary source of information. The user's clearly the one being insulted[25], and the information is being reverted with absolutely ridiculous rationales such as "not being a text resource", "need to use an official source" (ignoring the fact that it is still an official source), "YouTube isn't considered a reliable source" (but it can be), "Until it says so on WWE.com this is NOT confirmed" (according to whom??)...Here's another official source that was cited, and again reverted because it's not "WWE.com". Try to use some common sense here, guys, these are verified official social media accounts, don't you think it's possible that they might announce new information on those platforms before updating the website to reflect it? Or do you just think they're lying on their social media accounts for no reason? Which seems more likely? There's no blanket ban on using Youtube or Twitter as sources, obviously they're not ideal but they can certainly be a source of information if the accounts providing the information are verified as to be official. Again, it's a matter of common sense in situations like these, and the users who have been reverting the addition of this information have woefully failed to exercise this common sense, to the disruption and detriment of the project. I'm sure as hell not going to block this editor who was being reverted for absolutely no valid reason. Swarm... —X— 02:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AbuRuud reported by User:Ubikwit (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:28, 12 March 2015
  2. 22:31, 12 March 2015
  3. 01:30, 13 March 2015
  4. 02:05, 13 March 2015

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:


The first two diffs are a series of edits to revert back to a previous lead. They should therefore count as one "revert." The other two are me reasserting that the material shouldn't be on the page. All the reverts had to do with:
  1. Reintroducing sourced content that provided context to the lead and was originally removed by an IP editor whose apparent motivation is the make the article an attack page.
  2. Getting rid of a sentence that (at best) was poorly worded and biased to the point of violating wp:BLP. This was clearly explained on the the talk page. [28]AbuRuud (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


1 and 2 are contiguous edits, thus counting as a single edit, - thus just hitting 3RR at worst - but the edit they reverted is from an IP in any event. Ubikwit has made two specific and separate reverts on non-IP edits here, and should be warned, as should AbuRuud as I am unsure that calling a small group a "cult of personality" centered on one person is a contentious claim about that specific person -- if so, then such claims should be considered a BLP violation in themselves, and anyone restoring that language would be the violator. Collect (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I also notice a lack of the required warning - a minor but fatal oversight when making an edit war complaint, if I recall correctly? Collect (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The policy explicitly states, "A warning is not required".[29]
If you're going to follow me around and suggest that I be warned for no good reason, you should at least read the policies beforehand.
Regarding the claim about "contiguous edits", that does not seem to be correct, either. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
This is the first that I se no result, does this means that is issue boomerang back to the person who falsely report this incident?Kelvintjy (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:X1942 reported by User:Amaury (Result: three socks indeffed)[edit]

Page
Alan Hochberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
X1942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651097051 by Amaury (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Continues to remove sourced information with no explanation or elaborate explanation as to why. Amaury (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked three sock puppets indefinitely. Amaury, you need to be a bit more elaborative when filing a report of this kind. On its face, it looks screwy to see one revert listed. I actually looked first at the one edit by the reported user and was still mystified. It was only when I looked at the edit history did it suddenly become clear. I also semi-protected the article for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Moorrests reported by User:Sunrise (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: any version without the contentious statement in the lead - the most recent is [30].

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [31] (24 January)
  2. [32] (25 January)
  3. [33] (10 February)
  4. [34] (11 February)
  5. [35] (4 March)
  6. [36] (5 March)
  7. [37] (6 March)
  8. [38] (7 March)
  9. [39] (7 March)
  10. [40] (10 March)
  11. [41] (11 March)
  12. [42] (12 March)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Science#Should_we_add_this_line_to_the_lead.3F. The same sources were discussed at Talk:Alhazen#Excess citations - some edit warring took place at Alhazen also.

Comments:

The user is edit warring against multiple other users to insert their preferred content into the lead of Science. The first few diffs are from January and February, as are the linked discussions in which they initially tried to talk. After they couldn't find a consensus for inclusion, they returned to try and force the content in, especially over the past week, trying to say that the previous discussion supported their opinion.

There is no 3RR violation, but clear edit warring. I'm not necessarily requesting a block - anything that resolves the repeated reversions would be good. Protection would not be ideal, as productive editing is continuing while this is taking place. Sunrise (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There has been no actual violation of three-revert rule here though I see there is an ongoing content dispute issue, all I can see is that User:J8079s is heavily implicated and the two editors have been equally responsible for the activities these past two weeks, so perhaps that editor's actions need to be looked into as well. Note that I am not party to this debate and have not looked into the logistics or any discussions on the matter. --!BSGT! (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It's very much an asymmetric situation. J8079s reverted the majority of the 12 edits I cited above, but there are three of us who have done so - several more if you count the reversions at Alhazen - and even more who have commented in the talk discussions. Nobody other than Moorrests has been attempting to add the content. Sunrise (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Pinging those editors who have reverted or opposed the edits: J8079s, Mikenorton, Ninmacer20, Dmcq, William M. Connolley, Johnuniq, and the one editor (Ancheta Wis) who I think is neutral. Sunrise (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear case of edit warring by the user. Swarm... —X— 02:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't realized it had been going on so long or been reverted so many times. Why do people get bees in their bonnet like this one about saying in the lead of the science article that their hero is the father of science? The right place to look to get weight for the lead in an article about science is a general book about science, not a book about the person themselves or about medieval islamic science. There's a subsection about the history and that's where things like that should go and they were told that. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Caseeart (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46] (Reverted from [47])
  3. [48]
  4. [49]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:
Before the first revert the user already stopped responding on the Talk Page about the dispute.[51] The user falsely (attacked me?-)accused me of "has repeatedly deleted a section agreed upon in the talk section"[52] despite the talk section showed otherwise [53]. The user has been edit warring for a few months with other users. I will admit that I did revert an edit 4 times within a 66 hour period - but it was with an ongoing discussion on the talk page.

Addition: Just realized an active discussion on ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseeart (talkcontribs) 06:23, 13 March 2015
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm... —X— 20:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page
Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Discussion still in progress - consensus majority voting. (TW)"
  2. 11:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Consensus takes some time, discussion occurring, dont edit war. (TW)"
  3. 02:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Joseph Prasad (talk): There's no discussion since 2/28/15 - no consensus was sought - reverting back and please do not edit war over this. (TW)"
  4. 02:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "reverting back to photo added by Angellene10 - disagree? please take it to the article talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. "Warning" given to WV
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Resolution initiatives
Comments:

I'm uninvolved in this so it may not be 100% edit warringI was reffering to I don't know the background of it but since WV is being super picky about everything, yes 4 reverts is a violation of 3RR, but I see 4 reverts in 24hrs.... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Amended at: 19:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't "100% edit warring"', why did you file this report. EoRdE6?
The facts are that both User:Joseph Prasad and User:MaranoFan had just come off blocks and returned immediately to their old behaviors: Prasad reverting in a manner that equates ownership, reverting rather than discussing; Marano aggressively edit warring when there is a discussion about the disputed content already occurring. I reverted Prasad here in part because he had not used an edit summary to explain his reversion [54], the edit summary I supplied was, "reverting back to photo added by Angellene10 - disagree? please take it to the article talk page" (I saw nothing wrong with the photo the other editor added). Prasad then reverted again here:[55] with the following edit summary "It's already a discussion, and since there has been no consensus, it can't be changed since it is still an ongoing discussion". This was untrue, there hadn't been discussion for nearly two weeks and there had been no actual consensus sought. I then reverted here[56] with the following edit summary, "There's no discussion since 2/28/15 - no consensus was sought - reverting back and please do not edit war over this." MaranoFan (who has been involved in tag-team edit warring with Joseph Prasad in the past) reverted here[57] with this edit summary: "Winkelvi, the one edit warring is YOU. When there isn't consensus, the version before the change (being discussed) is kept. Don't change the image until everyone agrees on it." My response was to revert back to the "wrong version" because there was a discussion taking place here [58] with the edit summary, "Consensus takes some time, discussion occurring, dont edit war." Marano then aggressively reverted again (despite now being aware there is a discussion about the disputed content taking place) here [59] and put in a completely different photo than the two being discussed - no consensus, no discussion about the new photo, no agreement that the newest photo was the one that should be added. Marano's edit summary was thus: "The user argues on the talk page that the photo should have a guitar. Until the discussion progresses, here is a non-blurry with-guitar pic not supposed to be reverted." And yes, because the reverting while discussion was still occurring happened again, I did revert for a 4th time (here [60], "Discussion still in progress - consensus majority voting." I had placed two edit warring warnings on his talk page here [61] and here [62]. He continued, nonetheless. Even before this report was filed, I had no intention of reverting further, Believing that WP:ROPE might be the best solution to their continued edit warring behavior. My actions were solely based on keeping things in order and according to discussion policy -- actual edit warring was not my intent. Further, I have followed up at the article talk page with a comment in order to hopefully reach consensus here: [63]. Not trying to distract or shift any blame, but in my opinion, MaranoFan and Joseph Prasad, both released from blocks for edit warring and disruptive behavior less than 24 hours ago, still appear to have no concept of consensus, discussion, disruption, edit warring, and that WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIN are not appropriate editing mentalities and behavior. I think their behavior right after being unblocked is evidence of such: not wanting to truly discuss/reach consensus, just warring and winning. -- WV 19:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation but that doesn't change the bright red line of 3RR which you ran right over. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
(1) The explanation isn't meant for you, EoRdE6.
(2) You struck out what you originally wrote, but it doesn't change that you came to the edit warring noticeboard believing "it may not be 100% edit warring". -- WV 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The original change was made without any comment or explanation, it was disputed and reverted, and the proper course of action following this would be to discuss the proposed change, not to revert multiple times to keep the new image in the article; Winkelvi violated 3rr in trying to prevent the removal of their preferred addition and has not self-reverted as of this review. Also protecting the page to prevent further disruption. Swarm... —X— 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Naturalevasion reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Multiple blocks)[edit]

Page
Evolution (marketplace) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Naturalevasion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "added community forum link"
  2. 10:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651140688 by Fixuture (talk)"
  3. 01:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 05:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  5. 22:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "correct link check contingency links update on evo forum & reddit & dnm"
  6. 17:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "2 typos + wiki link"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 13:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Evolution (marketplace). (TW)"
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I've indeffed NaldusMain, Matibenbaruch, and Naturalevasion as socks (it's possible they are meat puppets). I've semi-protected the page for one week. There is one other account that I didn't touch as I'm less sure of it (it is auto-confirmed).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kaalekauwesedariyo reported by User:Snowager (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Santosh Anand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kaalekauwesedariyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 16:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651182241 by Flyer22 (talk)"
  3. 04:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651222759 by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk)"
  4. 04:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 651291165 by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) as"
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Although I don't think the SPA is interested in improving the article, the section on suicides needs a lot of work.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:213.81.80.153 reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page
Kieran Sadlier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
213.81.80.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "/* International career */"
  2. 16:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kieran Sadlier. (TW)"
  2. 06:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kieran Sadlier. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [64]
Comments:

Editor claims to be the subject's father and repeatedly adds content unsupported by references. I have explained the need for reliable sources both on this talkpage and my own only for editor to revert again. Egghead06 (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined per WP:AGF and WP:BITE; perhaps rather than summarily rollbacking all of this editor's edits and telling them to read WP:RS, you can leave the non-contentious wording changes, tag the additions of information that are not at this time supported by reliable sources, and revert only the removal or alteration of something that is already sourced. Perhaps this is an editor you should attempt to help rather than attempt to shut out; our reliable sources policy is not an outright ban on someone making a change to incorrect information on an article about a family member. Swarm... —X— 21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks but your view goes against WP:COIADVICE which specifically asks that they add reliable sources.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

121.220.98.113 reported by AcidSnow (Result: 1 month)[edit]

Page: Arab Capital of Culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.220.98.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 08:34, 13 March 2015
  2. Latest revision as of 12:22, 14 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk page link

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

Comments:

This IP has violated 1R by reverting twice on the Template:Arab Capital of Culture. Also, where does someone go once they receive a death threat? Him and another individual have also been calling me "A MUSLIM TERRORIST", an "Arab nationalist vandal", a "CUNT", and that I poses an "extremist Arab POV". AcidSnow (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 month. Can't confirm the other IP is the same person but I've blocked them for two weeks for similar but less severe violations. Swarm... —X— 18:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help. AcidSnow (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Sarderzahidrahman111 reported by User:Nath1991 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Sarder Majibar Rahman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sarderzahidrahman111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 19:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removing file deletion tags on Sarder Majibar Rahman. (TW)"
  2. 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing file deletion tags on Sarder Majibar Rahman. (TW)"
  3. 19:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "/* March 2015 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Has created a page (Sarder Majibar Rahman) which appears to be about him/her. Continues to remove deletion tags, and has been warned a dozen times about doing so, in addition to other Wikipedia editors re-applying for deletion of said page without possibly being aware of the fact that the page has been up for deletion for a week, and the user in question has been warned multiple times for deleting the deletion tags on the page. Nath1991 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I would support deleting the page and banning the user. They are clearly only here for self-promotion, not to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: summichum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Even after having discussed in the previous Editwar Notice[[65]] this user ignored my request to have discussion and reverted the tag consequently.[[66]]Rukn950 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff][[67]]
  2. [diff][[68]]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff][[69]]

Comments:

Though his reverts are not 3rrr but summichum immediatly started to revert even after being requested by Admin in the Notice boardRukn950 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"No violation. The proper course of action when someone adds something you disagree with is not to edit war over it, but to discuss it on the talk page. Since you've already jumped to the conclusion that the tag is referring to you, whether you like it or not, it's not appropriate for you to be removing it. If no consensus forms to support the tag being there, it can be removed. However you're both accusing each other of having a COI, so I certainly don't see the tag as being inappropriate. Swarm... —X— 2:19 am, 10 March 2015, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC+3)"

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected While I could certainly block this user, I think it would be more productive if you both proceeded to WP:COIN and sought out some additional feedback, as you're obviously at an impasse, accusing each other of COI, and you're not getting sufficient feedback on the talk page. You'll have a week off of the article to attempt to sort this out through discussion. Swarm... —X— 18:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Swarm cc:User:Bjelleklang Do check my talk page where I have given proof that this user ruqn has close connection with the subject , and is infact a clergy of this group, I have no connection whatsoever with either of the claimants nor do I support any. Hence I request editors to not just look at claims but also evidences for the same, this user was reported for clear 3rr violations twice and yet due to his false claims action was deferred , later an admin asked for proof for COI accusation which I duly provided yet the action on my 3rr report remains. ALso you clearly said " If no consensus forms to support the tag being there, it can be removed. However you're both accusing each other of having a COI". Summichum (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi - Drake Bell (Result: page protected; editors blocked for another article)[edit]

Page
Drake Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Joseph Prasad (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 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651410252 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Again, I provided a source for record producer. Stop ignoring your talk page, and learn how to discuss instead of edit warring."
    2. 00:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651409661 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I have provided sources. Stop Edit Warring and removing sourced info."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651408406 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Stop ignoring me, and stop edit warring before I report us both and get us both blocked."
    2. 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 00:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651407975 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) stop ignoring my message on your talk page"
  5. 00:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Find a guideline telling you this. And his net worth in the negatives now. . (TW)"
  6. 00:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Actually, videos can be used. Refer to User talk:SNUGGUMS. And it is from his real account. (TW)"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651406147 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Again, I have explained my edits. Take it to the talk page before making edits like this."
    2. 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Provided ref to already obvious fact."
  8. 23:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "No, he has produced his EP A Reminder as well, under his own label. And other people such as Jennette McCurdy, are taken as comedians as well. Discuss on the talk page before you make a change."
  9. 23:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651403676 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He is a comedian, having worked on multiple sitcoms, and he produced his first album Telegraph, and his EP A Reminder."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC) "/* March 2015 */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

WAY over 3RR. Was just released from a 48-hour edit warring block a couple of days ago (see here: [70]). -- WV 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor I am reverting is removing sourced information and ignoring the message I left on his talk page. He's over 3RR as well, why is he not being reported? This really is starting to seem like a personal problem. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note that Atomic has a history of edit warring accusations also (talk page), and is also warring over what seems to be a reasonable and constructive edit on the page A Reminder. Furthermore, Atomic has refused to respond to discussion opened by Prasad, both on article and user talk pages. If a certain punishment is found wanting for Prasad, should Atomic not be liable for the same? -- Jhill270 (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The revert JP was making looks reasonable to me. I think it should be thoroughly observed that the claim JP kept adding did have a source. I don't know what is done in such cases. I would hope that seeing the situation, and not just the number of edits, JP is not blocked in this situation. MaRAno FAN 06:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
User continues to revert A Reminder page without finding a reliable source.(Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
Tells one to provide source. Others tell him to do the same on other pages. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
At least I find reliable sources like Entertainment weekly, Hollywood Reporter, etc. you put unknown sites. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC))

I had already protected the article and left messages for both editors before seeing this report. If another admin chooses to block one or another of the editors, I won't object. In the absence of such a block, I will continue to monitor the discussion (and I've already had some discussion at User talk:Joseph Prasad#Drake Bell.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ditinili reported by User:Fakirbakir (Result:Blocked)[edit]

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

a link to a version from before all the reverting took place: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [72]
  2. [73]
  3. [74]
  4. [75]



Comments:

Same issue as above (this is my second report about this user). He started a discussion about a map yesterday [76] (he mentioned this matter a couple of days ago but it was an "off-topic discussion", here: [77]), and now he says that the issue has been "already discussed on different place" [78]. However the discussion is still ongoing. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and trouting the nominator for going to three reverts before reporting.Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ditinili reported by User:Fakirbakir (Result:Blocked)[edit]

Page: Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ditinili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

a link to a version from before all the reverting took place: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [80]
  2. [81]
  3. [82]
  4. [83]
  5. [84]



Comments:

He started a discussion about a map yesterday [85] (he mentioned this matter a couple of days ago but it was an "off-topic discussion", here: [86]), and now he says that the issue has been "already discussed on different place" [87]. However the discussion is still ongoing. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

See the report below.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi - A Reminder (Result: both blocked)[edit]

Page
A Reminder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:15, 15 March 2015‎ (UTC) Undid revision 651451025 by Atomic Meltdown (talk): at the end, label name in vid.)
  2. 08:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Undid revision 651450784 by Atomic Meltdown (talk): these links are irrelevant, as I said, the label in the music videos.
  3. 07:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) again, Wiki's all about discussion. YOU don't know how to do it. And I have said stop reverting and give me time, but you won't. Oh, well. We're both getting blocked purely for 3RR.
  4. 07:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown (talk): I have explained myself multiple times. Maybe if you learned to actually DISCUSS. (TW)
  5. 07:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown (talk). (TW)
  6. 07:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Undid revision 651448331 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) per my previous edit summary. I'm getting blocked anyway, why not?
  7. 07:31, 15 March 2015‎ (UTC) Undid revision 651448187 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) That would be original research, nothing more reliable than what I'm doing here.
  8. 07:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Reverted 1 edit by Atomic Meltdown: Don't assist in reporting me then revert. It is under his name, he produced it. Actually, you didn't on that Billy Crystal thing. (TW)
  9. 07:11, 15 March 2015‎‎ (UTC) Undid revision 651446943 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) Telling me to find one when you have been warned for original research, unsourced info. Kinda hypocritical.
  10. 07:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Ugh... how many times have I told you, that doesn't matter? Me and other editor have tried to discuss, you simply ignore. Maybe start there. Like I said, do you want me just to snitch to an admin and get us both blocked?"
  11. 07:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651446094 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) As it is under Drake Bell Entertainment, it does not need to be."
  12. 06:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): Sources provided. I have been told that the source for the label is enough. (TW)"
  13. 06:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "No. You're the one who wants the change. You're the one to do it. And you've ignored me trying to discuss with you, showing you're doing this on pages I frequently edit to be disruptive."
  14. Consecutive edits made from 06:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "How bout instead of reverting, YOU TAKE IT TO THE TALK. unless you don't know how wiki works."
    2. 06:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Lawsuit */"
  15. Consecutive edits made from 06:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "we were almost blocked. You brought it up, you take it to the talk page, heck, I could use a break, I can just go snitch to an admin."
    2. 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651444082 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) per my previous summary."
  16. Consecutive edits made from 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "corrected italics."
    2. 06:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651444156 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I can find other sources."
  17. Consecutive edits made from 06:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Atomic Meltdown (talk): I have REPEATEDLY told you I left a message and to take it to the talk page. Why do you refuse? (TW)"
    2. 06:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  18. Consecutive edits made from 00:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC) to 00:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 00:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Source provided"
  19. 00:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651410380 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) He doesn't need to be as it is under his name. Stop the edit war."
  20. 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651409945 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) I actually am. Stop. Do you wanna get reported? Learn how to discuss on Talk Pages."
  21. 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651409166 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) stop edit warring before I report both of us"
  22. 00:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651408263 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) It is enough that it is under a label dubbed with his own name."
  23. 00:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651407718 by Atomic Meltdown (talk) it is under his own label, so it is obvious. Stop stalking the pages I edit, as you weren't on these ever before."
  24. Consecutive edits made from 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) to 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Second edit warring report filed in the same day. See above. -- WV 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: His comments on his talk page regarding the edit warring are: "I'm not giving a crap at the moment. Granted, editing Wikipedia has been the only thing I do, if that editor doesn't at least get blocked too, I'm going to get pissed. Really, all the info is there. He just started editing those articles after I proved him wrong on 84th Academy Awards, as the Drake Bell articles are among the main ones I edit." (found here [88]). -- WV 07:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yet again, you worry nothing of the other editor, and I have tried to make a discussion, continued ignorance. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to block me, you have to take some action against Atomic Meltdown as well. That just wouldn't be right, I tried to discuss on his talk, I'm getting singled out here. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Why me? I'm the one who's telling you to find a reliable source and keep putting unsourced material. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
You, Atomic Meltdown just started on these articles because the Drake Bell articles are among the main ones I focus on. You're doing this to deliberately be disruptive. If you were really in good faith, you would make an attempt to find sources, instead of just removing over and over again, or at least tagging the info, you doing this just cause I proved you wrong at the 84th Academy Awards article. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
And Winkelvi The only reason "I'm not giving a crap" is because I will be blocked regardless, and know it. And I have been agitated to no end. And again, nothing on the other ediotr. WOW. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Because I'm telling you to find a reliable source and ignore me. This guy needs to be blocked for reverting unsourced material. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
I had to revert you for the same reason. And seriously, again, don't know how to discuss on talk pages. If you did, none of this would be happening. You just ignore everything. It wasn't anything better than what you were doing, yet you thought you were in the right. And if the label is under his name, he produced it. No sourcing needed, as I have been told, by DISCUSSING. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You see what I have been through yesterday. This kid needs a source. A source and he refused to find a reliable one. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
  • Comment from uninvolved editor: I doubt this needs to be said, but this is a true and classic edit war in the most brilliant sense of the word. Atomic Meltdown is also a heavy participant. They were both warned sternly for the last incident, but that doesn't seem to have effected a change. J♯m (talk | contribs) 07:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Also notable: they're STILL at it even after the posting of this 3RR discussion. J♯m (talk | contribs) 08:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Both need blocking IMO. Joseph Prasad has just come off a 48hr block only five days ago for, guess what, edit-warring. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked. Sorry, it's just too much. Both were edit warring to the point of having another article locked, then took the dispute here and continued to edit war after warnings. I've blocked Atomic Meltdown for 24 hours for a first offense, and Prasad for one week as this is his third consecutive block for this and is just coming back from a block. Kuru (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Danny.rudolph5 reported by User:Snowager (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Toy Story (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Danny.rudolph5 (talk · contribs ·