Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive276

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:50.184.134.157 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: User warned)[edit]

Page
Walter O'Brien (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
50.184.134.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "O'Brien's claim that he "defined the frame problem" is verifiably false. This is not controversial. Do not revert!"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 23:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC) to 23:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 23:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "add non-controversial example of false claim made by O'brien"
    2. 23:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "fix url"
    3. 23:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "revert reversion by Winklevi. Original edit was non-controversial removal of useless sources that don't establish notability"
  3. 23:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "remove two citations that do nothing to establish notability of Langton & Carmichael or O'Brien's connection to it"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC) to 22:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "revert vandalism on my contributions to the controversy section"
    2. 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "make less inflamatory"
    3. 22:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "tone-down unencyclopedic descriptions"
  5. 22:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "re Walter obrien"
  2. 23:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Walter O'Brien. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has stated on my talk page that he will continue reverting no matter what. -- WV 23:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I will stop reverting for a short time while we discuss this. I will admit that the first contribution contained a sentence which was too strongly-worded. All subsequent modifications I made were reasonable. There is no way we can improve this page if this editor is going to revert anything that questions O'brien's claims - which are extremely suspect. O'brien claims to have "defined the frame problem in artificial intelligence," when in fact that problem was defined before he was born. I added a source showing his claim of this, and a link to the Wikipedia article showing the actual history of the frame problem. These edits are non-controversial. If we have to discuss everything on the talk page before doing even simple modifications, nothing will get done. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Also I object to being referred to as "he". This is the kind of attitude that is holding wikipedia back.50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Simple modifications, such as fixing a typo or changing to better wording, are fine. However, edits like the edits you want to make must be discussed on the talk page first per WP:CONSENSUS. - Amaury (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize that addition of (sourced!) content required discussion on the talk page. If someone can somehow prove that O'brien traveled back in time and defined the frame problem before he was born, I will admit I was wrong. But until then it seems extremely non-controversial to point out that his claims about this accomplishment are false. I provided a source to the place on his website where he makes the assertion, and a link to the Wikipedia article that shows it is incorrect. What is the problem here? Winkelvi is the one who is edit-warring by repeatedly hindering progress on this article.50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with the filer on this, may I also point out they, have once again breached 3RR as though last week's block or an even more recent warning have had no impact on them. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. I did impose a block on this user as I hadn't yet seen their comment here, but I just unblocked them under the condition that they remain true to their word and stop reverting in order to discuss the matter. The user is warned that the block will be reinstated if they continue to edit war. Swarm... —X— 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
EoRdE6, take note that this article is a BLP and the IP editor was continually inserting controversial and unreferenced content about a living, breathing person. BLPs are a very different animal. If you also note, I stopped reverting his possibly libelous content additions and allowed other watchers to take over. -- WV 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, the content I inserted was referenced. And again, are correct (or none at all) gender pronouns too much to ask for? 50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with the BLP concerns, thus your reversions are exempt from 3RR. Regardless of the merits of the IP's argument, her wording was certainly too biased to be acceptable in a BLP. That being said, given your recent history, it's probably not a great idea to rely on 3RR exemptions too much. Swarm... —X— 23:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Especially when there are certain editors just chomping at the bit to see me blocked and will do whatever they can to make sure that happens. Yes, that happens in Wikipedia (sadly). Aside from that truth, I hear what you are saying, Swarm. -- WV 00:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so how do we proceed? Winkelvi has given no indication of what was wrong with my contribution, which was sourced and was highly non-controversial. I guess I just don't get to make that contribution because Winkelvi has decided to revert it over and over and then accuse ME of edit warring? How is this an efficient way to run an encyclopedia? I haven't heard one bit of explanation for why it's conceivable that O'brien's claims of inventing the frame problem are true. Just because he's a "living, breathing person" means we can't provide evidence against his claims without going through some complicated consensus process? 50.184.134.157 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Seeing no explanation, and considering Winkelvi's history of edit warring, I'm going to proceed with improving the article. I'll be sure to avoid direct criticisms of the article's subject, but I will not leave unverifiable technobabble in this article. As it stands now, it is extremely misleading and reads almost like an advertisement for O'brien's business.50.184.134.157 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion on article changes and improvements are supposed to take place at the article talk page, not at the 3RR noticeboard, User:50.184.134.157, that's why you aren't getting answers here. Further, another editor's "history of edit warring" has nothing to do with your choice to edit war. -- WV 00:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: I just left the following message on Swarm's talk page, but don't know if they will be back any time soon to see it: The IP User:50.184.134.157 you immediately unblocked and warned is back to inserting the same content at the Walter O'Brien article as before. He first announced it here: [1] and proceeded here: [2], [3]. He also now claims a reputable source isn't a reputable source and will likely remove the source. He is also planning on deleting quite a bit of sourced content [4]. Which is everything they promised to do before they were blocked, so... -- WV 01:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And now he's saying this: [5], intending to utilize WP:IAR to justify adding WP:SYNTH. -- WV 02:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And now saying he's just going to continue edit warring ([6]). But why shouldn't he? He was given the message that it's perfectly okay to do so because even if you get blocked, you'll just get unblocked in a few minutes. -- WV 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I admit that the change I proposed in the talk page needs discussion. That's why I posted it there. I won't carry it out unless there is consensus. The changes I did carry out are non-controversial, and I repeatedly asked you for any conceivable reason why someone could object to them, and you couldn't give me any. There is no problem here. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I support WV on this. The IP editor has reverted again, re-adding material they'd added before, despite saying they would not. A block is now in order. Skyerise (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say I wouldn't re-add the material, I said I would pause to listen to WV's reasoning behind not making my properly-sourced, non-controversial changes. They haven't provided any explanation for their mysterious objections to the changes, so I see no reason to wait indefinitely. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The IP editor has now been blocked for a week by User:Ymblanter for BLP violations. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:EPadmirateur, User:Hgilbert, and User:Thebee reported by User:Shibbolethink (Result: Locked)[edit]

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

(are we allowed to report more than one in a single report?)

Hgilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Thebee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: version before numerous reverts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff1
  2. diff2
  3. diff3 (EPadmirateur and Thebee are, in my opinion, meat puppets of Hgilbert)
  4. diff 4 ((EPadmirateur and Thebee are, in my opinion, meat puppets of Hgilbert--Here they removed all the problems templates, etc, and more well-sourced material)
  5. see above
  6. this has spread to several other articles in the sphere of Anthroposophy

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EPadmirateurHgilbertTheBee

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff1diff2

Comments:

So I recently added Waldorf education, Camphill movement, Anthroposophy, and Anthroposophical medicine to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism, and have met with some pretty severe pushback from some editors with marked WP:COI. Hgilbert initially began reverting all of my good faith edits and removing the criticisms I added which come from a number of WP:RS, including The BBC, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, and the Atlantic. He even remarked on several occasions that newspapers should not be treated as WP:RS in the same way that his Anthroposophist Academic papers should be. (see talk page)

Subsequently, Hgilbert, and two other users (who I believe to be meat puppets) began reverting every revision, and neutering all of the NPOV that I added. These users all have a long history in this articles, including several ArbComs. Several passing users, Jeraphine Gryphon, Whitehat2009, and Dkriegls all attempted to help, but were also reverted or ignored. I posted numerous times on the talk page, and consensus was never reached in favor of removing the well-sourced claims I placed in the article. Hgilbert even accused me of being a sockpuppet of a previously banned activist editor instead of answering the arguments and working towards consensus. I try to AGF here, but all I see are reverts and rephrasings back to what these editors believe is the best this article can be. I don't think Hgilbert is here to create a wiki, I think he's here to neuter all criticism in this realm of articles, since he has a very blatant COI, and edits towards that COI's POV endlessly.

Could you temporarily protect it while I escalate to Dispute Resolution? Thanks--Shibbolethink ( ) 04:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Well, Shibbolethink, you got your wish, although you're just as guilty as the other editors. I've locked the article for a week. I have no comments on the accusations of meat puppetry. Yes, you can report several users in one report, but you are required to notify them of this report, which I don't believe you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I tagged all three on their user:talk pages? Is there something else?--Shibbolethink ( ) 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
OHHH, the NOTICE template. I honestly, 100%, missed this. I'm doing it now. I had no intention of deceit, and wish I had caught this before.--Shibbolethink ( ) 05:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is covered by the Waldorf education Arbcom case. Due to a 2013 motion, discretionary sanctions are authorized. I'm leaving alerts for Shibbolethink, Thebee, EPadmirateur and Hgilbert per the terms of WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wackosaurus reported by User:Oknazevad (Result:Blocked)[edit]

Page: New York Red Bulls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wackosaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Wackosaurus (talk page creation)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:New York Red Bulls#Nicknames

Comments:

There was, pursuant to a recent discussion, a consensus to remove the "metros" nickname from the infobox for this MLS team, based on the lack of any sourcing showing that it is actually a current nickname. This new user has reverted every removal, and refused to discuss in any fashion. They apparently signed up for a different account and forgot the password (it's a slightly misspelled name the first time). But the diff here is substantially the same and also a new user making their first edit. Clearly the same user. Good faith tells me that they just forgot their new log in (it happens) but that means the user, presuming it is the same person, is actually at 5 reverts. oknazevad (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:5.12.179.96 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Vringo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
5.12.179.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Starting with patent troll is fair because it's an accurate description of the company's line of business. "the number of lawsuits made some commentators call it a patent troll" is nonsense. "now appealing to US Supreme Court" is incorrect."
  2. 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652829990 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 13:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) to 13:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 13:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652843157 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
    2. 13:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 22:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

See other warnings given on user's talk page. Also pinging NorthBySouthBaranof. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The user in question appears to have something of a vendetta against Viringo. The company's activities are controversial, but we do not factually describe companies as "patent trolls" based on the word of a single commentator; it is no doubt notable enough to mention in the lede of the article that commentators have depicted it as such, but to state as a fact violates WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Result: Semiprotected. At least two different IPs from Bucharest have been warring to insert the 'patent troll' language in Wikipedia's voice since mid February. These IPs are presumably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yo, do I have so anything to say here? 5.12.179.96 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

LE: Added explanations on EdJohnston's talk page, coz it seems I have to request unprotection from him. 5.12.179.96 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Timmbits reported by User:Forbes4bs (Result: Declined)[edit]

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


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_lock&oldid=635689835

Comments:

Last phrase of second paragraph in U-locks and D-locks:
However, locks with the cylindrical key are no longer offered by most manufacturers (with some cheap Chinese exceptions), and they should be avoided.
Deleted it due to racism

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. Reported editor hasn't edited since December 2014. The filer is brand new.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:69.172.85.34 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
69.172.85.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Hinduism */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 04:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC) to 04:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 04:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652966574 by Isambard Kingdom (talk) personal attack"
    2. 04:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Islam */ original content by authors cited"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User was blocked for edit warring over a variety of articles, and talk page access was revoked. Coming off his block yesterday, his only contributions have been to pick up the wars again and return to reverting changes without discussion.

See edits to Creationism, Maitreya, Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, etc, which are all continuations of his prior edit war.

Edits are to a variety of pages, so semi-protection isn't feasible. Another block for a few days might encourage him to move on.   — Jess· Δ 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week by Nakon.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Phil070707 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Rodina (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments: Today I fixed a problematic classification in the lead section of this article (the consensus among sources seems to be that it is a nationalist party with leftist economic platform. Therefore, just "far-right" in the lead makes no sense, even if there may be a handful of sources that have this label). A user with whom I had a dispute on another talk page, started this "revenge" edit war. I know, that he didn't violate 3 reverts rule directly, but this kind of behaviour: follwoing a perceived enemy and reverting his constructive changes is unacceptable.Phil070707 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment: I would not be opposed to leaving the classification "left-wing" out of the lead, if this is an issue for someone (leaving just "nationalist", which is indisputable). However, the current version Marek kept reverting to is totally unacceptable for 2 reasons: - 1. a party cannot be "far-right" and "left-wing" at the same time 2. the so-called source Marek is using for his odd classification is a newspaper article [17] where the Rodina is mentioned just once passing by with no additional information while the 2 sources I refer to are scholarly sources which clearly take precedence over less reliable sources. Phil070707 (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: here we go again: Volunteer Marek has now basically decided to revert ANY edit I've made with the wrong allegation - personal assault - that I'm a sock puppet. How long can he go on like that? Phil070707 (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other editors:

This is not a 3RR violation and the above account is a screamin', yellin', quackin' DUCK WITH MEGAPHONE of Indef banned user Lokalkosmopolit. I'm assembling the diffs and the info for the SPI as we speak but those always take (i.e. waste) a lot of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Suspecting that someone may be a multiple account of someone does not give you the right to start idiotic edit wars. Discuss the issue on appropriate venues! And as for 3 RR, UI never claimed you performed more than 3 reverts, and this is not a single case on your part but part of your wider editing pattern: provoking edit wars on the Eastern European topics. Just a quick look at your contributions list demonstrates it: (some examples: [18], [19]. Phil070707 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
your wider editing pattern: provoking edit wars on the Eastern European topics - this is nonsense, except for the fact that it further demonstrates that you are indeed the sockpuppet of the user I mention above, since they tried to falsely accuse me of exactly the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has made exactly the same number of reverts on this page as the complainant. Neither of them have broken the three-revert rule.

Previous version reverted to by Phil070707: 02:09, 9 February 2015 Note the lack of "far-right" in the infobox.

Diffs of the Phil070707's reverts:

  1. 15:30, 22 March 2015 removed far-right from infobox.
  2. 18:08, 22 March 2015 removed far-right from infobox.
  3. 18:11, 22 March 2015 removed far-right from infobox.

Recommend 24 hour block for Phil070707 for trying to game the system.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My edits were well explained. I'm not gaming the system but improving the quality of articles. The version before my edits was deficient as I explained at the respective talk page. None of you two managed to present any decent counterarguments to my view. Phil070707 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I have. A simple counter argument - the info you're trying to remove is reliably sourced (just like the info you tried to remove in your previous incarnations was sourced). You just don't agree with the source. That's your problem, not Wikipedia's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
If you think the absurd lead like ″Rodina or Motherland-National Patriotic Union (Rodina - Narodno-Patrioticheskiy Soyuz, Партия "РОДИНА") is a far-right political party in Russia. It was a coalition of 30 nationalist and left-wing groups″ is preferrable to the reasonable one I wrote then I doubt whether you actually are fit to edit constructively. Phil070707 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as Toddy1 is concerned, I'd add that this is yet another problematic editor from the Ukraine-Russia topics. He is no neutral 3. party! Like VM he is prone to concocting ideological nonsense like ″neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist writer Alexander Prokhanov[20] which the neutral editors then have to fix [21]. Phil070707 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Making personal attacks at an admin noticeboard is ulikely to help your case. it might to wise to strike those quickly. Also you failed to follow Bold-revert-discuss when you were reverted it should have gone to the talk page to discuss. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree to change my comment. We need to remain rational and calm. As for the cycle you refer to, I started a thread at the respective talk page and made constructive proposals - to no avail. VM is not interested in improving the article. Phil070707 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
That personal attack above against Toddy, the fact that Phil070707 is apparently familiar with them (despite having supposedly NEVER interacted with them), the calling of people "idiots" is just more proof that this is a sockpuppet of User:Lokalkosmopolit. Compare: [22]. As is his arguing over the politics of Alexander Prokhanov, which is also what Lokalkosmopolit (more precisely one of their sock puppets, User:Patriot Donbassa) did: [23] . It's him. Indef banned user socking and provoking edit wars. Just block and tag, save regular editors some time rather than forcing them to deal with nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I am NOT a sock puppet of the said user. You know very well that sock puppet investigations should be pursued at the respective page. Your allegations constitute a personal assault and you use these as a red herring to justify your revert warring spree. Phil070707 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
And as far as this Toddy1 ois concerned, unfortunately I indeed am familiar with that account after his edits like this. Very suspicious indeed! Phil070707 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
And they will be. But you're quacking so loudly that it's pretty much a (time wasting) formality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. No 3RR violation. Volunteer Marek may pursue his allegations at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Rebelrick123 reported by User:Creativity-II (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
History of WWE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rebelrick123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652048283 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk)"
  2. 18:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652390850 by Creativity-II (talk)"
  3. 00:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652775271 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk), What exactly is The Authority Era? Go ahead and report, I'll keep fixing it."
  4. 18:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652817305 by Creativity-II (talk) There's no Reality Era but Authority Era? Lol keep acting like you run this page, man."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of WWE. (TW)"
  2. 01:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of WWE. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Has repeatedly and insistently reverted edits to the article to his own version, which contains unsourced additions to it. Has shown no intention of abiding by the removal of his unsourced edits per his comments and incivility toward editors removing his changes. Creativity-II (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I warned him not to revert the edit and repeatedly told him his edits were unsourced, but he has persisted to vandalise the page. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm blocking RealDealBillMcNeal for the same period for persistent edit warring, ownership and uncollaborative and combative behavior. Swarm... —X— 20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

List of tallest people (Result: Filer warned)[edit]

Hello. Can an admin please look into the article of the List of tallest people? I tried to add the tallest mass murderers such as Osama bin Laden and two users continue to revert my edit and they call it ridiculous and vandalism. One on these two users also dared to call my constructive editing "Vandalism". Can you please handle it out? And please tell me if my edit to this article was right or not. Thanks! Samhan Dobo (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me list all the things that are wrong with this:
(1). You created a category "Tallest mass murderers" with no-one else in it.
(2). The category you made was incorrectly formatted.
(3). You did not provide a source for his height.
(4). You listed him as being from Afghanistan, when his nationality on Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian until 1994 and stateless afterwards.
(5). Listing his years of birth as 1957- implies he's still alive, which he isn't.
And now on here, your mistakes are:
(1). This isn't a well formed request, since you haven't provided version differences showing edit warring.
(2). You have failed to inform the user(s) that you reported, which you are obliged to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think this issue should be discussed here, because reporting a user to the edit warring board with no serious evidence, when they've been adding incorrect, unreferenced information to an article is grossly insulting to myself and @Loriendrew: (who still hasn't been informed about this ridiculous accusation), who are being accused of edit warring unjustifiably. This user should be banned for improper conduct, and unexplained harassment of other users, by trying to get them blocked for removing the unsourced rubbish they added to an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Calm down a tad. First we don't BAN for a bad report to 3RR, heck I doubt it deserves a BLOCK. These aren't for punishment remember, they are to prevent damage. The user appears to have done this in good faith and you should try assuming that sometimes instead of shouting "VANDAL, ban (??) it!" at confused users. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to add Bin Laden to the list, and they're accusing me of gross misconduct (edit warring is gross misconduct on Wikipedia). Also, I meant ban not block. I'm trying to assume good faith, the first few edits were rolled back with a clear edit summary, saying that this was POV and unsourced. The responding edit summaries were "There is no source needed" and "That's your opinion and I don't care", followed by a report on here. I've tried to assume good faith, they have not. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Whether you wish to assume good faith or not in your head is up to you, but labeling the edits by a new account as vandalism is not constructive unless it's garden variety vandalism. So, don't. Asking that a user be banned at this board makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. @Samhan Dobo: You are warned that if you revert again at the article, you risk being blocked without any further notice. You just created your account. Slow down. If you want to discuss the material you want to add to the article, do so civilly at the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, understood. But it is really a mess from Joseph that he calls me a vandal and that he wants you to ban me from editing the Wikipedia! That'S really rude and stupid from him! I'm new here and all I want to give the Wikipedia are constructive contributions. And ok, I will add my request to the talk page of it's article. Thanks that you didn't block me. And how about a Welcome thread instead of adding stupid warnings to my talk page?! Samhan Dobo (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I overreacted, and I'm sorry. For 99% of new posters who post things I consider unhelpful, I send a welcome message, but I got was wrong here and assumed that you were trying to vandalise, because most people who add Bin Laden (or other terrorists) to articles are trying to vandalise Wikipedia. About the content, I'm going to write on the talkpage, and I also sent you a welcome message on your page. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It's ok. You don't have to feel sorry. I'm sorry for editwarring. And thanks for your welcome message. Samhan Dobo (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:37.208.33.85 reported by User:Mfb (Result: 36h)[edit]

Page: Gravitational constant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.208.33.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [24] Should be obvious from version history.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Literally all of the user contributions (link see above)

  • 10:53, March 22, 2015 [25]
  • 11:32, March 22, 2015 [26]
  • 12:15, March 22, 2015 [27]
  • 12:47, March 22, 2015 [28]
  • 13:54, March 22, 2015 [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]%3AGravitational_constant&diff=653053868&oldid=586447885Previous 3RR case

Comments:
Clear 3RR violation. --mfb (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The only activity of this account is to WP:PUSH this unsourced material
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Swarm X 00:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:TCKTKtool reported by User:Padenton (Result: 5 users blocked)[edit]

Page
Rape in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TCKTKtool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653076060 by Vtk1987 (talk) revert Sock Puppet"
  2. 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653075692 by Vtk1987 (talk) See talk page."

User is also certainly IP: 72.196.235.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who made reverts here before creating their account:

  1. [31]
  2. [32]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rape in India. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Unproven/non-notable allegations */"
  2. 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Unproven/non-notable allegations */"
Comments:

Article history reveals a history of edit warring with multiple editors. ― Padenton |  22:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Padenton for some reason also left out the other users are brand new and obvious sock puppets. TCKTKtool (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not know whether Vtk1987 is a sock puppet or not. However, I was actually referring to OccultZone Padenton |  22:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Then why is none of the edits you linked to above about OccultZone? The edits above are due to Vtk1987 and Human3015, sock puppet accounts. TCKTKtool (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Partly because this is the 3RR noticeboard and these are the only ones in the last 24 hours. Partly because you responded before I had a chance to add more. However, here: [33] [34] [35] [36] Padenton |  23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Which have nothing to do with your original notice. What are you trying to do and why the witch hunt when you are shown the be wrong? You should have kept this at the Rape in India talk page instead of trying to get someone blocked so you can revert. TCKTKtool (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You have been edit warring throughout the past couple weeks. I don't care whether you're blocked or not, but this has risen to something that an administrator (or administrators) need(s) to step into. ― Padenton |  23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Again this does not even come close to your notice here. Your actions are quite questionable to say the least now and only getting more strained. Stop the witch hunt and return to the talk page; or use a better and more correct board for your grievance. TCKTKtool (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
And now I see you messaging as many as you can to revert and back you up. Maybe a Admin will also look at your actions now. boomerang TCKTKtool (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It is wikipedia policy for me to bring edit warring to this noticeboard. Before I did so, you threatened to do the same to Human3015 right here: [37], so I am not sure why you are complaining on that front. I posted messages to the Talk pages of other involved parties, as is customary. I have no issue with admins looking at my actions. ― Padenton |  23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I did that but unlike you I did not rush into it. I now see that is a sock puppet account. Again if you had taken the time to see you would not have posted a notice here that has already been proven incorrect. I have been following the rules and requested a outside view of the talk page now, as things are supposed to handled. TCKTKtool (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You are telling that Vtk1987 is a sock, you have not clarified that who's sock it could be. It is clearer that you were the IP address who was violating the WP:BLPCRIME and once you found yourself under the violation of 3 revert, you continued to edit war after creating an account. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
TCKTKtool has also opened a dispute here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Rape_in_India.23Unproven.2Fnon-notable_allegations
  • The following users Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours:
  • OccultZone Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for more severe and protracted edit warring. Swarm X 00:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Texasreb reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 1 week)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]
  5. [42]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Confederate States of America#Reagan Speech Inclusion]

Comments:

Texasreb continues to edit this article contrary to consensus. He has been blocked three times for his actions on this article. He has been adding a quote from a Confederate official in the diffs listed above -- first a long version and the last three a shorter version. Four editors have spoken against the changes while none have supported Texasreb's edits.

His most recent comment on the discussion page is here [44]. It seems clear to me that he has no intention of respecting consensus and is fully aware of being blocked. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC) PS This is referred based on edit warring -- not 3RR.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. It has been 5 months since his last block, but it's clear the fundamental behavioral problems remain exactly the same. Swarm X 00:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Shj369 reported by User:McDonald of Kindness (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Allameh Tabatabai Management School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Shj369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Do not delete a history of a famous business school in Middle East, this is an explicit vandalism. RESPECT..."
  2. 20:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "This article is about the business school, respect other countries and cultures. PLEASE DON'T DELETE AN ARTICLE DUE TO YOUR INTERESTS"
  3. 20:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653054905 by RoySmith (talk) Please, do not delete the school page"
  5. 19:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651508147 by RoySmith (talk) This article is about the first modern business school in Iran"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user is consistently pushing to include his article on some management school, which did not turn out notable per this deletion discussion. It was suggested in that discussion to redirect the article to this one, and that is how it turned out. I have reminded the user about our policies, but he continues to edit war in an attempt to include his article. I ran out of reverts, due to the three revert rule, which I also reminded the user of. It turns out that I am needing assistance in dealing with this user. McDonald of Kindness (talkcontributions) 21:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm providing a brief explanation on the talk page of the article (talkcontributions) 21:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect page for a week. Hopefully, that will solve the problem without need for any more drastic action. My suggestion is let it go at that, and if this continues to be a problem after the protection expires, we can consider something stronger. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Swarm X 00:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Carlo pastrani reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result:blocked 3 days)[edit]

Page: Giuseppe Sacco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carlo pastrani (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]
  4. [49]
  5. [50]

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

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

Comments:
The user has a conflict of interest as an employee of Giuseppe Sacco, and has been repeatedly removing sourced material with promotional, unsourced material, see the number of warnings they have received on User talk:Carlo pastrani. They seem unwilling to change their behaviour, despite the multitude of warnings received. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: As I was writing this, the user has been blocked [52] for disruptive editing and edit warring by @JohnCD:. Feel free to close this. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have blocked the user for three days and left a note explaining COI, AUTO, BLP/H etc. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Inorout reported by User:Mfb (Result: Indef)[edit]

Pages:

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/653083526, Special:Diff/653158029, Special:Diff/651788226

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/653144847
  2. Special:Diff/653162796
  3. Special:Diff/653163113
  4. Special:Diff/653163248

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked for edit warring before, for the same article content, and has been warned on his talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: at "Gravitational constant", at at "Dimensionless_physical_constant", at his talk page.

Not technically a 3RR violation because it is spread over three articles, but clearly edit warring and all edits have the same content. Inorout keeps adding this (his?) fringe theory based on a not acceptable reference to those three articles, despite various warnings, a block for edit warring and overall broad consensus that the references and the content are not acceptable (everyone apart from Inorout and the IPs - and based on the behaviour they might be the same person). --mfb (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

I agree with all of the above. Inorout persists in PUSHing his inadequately sourced, FRINGE content on the above 3 sites against the consensus of 5 editors on Talk:Gravitational constant, 3 on Gravity, and 4 on Dimensionless physical constant. He doesn't participate in the Talk page discussion of his edits even though invited to. Besides Inorout the only editors supporting his edits are several IPs 217.197.137.140 77.238.218.163, which look very much like sockpuppets; one of which 37.208.33.85 has already been blocked for 3RR I don't think this guy's going to stop. --ChetvornoTALK 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: Indef as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Bosnipedian. See the user's talk page for links to prior reports. As you can see from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian, this editor comes up with new socks almost every month and constantly uses new IPs. Bosnipedian is a growth industry. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:TheSchoolatColumbiaUniv reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Indefinite block )[edit]

Page
The School at Columbia University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TheSchoolatColumbiaUniv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653202151 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
  2. 19:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 19:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 19:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Performing arts */"
  5. 19:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653198915 by 331dot (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on The School at Columbia University. (TW)"
  2. 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The School at Columbia University. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user is adding promotional, unsourced content to the page. Multiple users have suggested going to the talkpage to discuss their content, but they are unwilling to. They are also ignoring a username violation warning on their talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:J0mm0n reported by User:Peaceworld111 (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page
Muslim population growth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
J0mm0n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653146328 by Peaceworld111 (talk) Please see talk page"
  2. 10:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652986763 by Peaceworld111 (talk) Please see talk page"
  3. 00:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652936971 by Peaceworld111 (talk) Not really because it is World Christian Encyclopedia"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Warning */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 09:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */ new section"
  2. 10:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */ re"
  3. 10:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */ re"
  4. 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */ re"
  5. 11:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */ re"
  6. 11:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */ re"
  7. 11:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */ re"
  8. 11:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */ add"
  9. 11:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */"
  10. 11:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */ re"
  11. 12:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */ re"
  12. 12:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* WCE */"
Comments:

User has "issues" with non-Muslim sources and therefore repeatedly reverts well-sourced information. Requires minimum 1 week temporary block. See Talk:Muslim population growth for more details. --Peaceworld 21:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

In this instance peaceworld's edits are probably erroneous, because the Salafi lede states that "Salafism is the fastest growing Islamic movement in the world", not Ahmadiyya. Peaceworld's reference seems weaker and uncommon. Afwaaja (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
You are comparing news sources to a statistical reference work. Nevertheless, the statement being repeatedly reverted by the said user states "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the fastest-growing denomination in Islam is Ahmadiyya," which is wholly true irrespective of what other sources claim.--Peaceworld 21:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. We don't normally block users for a week for first-offense edit warring. Nowhere does this user say they object to non-Muslim, or Christian-authored sources. There objection is clearly that a self-proclaimed "Christian" encyclopedia is inherently biased. Of course, that isn't a valid reason to edit war over the removal of the content, which is written neutrally regardless. Will direct the editor to the proper venue to voice their concerns. Swarm X 21:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Got it.--Peaceworld 21:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Theobald Tiger reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page
User talk:Tgeairn (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Theobald Tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Filing a complaint */ new section"
  2. 11:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653142029 by Tgeairn (talk) Stop POV pushing"
  3. 11:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Harrassment */ new section"
  4. 10:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653140091 by Tgeairn (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:Tgeairn. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Latest edit-warring on (my) talk page. See User:Tgeairn/NPA_diffs#Group_B editor contributions for additional recent history. Tgeairn (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC) (modified 23:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC))
  • Note that this editor has received multiple final warnings for "personal attacks, edit warring, and disrupting Wikipedia", including this warning, following this and this finding at Arbitration Enforcement. There is also a prior warning for edit warring here. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


"A ragged urchin, aimless and alone,
Loitered about that vacancy; a bird
Flew up to safety from his well-aimed stone:
That girls are raped, that two boys knife a third,
Were axioms to him, who’d never heard
Of any world where promises were kept,
Or one could weep because another wept."
W.H. Auden, September 1, 1939
Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No real evidence of attempt to resolve conflict other than above mentioned user talk page comment, which clearly takes place after the last indication of edit-warring and so there is no basis that any edit-warring after the final warning has taken place. While editors can revert comments on their user talk page without responding directly to them, and that is a reasonable indicator that they have read or at least been aware of the message contained, I don't see any clear evidence that specifically indicates user talk pages qualify under WP:3RR. So, all in all, I honestly see no basis for action, other than perhaps a warning, to Theobald. However, I do see that this complaint itself is also possibly at least as problematic, because it seems to be asserting that edits made before the warning qualify as edit-warring, which is sometimes questionable. That raises potentially serious WP:CIR and/or WP:GAME concerns, and this would not be the first time that such concerns regarding the first of those and the filing party have been raised, and on that basis, if there are to be any reprimands to Theobald, I would think that Tgeairn might reasonably deserve a similar reprimand. It might also be possible that this dubiously substantiated complaint might itself qualify as a form of Harassment as per WP:HARASS. It might not be unreasonable for the reviewing editor to consider taking this matter to WP:AE for consideration there. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have not violated the 3R-rule at all. Tgeairn is a COI-editor whose greatest pleasure it is to nail his adversaries unto the cross. It is striking that Tgeairn does not mention the original revert. I reverted Tgeairn's tagging of Gary Bouma. Tgeairn is a Landmark defender who tries to eliminate every notable subject that has any involvement with NRM's. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I also note that the material Tgeairn added after my initial comment, in this link here are at best questionably relevant to the current discussion, and I once again question the thinking which would make this matter one raised here as opposed to at the AE page, which would I think be the place most editors with a basic grasp of policies and guidelines might think to be the appropriate place to raise such concerns about the behavior of editors who have previously been involved in an AE case and in a topic area in which discretionary sanctions have been authorized. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours - Given the warnings previously given by ArbCom and AN3, this user simply has no excuse. Swarm X 21:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
To Pimp a Butterfly (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. 04:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653110548 by Tomsebre (talk) under discussion. Please discuss"
  2. 04:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653109575 by Seeaysee (talk) not neutral."
  3. 04:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ fix"
  4. 03:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ Have not seen another album page it's used on, no secondary sources, and comply with the hidden message until discussion is over."
  5. 03:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653107905 by 23.120.120.249 (talk) stop removing that until discussion is over. And there is only 10 reviews. no more."
  6. 03:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653107567 by Helpthny needleddroptano (talk) no"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 03:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC) to 03:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 03:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653107011 by 69.163.90.147 (talk) vandal"
    2. 03:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653107012 by 23.120.120.249 (talk) removal of hidden note"
  8. 03:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653106029 by 99.246.166.195 (talk) needle drop not important or needed"
  9. 03:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 653103622 by SNUGGUMS (talk): Restored to last good version. (TW)"
  10. Consecutive edits made from 01:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) to 01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 01:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ positive is more of a neutral word."
    2. 01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) ""universal acclaim" is not neutral wording."
  11. 01:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653097035 by 96.39.222.161 (talk) full text for number, correct sentence format for albums."
  12. 00:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Track listing */ Is there a source for all this!?"
  13. 19:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653050775 by 86.20.122.219 (talk) 10 reviews only"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[53]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor just came off a week-long block for edit warring. Obviously, didn't learn a darn thing. Immediately removed 3RR noticeboard notification [54]. Seems to be exercising WP:IDHT. -- WV 04:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There are exemptions, vandalism or clear not seeing of the hidden message, that says 10 reviews only, which most of that was. And I removed it when I saw it. I'm not supposed to do that? And might I note that you are Hounding me? And you tend to not care about others when they are edit warring? Especially himself, as he reverted 3 edits on Walter O'Brien by an IP user. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Lots of edit warring by IPs and a few SPAs seeking to include some vlog as a source as well as reversion of non NPOV language. Joseph has been pretty trigger happy with the undo button when he should have gone to WP:RFPP but I don't think this is edit warring. Blackmane (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It actually ended up getting protected. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected, not by me. Couldn't put it better than Blackmane. Seems like most of those reverts are over fans of a music vlog trying to add it to the article, in repeated violation of WP:SPS. Relatively straightforward disruption that the article should and has been protected against. However, Joseph, you are being way too trigger happy with reverting and it's not safe to rely on edit warring exemptions, if there's an issue deal with it in the proper channels, don't edit war over it even if you think you're right. Report disruptive users! Swarm X 20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Swarm, I'm sorry for the being "trigger happy", I understand now. But where would I report them? On this noticeboard, or would it be a different one? I'm not too familiar with the noticeboards. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:71.62.250.238 and