Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive279

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Hmlewis 728 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Page
Antifeminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Hmlewis 728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Added content to provide more information on what antifeminists believe."
  2. 02:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Gave more information on what antifeminists believe. Someone just erased my last one"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 03:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) to 03:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    1. 03:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Actually showed what antifeminism is about people keep deleting it!"
    2. 03:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Added a link"
  4. 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Added links"
  5. 03:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Fixed typo"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Antifeminism. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Also note the use of misleading edit summaries. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety talk 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:211.61.23.66 reported by User:Zmflavius (Result: )[edit]

Page: The Rose of Sharon Blooms Again (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Eyes of Dawn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wednesday demonstration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bridal Mask (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Rose of Sharon Blooms Again (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 211.61.23.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Rose_of_Sharon_Blooms_Again&oldid=606446226 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eyes_of_Dawn&oldid=654999542 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wednesday_demonstration&oldid=658415636 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridal_Mask&oldid=653701880 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_anti-Japanese_demonstrations&oldid=639416815

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The Rose of Sharon Blooms Again:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658810997
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658807608
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658802994

Eyes of Dawn:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658810920
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658807745
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658802982

Wednesday demonstration:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658810980
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658807633
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658802926

Bridal Mask:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658810962
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658807695
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658802959

2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658810941
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658807663
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658803016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658812698

Comments:
IP user is persistently reverting his edits relating to the categories of the above pages (a mix of South Korean TV shows and political demonstrations) without comment (they involve generally either the addition of unusual categories which do not make sense, or deleting categories which do). The user may also be actively switching IP addresses, since two other IPs, User:121.140.206.191 and User:58.123.52.247 have made the exact same reverts.

Zmflavius (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Epetre reported by User:Sarr Cat (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Talk:Abiogenesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Epetre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Creationist edit warring/being disruptive on the talk page. (sorry, i didn't include the diffs and stuff, this is the first time I reported someone for edit warring!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarr Cat (talkcontribs)

Note: Epetre has stopped edit warring over this issue, but still may not fully understand our policies. A block is unlikely to help, but a message on his talk page may help guide him in the right direction. I made an effort, but he may see me as involved.   — Jess· Δ 05:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rastegarfar.mo reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Yemeni Civil War (2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rastegarfar.mo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Comments: Looks like an SPA with a limited grasp of English. The editor's only edits to date have been related to Ali Khamenei, lengthy quotes from which he is trying to introduce on Yemeni Civil War (2015), despite me challenging them on WP:UNDUE grounds and asking him to review some basic Wikipedia policies that would keep him from getting into trouble. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


comments: I also want to complain against User:Kudzu1 . He just want to insist that he knows that what is correct and what is not correct. So I want the manager to block User:Kudzu1 . Rastegarfar.mo (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Regards

  • Result: Rastegarfar.mo is warned for edit warring at Yemeni Civil War (2015). He didn't actually break WP:3RR but he seems to be making no effort to find consensus for his changes. Requesting that admins block your opponent (as above) isn't a good-faith effort to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Springing Up reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: 14th Dalai Lama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Springing Up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Seems intent on eliminating the word lesbians and replacing it with "gay women". Advocacy, anti-advocacy? Whatever, it's objectionable. Skyerise (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Notice that skyerise has not avoided being uncivil during talk page discussion or even on my talk page. She has called me "gay boy" on my talk page and "dick" and then "jerk" on the article's talk page.

My edit is neither advocacy or anti-advocacy, nor objectionable. You can't pay enough attention to the explanation I already gave? "Gays and lesbians" is like saying "lesbians aren't gay" or "lesbians aren't homosexual" or "gay people and gay women" (since it's like you want "gay" only to apply to men, but it really applies to both sexes the same way as the word "homosexual" does). So it's just illogical like "videos and DVDs" or "colors and red." What's wrong with just saying "homosexual people" or "gay people"? Why should lesbians feel ignored or eliminated if "homosexual people" is used?

Springing Up (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(Aside to admin) Is this archetypal lesbian-baiting or what? Most lesbians identify as lesbian, not as "gay woman", regardless of the alleged sameness. Gay ≠ queer ≠ homo. Also, when changed to "lesbians and gay men", which is logically disjunct, the troll reverted anyway, even though their "logical objection" was fulfilled. Skyerise (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The troll here is actually Skyerise for having to have a big tantrum over the fact that a logical person simply wanted to include men and women together in the same terminology as "gay people" to make more sense than "gays and [gay women]" is, which is not baiting. Where she gets the idea that there's something "wrong" for including lesbians as part of gay people in general, or that "'gay' does not equal 'homosexual generally'" (not sex-specific like "lesbianic" is) even though it does, I don't know. And even if "lesbians and gay men" makes a little more sense, why should the article not be even more concise than that with an encompassing term like "homosexual people"? Springing Up (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh, people identify as they wish to identify. "Gay women" (mostly) identify using the word "lesbian". That's why the L is in LGBT. Everyone understands perfectly what the phrase "gays and lesbians" means. And it's what the majority of sources use. We go with our sources and common usage. Not with your intended-only-to-bait "logic". Do you realize how you sound? Testosterone keep you up arguing over the Internet much? Oh, but that would only bother you if you weren't a troll! Skyerise (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I had no intent to bait you or anyone else. Why do you guys like the implication of that terminology meaning "gay people, and gay people who are women" or "there are homosexual people, and then there are something that's different from homosexual people: the lesbians" (whatever that supposed "difference" is) that you feel like it's so important to identify separately that way, from gay population in general, as if being called one of just homosexual people in general (both sexes together) is so "degrading" or whatever you're complaining about? Springing Up (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Springing Up is unquestionably acting like a troll at the Dalai Lama talk page. While his/her initial edits could have been simple misunderstanding of terminology, the reverting and edit-warring belies any simple misunderstanding and now appear to be trolling. While Skyerise got a little sharp, the tone of Springing Up definitely qualifies as homophobic WP:BAITing. I do think a firm warning and a 1RR/one talk comment restriction on Springing Up is appropriate, with escalating sanctions if the behavior continues. Montanabw(talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Koala15 reported by User:ITfan1990 (Result: Filer blocked)[edit]

Page: Acid Rap (Chance the Rapper album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:)

  1. [15]
  2. [16]
  3. [17]
  4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:

User has declined to participate in discussion on talk page, at RfD, or otherwise. Instead this user relies heavily on personal attacks while reverting without explanation, and has now broken the 3-revert rule. Because I redirected the page Acid Rap back to its owner Esham, this user seems upset about it and keeps trying to tag the new redirect for deletion, which raises possible WP:NPOV concerns.

ITfan1990 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you were trying to get the article deleted and i had no choice but to revert you. Why don't you explain why you were trying to delete it? And now your blocked so i was clearly in the right. Koala15 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hrs. Disruptive editing Mlpearc (open channel) 19:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Submitter was blocked by User:MusikAnimal. There has been a dispute over the title of this article. For example, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 23#Acid Rap (Chance the Rapper album). Anyone who has an opinion about the title should pursue consensus in the usual way. It appears that WP:RM would be a more normal way to contest the title than RfD, but that's where it is now. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Some rationale for the confusing situation can be seen at a thread on Tfan1990's talk which he has now blanked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes I believe I finally understand their intention. I will continue to work with them on how to resolve the issue. Whatever the case, as far as I'm concerned it is safe to consider this ANEW report closed. MusikAnimal talk 20:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:Springing Up (Result: Filer is blocked per an earlier report)[edit]

Page: 14th Dalai Lama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Skyerise: Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

not only for edit-warring but being uncivil


Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]
  3. [24]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

What's "wrong" with just using a term like "homosexual people" to cover both sexes instead of being specific and saying "gays and lesbians" as if "lesbians aren't gay (homosexual)"?

Comments:

skyerise Likes being uncivil rather than actually discussing the edits like an adult, and uses insults like "gay boy" and on my talk page and "dick" and "jerk" and "newbie" in the article's talk page.

Springing Up (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Here she is, being uncivil again, using the f-bomb and "asshole," etc. (See hidden comments in edit history.) Springing Up (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh so sorry for feeding the trolls, but how else to expose their true colors? Skyerise (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Correcting an article's logic so that it doesn't incorrectly imply "gay people, and gay people who are women" does not make me a troll. But falsely calling me one for that reason is what makes you one. Springing Up (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have commented on this issue in the thread above, the same comment applies here. Montanabw(talk) 18:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Result: User:Springing Up is blocked per an earlier report. I don't see any of these insults in the current version of the talk page. If they occurred, I hope they won't happen again. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Edokter (Result: )[edit]

Page: Template:Mvar/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Old revision of Template:Mvar/doc

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [27]
  2. [28]
  3. [29]
  4. [30]

TakuyaMurata keeps insisting use of the template is "controversial", or is regarded as such. See also discussion on Template talk:Mvar#Disclaimer.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Comments:

  • One is an editor for thirteen years and the other an admin for eight. Perhaps a trouting is in order. Alakzi (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Human3015 reported by User:Mar4d (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Indian subcontinent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Human3015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] [38]

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

Comments: Human3015 is engaged in an edit war at the article where he's reverted two users 4 times, within the space of a day. Within the space of two days, he's made a total of 5 reverts against 3 editors, and all very recently. He has not used the talk page, instead choosing to make blanket reverts, when the onus lies on him to use the talk page since he is the one reverting other edits. This is disruptive editing and not helpful. Mar4d (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Well, I accept my mistake but it is not good to report it when matter was resolved on TopGun's Talk page. . And same applies for Mar4d when he deleted map of Indian subcontinent without discussing it in talk and that map was part of article since many years.
But to be sincere with myself, I want to get blocked because I'm addicted to Wikipedia. But don't block me for very long period, block me for less than 1 week. I'm not studying, my many personal work is pending, all this is because of Wikipedia. --Human3015 05:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That map was not there for years, as this diff and all previous versions would show. It was inserted later. And the reasons for the removal of the map have been stated. Mar4d (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have cleared my stand already, I have done mistake but others are also equally responsible. Even I can claim that if Mar4d and TopGun are not sock puppets then they are surely related accounts and they are friends in real life. User page of both says that they are from Pakistan, one can see that they are editing same pages most of the times. I'm certainly not saying that they are sock puppets but surely they have made their duo group on wikipedia and they make other people in trouble.
I can show you old edits of Mar4d when he wrote in a template "Kashmiri militants" as "freedom fighters". see here This shows purpose of Mar4d that why he is on wikipedia. This link is not related here, but this is just for example, he has more than 50,000 edits and I can show you many such kind on vandalism edits by him.
But as I said earlier, I'm ready to get blocked. I'm very much addicted to Wikipedia. I know routine block can be of 24 hours for 3 RR but I have no problem if Mr.Admin blocks me for more period, but don't block for more than 1 week please. --Human3015 07:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:ACCUSE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA & WP:SPI. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
In a recent development, I reverted another edit by Mar4d on same page. This time he/she(from now "he" means Mar4d) added new map See here which I reverted See here. My point is right, he is so Kashmir oriented that he don't even see rest of the world, his recent added map don't even show Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives as part of Indian subcontinent. He was having so much concern about small dotted line around Pak administered Kashmir in earlier map but here he is not even aware about entire 4 nations.
As I shown in my earlier link see here again that he writes internationally recognized "terrorists" in Kashmir valley as "freedom fighters", his main mission is only Kashmir-Kashmir-Kashmir, some people are using Wikipedia as tool to increase Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, Some people have mission that small kids of Kashmir when reads wikipedia they should know that these militants are "freedom fighters".
They can't see anything other than Kashmir, I have used strong words but anyway I am going to block in all cases so I'm using some my liberty.
If you see his old edits he has been always a biased editor, I'm new at wikipedia, came 3 months ago and since I came here he is finding his democratic right of Freedom of Expression in danger and he is reporting my ID, we were involved in so called edit wars many times.
Stii I'm firm on my promise of getting blocked, my family members are scolding me being busy on Laptop all the time but I couldn't stop myself from being on wiki because of repeated vandalism by "some" people. But I welcome my block. I need a break. --Human3015 10:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That map is technically correct as all definitions agree that Pakistan, India and Bangladesh form the 'core' of the subcontinent; the other countries (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives etc.) are usually only described in extended definitions. If there is a better map that shows the three countries in dark and the extended countries in lighter shade, that would be the best map. Why don't you WP:VOLUNTEER? As for the rest of your personal attacks, I am not even going to bother to respond to your malicious attempt of salt on wounds. Mar4d (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Now its new info that only India, Pak and Bangladesh are "core" of Indian subcontinent. Any source??? Atleast don't deny about Nepal and Bhutan which have continuity of land with India. And you will not reply to any of my allegations because you have nothing to say and you have been caught red handed. I'm waiting for my block but till I'm not blocked I will keep on reverting all kind of vandalism. And all nations which I mentioned are considered as part of Indian subcontinent since this concept of subcontinent exist. See this map --Human3015 11:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, And you have been caught again, you said your posted map shows India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as "core" part of Indian subcontinent and rest of so called "extended" territory like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives in light shade. But see you map again.. Click here , it don't show as you said, It shows entire rest of the world in light shade. It don't even show Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives in Map. Now is there any ground remained for you for debate?? --Human3015 13:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Human2015, this is not helping your case. You have:

  • Reverted 5 times recently, and 4 times in a day,
  • Went on to accuse two established independent editors (who are not even on the same continent) to be socks of each other,
  • And have started a WP:SOUP at this discussion along with requests for blocking you.

Please stop before it gets you blocked. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

TopGun, Maybe you both are from different planets, it doesn't matters, its about groupism. Atleast read everything properly, I'm fighting my case to get blocked, and I have already accepted my mistake. I'm just describing what mistakes others have done. Like recent map was not having Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka in it, and I reverted it and you are considering that too in reverts. Why Mar4d didn't discussed in talk before changing map again to non-Nepal containing map? I think everything is fair for him, not for me. --Human3015 15:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. If you are asking to be blocked so as to stay off Wikipedia, see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Oliszydlowski reported by User:Wikiuserthea (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=658829220&oldid=658775284

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Jewish

  1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=658757606&oldid=658664624

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Jewish

  1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=658339746&oldid=658249605

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Polish-Jewish

  1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=638466007&oldid=638410128

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Polish-Jewish

  1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=626889677&oldid=575632242

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Polish-Jewish

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oliszydlowski#Your_.28repeated.29_error_about_Rosa_Raisa]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oliszydlowski#Your_.28repeated.29_error_about_Rosa_Raisa]

Comments: Oliszydlowski is not familiar with Rosa Raisa and he never claimed to be, but he is constantly abusing the Wikipedia article about her. He didn't even read the Wikipedia article, let alone her published biography with the memoir as cited in the References in the Wikipedia article about her. He is constantly making up ehr identity as well as her name. I contacted him on his talk page to ask about his credentials about this soprano. He provided none and instead demanded from me the source for my own editing .I gave him the reference to this book, published by the US academic press, in which it is demonstrated through the copious documents, her own letters, and interviews with her immediate family, that her identity was Russian-Jewish. Oliszydlowski then decided to ignore it and again reverted the edit by erasing "Russian". In the past, her would constantly would replace "Russian" with "Polish" and then, after I alerted him that the only languages she spoke were Yddish and Russian (which were fully documented) before moving to Italy and US, he dropped "Polish" but is relentlessly reverting by purging "Russian" from her identity without any evidence On his Wiki page he claims that Lithuania, universally recognized as independent state, should be a part of Poland. he is ultranationalist who is abusing Wikipedia to propagate his ethnic intolerance. Please stop this man because he has no idea who Rosa Raisa was and he is dismissing the authoritative biography *and* her memoir as not sufficient to convince him about her identity. He has absolutely no source to support his own reasons for constantly reverting the national identity of this singer nor did he offer to give it. I alerted him on his talk page that I will report his abuse and he continues to ignore it and the facts about this singer. Please stop him and let this lady rest in peace.
Unsigned comment from Wikiuserthea

You need to inform the user that you've reported them here. I've done it for you. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, this isn't a 3RR violation, since one of the differences is from December 2014, and another is from September 2014. This looks like a content dispute to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 1 week. Her nationality is a tricky problem. If she was born in 'Congress Poland' that area was hardly distinguishable from Russia in 1893. You might ask other users who have worked on similar historical articles. Please use Talk to find consensus. Look at Category:People from Białystok to see how other Jewish people born in Bialystok in that period are identified. For example, Simon Segal. User:Wikiuserthea, if you are editing both as an IP and a registered account, you shouldn't. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:CastleRockChick reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Castle Rock, Colorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
CastleRockChick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Prairie Dog Controversy */ removed unsourced information"
  2. 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inaccurate information"
  3. 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inappropriate information"
  4. 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inaccurate information"
  5. 22:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC) "Information from non-reliable source"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Castle Rock, Colorado. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

They are also under discussion at WP:COIN, where they have complained about this. They seem overly keen to removed sourced content, and refactor this paragraph to their liking. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. The user complained about a non-reliable source but did not identify it. Another admin pointed out back in March at Talk:Castle Rock, Colorado#Prairie Dog incident that the talk page should be used to reach a consensus, but neither side has joined in there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:JohnCWiesenthal reported by User:ZLMedia (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
IntelliStar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JohnCWiesenthal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on IntelliStar. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Products */ new section"
Comments:

This user has continued to add unsourced and original research to the IntelliStar article that is trivial. It has been taken down at least three times and put back up twice by the same user. The user has also disregarded my first warning, and has now been warned twice by me. --ZLMedia 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:104.156.240.162 and User:104.156.240.163, reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Vanessa Lynne Bryant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
104.156.240.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [39] - Sixth revert.
  2. [40] - Fifth revert, even as this case is pending.
  3. 07:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 658955741 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
  4. 07:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 658955223 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
  5. 07:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 658954171 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) ugh"
  6. [41] - on an obviously-related IP, 104.156.240.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [42] - on the obviously-related IP.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Recent Changes */"
  2. 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Recent Changes */"
Comments:

Reverting questionable/disputed negative material into a BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved editor note: I consider it probable that 104.156.240.162/104.156.240.163 is the same editor as 168.1.75.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who reached 3 reverts on the page shortly before 104.156.240.163 started editing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have edit warred in fact less than the reporter. Neither he, nor the previous non-IP editor seems interested in following BRD. It's strange he should report it; I didn't report it to spare him. An active discussion is ongoing on the talk page, the article should stay in its stable state until that's concluded. If there are any improperly sourced BLP claims they should of course be removed immediately. There are none I can find. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Yes, I am .162 and .163. Here are the diffs of the reporting editor violating 3RR:

104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The first diff you post is not a revert. The fourth is taken under BLP guidelines, and is a response to your fourth revert which inserts questionably-sourced and unduly-weighted negative material into the biography of a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I note that the editor has reverted this questionably-sourced, unduly-weighted negative material a fifth time. They quite obviously have no interest in discussion, editorial process or compliance with the biographies of living persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
A common piece of content was removed in all 5 diffs. This material does not rise to a WP:3RRBLP exception. The sources are not questionable. You effected a significant change to the article, multiple editors objected and the first (168.1.75.52) began a talk page discussion which neither you nor the editor above chose to participate in before edit warring. Reach consensus on the article talk page and stop this silliness. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You appear not to understand the definition of a revert. The first diff you link is my initial edit, which made specific changes to the article and did not "undo" any person's work. A person undoing that edit would constitute a revert. You also seem to have a poor grasp of the BLP policy. The source (specifically "AllGov.com") is absolutely questionable, and the weight placed upon its brief description of some anonymous random website's claims about a living person is absolutely subject to BLP standards. That material is questionable, and it stays out until consensus is reached that it isn't questionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Your attempts to offend me will be ineffective. Stop edit warring and discuss your changes on the talk page. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be happy to discuss your proposal to insert anonymous claims about a living person into their Wikipedia biography; of course, as it violates fundamental content policies, it will be rejected. We don't care what anonymous people on anonymous websites say about people, any more than we republish what someone says on Reddit about a living person. It simply isn't of encyclopedic quality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
When a neutral, respected RS sees fit to report them we report them. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, no. We aren't required to report anything, and the inclusion or exclusion of such content based on its quality is a matter for editorial judgment and the weighting of policies. The BLP policy demands that questionable content — particularly questionable negative content — be removed by default, until clear consensus establishes its reliability, necessity and suitability for the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The above editor has reverted yet a sixth time, this time after another editor saw fit to remove the content in question. This should put to rest any debate about whether this editor is interested in discussion or is merely an anonymous POV-pushing edit-warrior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. The burden of discussion is on the editors seeking change and neither you, nor this most recent editor has discussed anything. I posted a message on his talk page - in his edit summary he indicated we don't source BLP content to "ratings sites", yet no ratings site was sourced in that article - only in previous versions of the article. If he has valid objections lets discuss them. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll provide that diff here because the editor has chosen to remove it without responding. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The material in question is nothing more than anonymous gossip — it's strident and vicious attack quotes taken from an anonymous messageboard which is explicitly designed to allow nameless attacks on living people. Were this to have been republished in The New York Times, that might be one thing, but "AllGov.com" is, at best, an extremely-marginal secondary source and there doesn't appear to be any indication that anyone else cares about what these anonymous cowards said about this woman on the Internet. Ergo, it stays out until there's consensus that it belongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Original "reverter" here. Baranof: that would be horrible if it were true. However the site is run BY lawyers FOR lawyers and requires the "anonymous" commenters submit identifying information to be verified as lawyers. The quotes were reported in RS and attributed in our article to the source. It's unfortunate the responding admin didn't sufficiently investigate or allow reasonable time to respond to these nonsense claims. I notice you don't mention the critical information you removed sourced to The Hartford Courant and the American Bar Association - or are they also "marginal" sources?
@EdJohnston: I expect you to respond to the filer's breach of 3RR. The BLPN concerns have merit but nowhere near the level required for 3RRBLP. I will file a separate request if no action is taken here. 168.1.75.50 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether they're lawyers or not, they're still anonymous. Whether "AllGov.com" is really a significant reliable source suitable for sourcing contentious negative claims about living people is an open question. Whether quoting the second-hand thrice-removed anonymous opinions of anonymous lawyers from a marginal website is really suitable material for an encyclopedic biography is also an open question, as is the question of whether or not we are placing undue weight on those anonymous opinions. But these are questions for discussion on the article talk page, not for edit-warring, and BLP demands that questionable material be removed first and then discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Semiprotected two months. Valid BLP concerns have been raised, and it is time to discuss them on the article talk page. If necessary use WP:BLPN to get additional opinions. It is possible that negative information is being used that originates from anonymous web commenters. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting comments about a dispute with User:Bobrayner at the article Stealing a Nation.[edit]

Hi

Can somebody here have a look at the dispute I'm having with User:Bobrayner at Stealing a Nation? He has blanked the page in the past, and now he's blanking a piece of information that's central to the documentary itself. I've been reverting these attempts, but now I'm being accused of harassment and stalking (see edit history and comments). Would someone please look at the dispute, are the accusations baseless or reasonable? I simply don't understand the stubborn removal of content about this documentary. I'm posting it here because the edits have been too much back-and-forth, and have been coming to close to an edit war situation. Thanks in advance for any help. - Anonimski (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Anonimski stalked me to that article, and every edit Anonimski has ever made there is reverting me. [48] [49] [50] [51]. There has been similar harassment on other articles. I would welcome some admin attention to this problem although it's unclear to me why Anonimski raises this on the 3RR noticeboard when the evidence shows that it's Anonimski making kneejerk reverts of any change that I try to initiate. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The part of Wikipedia where our editing habits have overlapped the most, are Balkan topics. And I can't really see much that's out of the ordinary in the past disputes there. There have been some debates that have gotten really strange and filled with "loaded questions" and unconstructive approaches, the most notable from my perspective is Talk:Goraždevac.
Another thing: my notice on Bob's talkpage was reverted with the edit summary "stop harassing me", despite that it was a formality that I was obliged to do when starting this thread. It's unfair behavior to repeat this accusation over and over again when I've started a discussion to get some help with resolving this issue.
Disagreement is not harassment, but your loaded questions at for example Talk:Goraždevac are much closer to it. - Anonimski (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, Anonimski; your best defence is a case last year where you stalked me to Goraždevac to revert my edits, you edit-warred to reinsert unsourced content, then I repeatedly tried to explain WP:V, and now you call that harassment. I would welcome more eyes on this problem. bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I told you that the sources were on the page which was wikilinked there, but you seemed to pretend that they weren't any sources at all. If you would have said that you wanted me to copy over the refs, everything would have gone so much better and quicker. But your behavior towards me was as if I never cared about verification in the first place. I'm not trying to deny you the right to come with criticism, but have you ever heard of "constructive criticism"? And you've seemed to jump to conclusions about malicious intent very quickly (such as the first thread on Talk:North Mitrovica), when it would be very easy to pause for a moment and think it through. There are much easier and much less complicated ways to interact with other Wikipedia editors. I don't know what more to say at the moment... - Anonimski (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

User:88.236.197.61 reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: )[edit]

Page: Armenian Genocide recognition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.236.197.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

This IP is refusing to participate in the talk page, and is removing sourced information that has been agreed to be included in the article at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:G'day mates! (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Vanessa Lynne Bryant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63] (Note: user's talk page is protected)

Notification of filing: @NorthBySouthBaranof:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:
User edit-warred to preserve major article changes without consensus, removing almost all content critical of the subject sourced to established RS (e.g. The Hartford Courant and the American Bar Association.) User has several previous blocks for edit-warring: [65]

Disclosure: I am the previously IP-only editor 168.1.75.52 who posted to the talk page. G'day mates! (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Those were incandescently obvious reverts of WP:BLP violations. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Criticisms sourced to RS are not incandescently obvious BLP violations. Wow! Filing closed in record time. All that's obvious is that the content of these filings matters less than the filer or the accused. Further confirmation I was right to not register previously; I may have always "lost" to the unblockables but at least I wasn't targeted. Likely that's no longer the case. G'day mates! (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh, did you have a lot of admin trouble under your previous account? Bishonen | talk 19:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC).
        • I wouldn't say a lot, certainly no more than the editor above. Are we calling IP addresses accounts now or is this more good faith on your part? Just the kind of helpful response one should expect from an administrator. Thanks, you've told me all I need to know. G'day mates! (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The correct response would've been WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE; there's no point in blocking them now that the warring has ceased. If you're concerned that the reverts did not fall under WP:BLPREMOVE, perhaps it would be best to approach an admin on their talk page to take a look. Alakzi (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, if only this had been reported in time! But wait, an IP editor did report it in time in the first response to the filing here while the edit-war was ongoing. That administrator's response was to semi-protect the page, effectively siding with registered users in a content dispute between two IPs and two registered users, where the registered users disregarded BRD and began the edit war. Or this entirely accurate post to an experienced editor's talk page after he was likely canvassed by the registered users and participated in the edit war. He responded constructively by reverting it. There's always an extra i that could have been dotted or t crossed allowing you to believe that these processes work despite continued evidence to the contrary. You might convince yourselves because you have so much invested, but every outside observer and new editor has a more difficult time believing it - and that won't end well for wikipedia. G'day mates! (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
          • That report was filed by NorthBySouthBaranof, not the IP who had jumped across several accounts to continue inserting poorly sourced negative BLP content into the article. Are you the IP in question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Oh hey, it's the other edit warring editor. Several times now you've suggested I and the other IP were the same editor based only on the observation that he "showed up" to revert after I hit 3RR. Interesting, because just after you hit 3RR NorthBySouthBaranof showed up to to continue your reverts. And looking through your contributions you edit almost exclusively in articles he's banned from editing. Very interesting. What do they say? Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind. G'day mates! (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bob1764 reported by User:Snowager (Result: )[edit]

Page
Dunk Tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bob1764 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Experience */Improved content"
  2. 04:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Easy Dunker */Improved content"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 04:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) to 05:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    1. 04:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Experience */Added content"
    2. 04:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Added content"
    3. 04:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Easy Dunker */Added content"
    4. 04:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Clothing */Added content"
    5. 04:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Safety */Added content"
    6. 05:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Experience */Added content"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 05:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) to 05:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    1. 05:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Fundraising */Added content"
    2. 05:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Clothing */Added content"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dunk tank. (TW)"
  2. 05:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Dunk tank. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Made reckless disruptive editing on Dunk tank. The Snowager-is awake 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bobbertybob reported by User:Jbhunley (Result: Blocked for 24 hours by Philg88 for violation of 3RR)[edit]

Page
Ezra A. Bowen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bobbertybob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659097173 by Interference 541 (talk) rv?"
  2. 06:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "{{Proposed deletion/dated |concern = Notability |timestamp = 20150425061200 }}"
  3. 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659096058 by Interference 541 (talk)"
  4. 05:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659094810 by Haminoon (talk) let an admin decide"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments: See Special:Contributions/Bobbertybob for what has been going on at other articles.

This account has been edit warring over deletion tags with other editors on many (10+) articles. That seems to be the only contributions this account has made. Jbh (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I don't believe I've broken any rules - if I have, please do me the courtesy of telling me what I've done wrong. I will watch THIS page, and look for more info. Thnak you. Bobbertybob (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Regards the specific things show above - I note that the 'revert/undo' are to differing edits, and that there is no notice of 'attempt to resolve', etc.

Let me know, ty. Bobbertybob (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So the 14 reverts over deletion tags on 6 different pages in the last hour and a half in your edit history is not, in your opinion, a disruptive edit war? Anyway the admins here can sort it out. I would strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy completely before placing any further deletion tags or edit warring to replace a properly removed PROD or CSD tags. When someone reverts you it is a signal you should stop and discuss things. Jbh (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also wasting others' time here. Editor does not seem to understand deletion criteria despite (deleted) notices like this. --NeilN talk to me 07:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Edit warring continues here after case opened at Muara Bungo history using the pattern CSD-revert-revert-PROD-revert-revert- which is the same pattern as at Ezra A. Bowen CSD-revert-revert-PROD-revert-revert-AfD This seems calculated to cause disruption while nominally avoiding 3rr. Jbh (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is some very strange definition of 'edit warring'. So I also hope that "admins here can sort it". Watch out for boomerangs. Bobbertybob (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'd like to respond re "CSD-revert-revert-PROD-revert-revert"

I cannot 'revert'. I don't have that power.

The other users here can, and appear to be abusing it, according to wikipedia rules.

I've only used 'undo' for inappropriate uses of revert.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using a PROD once a CSD is declined? Bobbertybob (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Reverting" isn't a power. Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits. Please read WP:PROD. Your edits are disruptive. --Onorem (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect, read Wikipedia:Reverting. Esp "The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting, but you should avoid reverting edits other than vandalism most of the time.". Thanks. Bobbertybob (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
/boggle. Did you read your link? It says exactly what I said. --Onorem (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I read it. Did you read the link I put?
You shouldn't be using 'revert' for non-vandalism (basically). Right?
Admins can sort this out, I hope. Bobbertybob (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm done being trolled. Have a good night. --Onorem (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sjones23 reported by User:Empire M (Result: Boomerang)[edit]

Page
List of Cross Ange episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sjones23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."
  2. 08:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."
  3. 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."
  4. 08:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. 07:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. 08:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. 08:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

He removed Template:Notability. Empire M (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Empire M (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Empire M (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The reporter is blocked (subject to appeals etc) as a LTA, and most would consider this report a waste of time. Please note, without a mention of bans or sockpuppets, this wasn't the most judicious use of rollback I've seen. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rarevogel reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Incredibly one sided. Tried to bring some balance.."
  3. 23:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "this is crucial stuff, not POV. if we cant even mention the claims of Turkey, are we then simply being a propaganda tool. Whatever one sides says is correct and the other side is outside the debate?"
  4. 07:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "I added sources. this article needs to be cleaned up. It relies heavily on Armenian, Russian and Western sources. the use of missionary accounts is especially alarming, as are those of official British accounts."
  5. 09:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "(please stop removing sourced content. I am nowhere disputing what is written in the text, I am simply adding facts. There is nothing wrong with that, especcially in a biased piece like this is.)"
  6. 10:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "(This is historical background, crucial in understanding what happened. Not allowing this crucial fact, is setting yourself up as a propgandist. No need for consensus here.)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Armenian Genocide. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Article is on WP:1RR. Editor was informed of this. NeilN talk to me 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

S/he seems to be on unresponsive, automated edit-warring mode. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Last block they got was for a week. One would think they would take that on board. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Although I don't have an account on this website, I would like to leave a comment on what happened. I added a notice in the last week on the talk page of the mentioned article calling the editors to fix this obvious and undisputable "Template:Systemic bias" of the article. The article is heavily propagating one single view (the view of those who claim that there has been "an Armenian genocide" and under-representing the view of the other party (those who claim that there has not been such an event). I asked them to present the two views in a balanced manner without bias and without this advertising language. However, no one of them made any positive response except "Rarevogel" who started to add some "sourced information" to the article in order to bring for it some of the needed-balance. The biased editors of the pro-Armenian view didn't accept to keep these sourced information, in spite of the fact that they are sourced, in the article and made an illegal removal of them.
Theoretically, these biased editors of the pro-Armenian view should be blocked because of their co-operation to prevent anyone of the other editors, who don't share with them this bias toward the Armenians, from adding "sourced information" to the article.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You are advocating a false balance. We have parties that claim Evolution doesn't exist. The article isn't "balanced" to highlight these views. --NeilN talk to me 15:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"Evolution" is a scientific theory based on scientific evidence. The Armenian claims are not "scientific" and are not based on scientific evidence.
So it is you my dear who is advocating a false balance, not me.
Here we have a legal case: in which the Armenians and their supporters are on one side, while the Turks and their supporters are on the other side. In order to be just and neutral, we have to give them both an equal space to represent themselves and to introduce their arguments. Without doing so, our judgment becomes unjust and unbalanced.
The Christian conscience is one-eyed. That is why an article written by the Christian majority of Wikipedia is almost always one-sided. (Full stop)--95.141.20.198 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
History is not a legal case. If you want to continue the discussion, I suggest you use WP:NPOVN. --NeilN talk to me 10:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rahuloof reported by User:Mar4d (Result: Rahuloof blocked; many warnings)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [67]
  2. [68]
  3. [69]
  4. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71] [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kargil_War#Kargil_War_Result & [73]

Comments: User edit warred with two users on the concerned article, editing in content that is contentious, without consensus and currently under dispute at the talk page. The user has no recent history of edits at the article, nor has he participated in any of the past discussions at the talk page until mysteriously coming in to make the reverts. He abused the rollback feature and knowingly broke 3RR [74] yet has chosen not to self-revert despite being warned on his talk page and being asked to on the article talk page, and let the article remain in present form until the dispute is settled. Mar4d (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Comment Mar4d has made 5 reverts. Thus page protection would be a better choice, I had already requested it on WP:RFPP. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
There were 3 reverts, not 5. You went overboard with 3RR by not only reverting me, but also TopGun. Mar4d (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Rahul's statement in the editsummary (no matter who was 'right') while breaking 3RR that he's knowingly breaking 3RR isn't the way to go. Regardless of block, protection etc outcome, it is clear that he does not need the rollback user rights. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I would like to present the following points in my defence
  1. TopGun amd mar4d are engaged in some kind of groupism where they edit as a group and always support each other in talk pages. They are various instances where they both have been part of a edit war [75] [76] [77]
  2. As they edit as a group, they are using the 3RR rule as shield to insert their views in the article without any consensus and threatens users who do not support their views with block warnings.
  3. In this particular case , there is an active debate on the talk page regarding the issue and in my edit summary i have repeatedly urge them to gain consensus on talk page before making any changes.
  4. This is my first engagement in any kind of edit war while both topgun and mr4d have a history of edit wars
  5. I request the ADMIN to check the concerned article and the talk page before making any decision.
  6. I used twinkle for reverting their edits and the single use of rollback was a mistake on my point
  7. I believe common sense will prevail here

RahulText me 11:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Both TopGun and I were involved in that article previously and had been participating in the talk page. You appeared out of the blue without any history at that article and started making reverts while completely ignoring the entire discussion taking place at the talk page. I am more curious about your motives and what brought you into the edit war. Mar4d (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well its Ironic that after giving human3015 a lecture about bad faith you are accusing me of editing in bad faith. I dont care about your participation in the talk page regarding older topics, but this particular topic is under discussion in the article's talk page with my active participation RahulText me 12:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment, Mar4d has made 5 reverts and page protection will be a better option. I want tell one more thing, few users are always acting in group to write Anti-India matter in any related article. Mar4d, TopGun together made me to get blocked for 48 hours recently. And here also they fighting together to get another user blocked. They blame others for making 3-4 reverts(which they actually revert vandalism), but Mar4d and TopGun together makes 6-7 reverts(that too to enforce personal POV). --Human3015 12:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you should have some introspection on the way you conduct yourself. You've been following me at places and involving yourself in matters that do not seem to be of relevance to you. This attitude got you blocked too for 3RR. I have noticed that your habit of making personal attacks and