Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive296

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:149.62.200.251, User:212.5.158.50, User:149.62.200.33, User:149.62.200.79 reported by User:Boruch Baum (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: History of the Jews in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

149.62.200.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log),
149.62.200.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
149.62.200.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log),
212.5.158.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log),


[1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]
  7. [8]
  8. [9]
  9. [10]
  10. [11]
  11. [12]
  12. [13]
  13. [14]
  14. [15]
  15. [16]
  16. [17]
  17. [18]
  18. [19]


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

[20] This is a link to the diff in which I requested others to reach a consensus on the talk page

Comments:
How do I communicate with unregistered users who don't respond to my comments or follow WP:BRD? how do I know whether the first three users are really a single user with a dynamic IP, or multiple IPs?

There may be more than one dispute at issue here, regarding the ethic background of multiple people and the legitimacy of multiple sources. Some illegitimate sources will claim a notable person is Jewish as a matter of pride, while others will make the same claim as part of an attempt at character assassination. When I have translated a cited source web-page from Bulgarian, (shalompr.org) using Google translate, the source had no relation whatsoever to to what it was being used for.

On top of the reverts of content, the reverters have been messing up citations and references, so on the current version of the page, the page generates two cite errors. I have fixed these in the past, but its getting old to repeat the same formatting fixing in the middle of an edit-war or edit-pre-war.

I would also like to note another user in the midst of all this, User:Amusecuiop. He is the only other registered user taking part in this series of events. I have contacted him a number of times on his talk page, but as you can see, while he doesn't seem to be a bad actor, he's not responsive.

I don't mind if the administrator dealing with this also contacts me on my own talk page, even if for only giving me general advice, or general discussion.

Boruch Baum (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected three months. Edit warring by IP-hopper. Some users have been breaking the references. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:24.210.33.160 reported by User:Nymf (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Jennifer Tilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.210.33.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]
  3. [24]
  4. [25]
  5. [26]
  6. [27]
  7. [28]
  8. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

For some unknown reason, this IP insists on blanking that Jennifer Tilly has starred in over 40 episodes of Family Guy from the lead. The IP refuses to discuss it and is instead slowly edit warring. Another user tried to reword it, in case it was the wording that the IP took issue with, but the IP just keeps removing it anyway. Nymf (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected six months. There is a long-term edit war by a single, stable IP but there's also an existing problem of normal IP vandalism by a variety of people. So semi appears justified. It is simpler to do this than try to justify a long-term block of the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Thewanderer reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Croatian parliamentary election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thewanderer (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. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
  4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:

This editor has broken the 3RR rule, engaged himself in a edit-war just and ignored the talk page. He has for last two days repeatedly edited the article and has disrupted the article. Adding his speculation, and without explanation, ignored the pleads to stop edit warring and has broken the 3RR rule. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. User:Thewanderer reverted the article twice more after being notified of this edit-warring complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:72.208.249.52 reported by User:Mandruss (Result: Blocked 6 months)[edit]

Page: Howard Hughes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.208.249.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]
  5. [43]
  6. [44]
  7. [45]
  8. [46]
  9. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user has ignored numerous user talk warnings, all directing them to the article talk page. I feel opening a thread in article talk would be a waste of time. Apparently, the other three or four experienced editors who have been involved with this issue agree.

Comments:
This is a slow-burn edit war. Beginning in July, this user has tried nine (9) times to change Hughes's birthplace without sourcing. They have been reverted by multiple experienced editors, and they have ignored numerous user talk warnings about behavior not only in this article but others as well. I see no end in sight until the user dies, and it would make no sense to continue this edit war indefinitely. Therefore it's either semi-protection or a fairly long-term block, and I think the latter is the more sensible choice as the user is not otherwise a significant contributor to the project. ―Mandruss  22:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Tzowu reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Social Democratic Party of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tzowu (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. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

The user shows no intention to stop edit warring. Also before he was engaged in edit wars for a multiple times, also ignoring Wikipedia rules. Now he is introducing not sourced material and ignores the talk page. What els should I have done but report him? He shows no will to end this "conflict". He has done the same thing also on this page Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --Tuvixer (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User Tuvixer is a disruptive editor that is involved in yet another edit war (he's been reported many times), in which he provides no reasonable explanations for his continuous reverts. Every attempt of a discussion with him ends in the same way, he does not accept what others say and keeps acting like he owns an article. Yesterday for example he was involved in one on Croatian parliamentary election, 2015: Tzowu (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [58]

He also has a long history of personal attacks on others, like this one about my parents, for which he got no block.[59] Tzowu (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


I was not reported many times. Also by framing me you will not hide your own behavior. You have made no explanations for your continuous reverts on both pages that are liked here. All yo have said about me, actually you have said about yourself. And there is a perfect example, anyone that looks at the article about Social Democratic Party of Croatia can see that you have engaged in a edit war, and have ignored the talk page, like you always do. I have asked a administrator what to do with users like you who behave like they own an article, and I have been instructed, if they do not stop reverting, to report them, as I did with you and that other user. I have not broken the 3RR, and I have been told if it goes to that extent, that I have to break it, then it is better to report a user who obviously will break that rule, rather then to break the 3RR myself. I have always begged users to stop edit-warring and to discuss the matter on the talk page, but I was always ignored. That is very frustrating, and that is Tzowus modus operandi. He always does that, probably hoping that the other user will back up and go away. He is a bully and he needs to be sanctioned. He has used the fact that I am, or was, a new user to the Wikipedia, and exploited that fact. Please stop him. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
You were involved in edit wars and was reported way more times than I was, and those in which I was involved are almost all because of your behaviour. Right now you are involved in two of them, and just because your revert was done a few hours after the deadline of 3RR doesn't mean it is fine. Read WP:3RR. I always went to the talk page when you started your unreasonable reverts just because they were done by me and they all ended in the same way, you act like some sort of protector of a page and block any edits to it. This is what those discussions look like, you insult my parents [60], call me a liar [61] [62]... In the last few days you reverted changing of official coalition names (Croatian parliamentary election, 2015) and adding of County prefects numbers to party infoboxes (while for example the Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK) even have the London Assembly in their infoboxes), you are just deliberately disrupting other users edits to get them reported. You should have been topic banned long ago, at least when the incident with Timbouctou happened and you for some reason got out of that without any block. Tzowu (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who looks at the history of that page can see that I am not the only user who edits that page, so your argument is invalid. But when you come to a page and edit something, you immediately begin to edit war just because you think that you OWN the article, or maybe have the right to edit whatever you like. Still anything you said does not explain your behavior, and will not exonerate you in any way. I am not forcing anyone to start a edit-war, but I will never back up to bullies like you. You think that you can edit whatever you want and when someone reverts your disruptive edits, you always start a edit war. Well attack is the best defense, and all you are left is with personal attacks on me. I never wanted to report you, but what choice have you left me? Have you shown any good faith and reverted yourself ant tried to resolve the issue on the talk page of the article? You have not. This is about your edits on two articles mentioned in the report. You have not explained your behavior. It would be great if you could explain how I am "deliberately disrupting other users edits to get them reported", wow that is really something. Anyone can see what you are doing. You are all hat and no cattle. Now when you are reported, now you are trying to explain your edits. Well sir, the talk page is for that very reason there, to explain, and not to edit-war, you have ignored that. If you have gone to the talk page, and shown any good faith and reverted yourself, this all could have been avoided. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I'm not the one going on reverting in a rampage style everything someone adds that I don't like. How many edit wars you had just in the last few months? You started reverting Thewanderer because he added the correct names of party coalitions and me because I added the County prefects/Župans in the infobox of other parties. If you took a look at other parties, like the ones from UK I already mentioned, or the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, you could have seen that others have even more information and more numbers in the infobox, just like I said in the edit summary. But no, you just had to do what you always do, revert and annoy. Just as a note, on every issue we had you were the one that started reverting and edit warring first. On the Economy of Croatia, LGBT Rights in Croatia, Franjo Tuđman, SDP and HNS parties, in all of them you started the rampage for nothing. I had more reasonable discussions even with single purpose IP's on articles that are by itself very controversial. As for this issue, I have nothing more to say. I broke the 3RR rule, but you broke like a dozen of them. And talking about personal attacks... [63] [64] [65] Tzowu (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is not the place for you to explain your edits, you should have done that long before on the talk page of the article in question. You have broken the rule. There is nothing more to say. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Both warned. It looks like both sides reached three reverts. If either party continues this dispute without making a serious effort to get support from others on Talk, they may be blocked. There is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia and there is WP:DRN. It can't be hard to find names of people who edit Croatian politics. You could find a neutral way to invite them to join the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Boonchong_chua reported by Asheshong (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Agoda.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Boonchong_chua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
# 11:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [66]
  2. [67]
  3. [68]
  4. [69]
  5. [70]
  6. [71]
  7. [72]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [73]
  2. [74]
  3. [75]
  4. [76]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page
  1. [77]
  2. [78]
  3. [79]
Comments
  • The article has been subjected to ongoing disruptive edits and edit warring by user boonchong_chua, whose history of Wikipedia contributions have focused solely on this article [[80]].
  • Edits were inappropriate and unfit for an encyclopedia. Attempts to engage have been made on the article talk page as well as the user's talk page.
  • Disruptive editing and edit warring with this particular user has been going on since 2014 [[81]]. History clearly shows edit warring between boonchong_chua and several other users.
  • The user also appears to be biased with no intention of improving the Wikipedia article. This diff [[82]] includes what appears to be an exchange between boonchong_chua and Agoda.com customer service. A user bearing the same username - boonchong chua - has been leaving negative reviews on the Agoda.com app page on the Google Play Store claiming that it is a scam.
  • The above suggests suggest that boonchong_chua is not contributing to Wikipedia objectively, while violating Wikipedia's content policies, namely neutral point of view and no original research, as well as Wikipedia conduct policies such as consensus.
  • Full disclosure: I am the creator of the article. I am also an employee of Agoda Malaysia International (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. I would like to be transparent and abide by Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and paid contributions. Any contributions made on matters related to Agoda.com will remain factual and reliably sourced. My aim is to work with impartial editors on any issues that may arise. As the article creator, I have complied with Wikipedia's paid contribution disclosure guidelines. Disclosures have been made on my talk page and edit summaries.

Asheshong (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Asheshong, an inexperienced editor needs to be warned about edit warring and keep on edit warring before being reported here. This was not done. However I have blocked boonchong_chua for disruptive editing. He is clearly editing in a non-neutral way despite several warnings to desist. NeilN talk to me 15:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Johann Sebastian Bach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Initial RFC

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Comments out my RFC to avoid outside comments
  2. Restores his removal of my RFC
  3. Restores his removal of my RFC, despite links to WP:TPO & WP:3RR; removes RFCid number added by bot
  4. Nowiki's the RFC
  5. Restores Nowiki, despite notice of having passed 3RR and a my previously requested 3rd opinion editor coming by to point out that the RFC itself has no obvious issue & editor has no explained any

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd, notice re: this page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See links and discussion given above.

Comments:
I would say his initial protectionism over the page could fall under good stewardship. It's very hard for me to view repeated attempts to shut down discussion—let alone editing my talk page comments in violation of linked policy well past 3rr—as a positive thing. Also, since we're going to have eyeballs on the page now, kindly add some thoughts on the original issue regarding the formatting of the page's References section. — LlywelynII 14:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC should be worded neutrally before the RfC is launched. Why it is not neutral is explained by another editor who replied to a 3O request, and confirmed by me as the what for me was the reason to consider it lacking in neutrality.
Please LlywelynII consider rewording the RfC more neutrally, then we're all set to launch it properly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, at this point, "over-protective" is a profoundly neutral phrasing of your behavior. I did follow the 3O's advice and removed even that minimal venting from the discussion below the RFC. All the same, your behavior at this point has been such that someone other than me should explain why you should never act like this again. (And then probably yell at me, too.) — LlywelynII 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewording. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I can strike that last comment, the RfC has been reworded neutrally it is launched, and I'm fully OK with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Need to strike my comment as someone had posted something in between so that my comment could have been misconstrued.
Anyway, I'm fully OK with the reworded RfC and it being launched. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. It appears that the revert war over the RfC has stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jugdev reported by User:Jbhunley (Result: no action)[edit]

Page
Programmatic media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jugdev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Please refer to my earlier comments on the talk page... Key distinction has been overlooked."
  2. 00:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684162930 by JohnInDC (talk) no explanation."
  3. 21:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684128172 by RichardOSmith (talk) no response on the items listed on talk page. all edits appear redundant"
  4. 19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "See talk page"
  5. Still at it today [83]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Programmatic media. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Tightening up wording */ support/objections to stubbing?"
  2. 19:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Tightening up wording */ r"
  3. 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ r"
  4. 21:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ request"
  5. 21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ cmt"
  6. 22:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ r"
  7. 23:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
  8. 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ Simple is better. Technical readers have other sources of information that Wikipedia (I hope!)"
  9. 23:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ cmt"
  10. 23:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ ce and sp"
  11. 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ Spelling/grammar correction"
  12. 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
  13. 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ Question on revert to lead"
  14. 00:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ PS -"
  15. 00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
  16. 01:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
Comments:

Continuing to edit war immediately after previous EW block expired. [84] JbhTalk 01:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that despite ongoing discussion this user seems incapable of understanding he does not own the article and have content approval. I fear short blocks are not getting through to them - I know discussion and explanation has not. JbhTalk 19:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Jugdev has reached but not exceeded 3RR. The 19:20 edit was not a revert. On the positive side I see lots of discussion taking place. I'm going to hold off taking any action for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:90.196.204.46 reported by User:Primefac (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn (demo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
90.196.204.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

Edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn (demo):

  1. 18:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684288581 by Primefac (talk) No edit wars please. Leave in my note about why not to delete."
  3. 18:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684289098 by Primefac (talk) Further to IRC convo, I cannot forge your signature to add your comment, Please just re-reg your vote."
  4. 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684289636 by Primefac (talk) Seriously, lets not play rabbit season, duck season."


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Reverts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nalu (demo):

  1. Special:Diff/684282046
  2. Special:Diff/684286609

Reverts at Orb-3D

  1. Special:diff/684282699
  2. Special:Diff/684286508
  3. Special:Diff/684287661
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Done on IRC, can provide logs upon request. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

User has been on IRC talking to me and Huon regarding some issues they have with this page, but refuse to simply type their response instead of deleting my comments. They have also done similar at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nalu (demo) and Orb-3D Primefac (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments from accused: please check my contributions log, there are other pages. PrimeFac for removes examples from pages to make redirect pages "make sense" - the rabbit season/duck season - we're discussing on IRC and no harm no fowl, I do not like the over-writing of my not close vote. (I did this, to prove a point, user is now doing it - you'll note that the user is not versed in the issues of the page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Additional info:
[20:22] <AnIPAddress> primefac: I hope there's symmetry in the edit war reports.
[unrelated]
[20:23] <primefac> AnIPAddress, I am not at all concerned with this coming back on me
this was sparked by me coming to his attention, the "war" should be considered symmetrically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Further info
 [20:27] <primefac> while the statement is still true, I did not give them permission to use the comment
I post this to be accurate, PrimeFac is upset I posted a log snippet here, but he said "can provide logs upon request." have I broken some sort of policy by posting a snippet, how would it be okay for him to in that case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Well that depends, if he sent them to you by E-Mail or something then it may be slightly different, but if they were placed anywhere on Wikipedia then they are released for use by their copyright rules on the content added. Also please sign your comment with four ~ as it will help people know who you are without the bot needing to do it for you, especially since the bot can miss you if someone edits the page before it gets to you.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Ditto51, the IP just copied the chat log directly without my knowledge or consent. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Same as E-Mail, I just didn't even know that there was a chat log...but I imagine the rules would be the same as E-Mail with everything being stated in private.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a no-brainer. The ip has continually written over another editor's comments during an AfD discussion. And apparently they have done it at more than one AfD discussion. The IP's comments above don't appear to make any sort of sense. If the IP editor finally agrees that they understand what they are doing is completely unacceptable, then let's move on. If not, a short ban might be in order to help them understand. Onel5969 TT me 20:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment this has moved past edit warring and straight onto an agenda. They have (yet again) removed my comment from an AFD. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Cliftonian reported by 79.180.114.6[edit]

Wrong place, no discussion. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cliftonian just removed the word "Jew" out of 999 Wikipedia articles about Israelis:
  • He doesn't want people to know about successful Jewish people from Israel.
  • That's his deal once again in this article.
  • He wrote in Talk:Natalie_Portman that her self claim 'Israeli-born' should be removed.
  • Check his contributions page.

Please revert all his vandalism POV edits, or let me know who can help me with that. 79.180.114.6 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment First of all you're reporting this in the wrong place - this is the board for reporting edit-warring. Secondly, this looks like a content dispute (although I have to say that that pipelink looks wrong - surely "Israeli" should link to Israelis if anything?). And third, you haven't discussed this with Cliftonian at all. Closed. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Materialscientist reported by User:Iñaki Salazar (Result: no action)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: 683635858


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [85]
  2. [86]
  3. [87]
  4. [88]

Comments:

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:90.222.127.214 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
The Stone Roses (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
90.222.127.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC) "no, the editor who weighed in had no issue with the "most overrated" listings being added further down. did that, since NOBODY OWNS THE ARTICLE"
  2. 15:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "rv vandalism. user thinks pointing to irrelevant doctrines justifies everything he does to protect his favourite album from any criticism. again restoring my fully cited, uncontroversial edit"
  3. 11:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "rv vandalism: removal of citation addition because user just doesn't like it and thinks he owns the article."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Stone Roses (album). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Discussion at Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#Greatest ever vs. overrated and Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Should this revision be retained? clpo13(talk) 07:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Dan56 (talk · contribs) also appears to have violated WP:3RR: 16:26, October 4, 2015, 07:44, October 5, 2015, and 12:55, October 5, 2015. clpo13(talk) 07:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of 3RR, but do not feel I have violated it as I was reverting vandalism. A culture has developed on the article, whereby User:Dan56 reverts my cited additions and says I somehow need consensus to edit. It's a nauseating, repeated violation of WP:OWN, as he desperately tries to bend Wikipedia doctrines to keep my additions out. At this stage in the game, it's safe to say he's vandalising by just removing things as he pleases, because he evidently loves the album and can't bear a little criticism of it.
It's interesting how User:Clpo13 acknowledges that Dan56 has also violated 3RR, yet I'm the one reported. Not treating IP users as second-class citizens at all, there. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Think what you want, but you've both been reported and you've both violated WP:3RR. clpo13(talk) 08:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Uncontroversial vandalism. WP:NOT3RR clpo13(talk) 08:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Dan56 is removing cited material, and has been outed by a senior admin as a problem editor. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I have tried to reach a compromise on the article. I've gutted one of the cites I added, which Dan56 feels is not credible, and retained the other since it was penned by an author who has written for the likes of the Guardian, Rolling Stone and ABC. I've also softened the negative tone somewhat. 90.222.127.214 (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. As has been pointed out to you several times now, that is not vandalism and not an exception to 3RR. Dan56 seems to have reached but not exceeded 3 reverts so I will continue to monitor their edits. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:JzG reported by User:DrChrissy[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [89]
  2. [90]
  3. [91]
  4. [92]
  5. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page and through edit summaries

  1. [95]

Also see

  1. [96] see edit summary
  2. [97] see edit summary

Comments: I believe the user is an admin.
DrChrissy (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a boomerang here if this wasn't already part of an ongoing GMO ArbCom case. JzG only had three reverts when you look at continuous edits. DrChrissy however tried to keep edit warring their content back in while not using the talk page at all:

  • 11:13, October 5 Added content based on a primary source [98]
  • 12:20, October 5 Re-added after it was removed asking for secondary sources. [99]
  • 12:29, October 5 Re-added again. [100]
  • 12:55, October 5 Later added a separate piece of content based on another primary source after being asked already not to do this. [101]

One can debate whether the last one counts as a "revert" or not, but it seems to indicate a mentality of running up editors to 3RR with one piece of content, then moving to another very similar piece. I had two reverts in the process trying to get DrChrissy to stop and come to the talk page with still no comment there at this time from DrChrissy.[102][103]

I think it would be best to put this page under full page protection until the ArbCom case is over. I'm not sure if AN3 or admins here can do anything with the case open (not sure on when the prelim discretionary sanctions can kick in), so I'll ask Guerillero and L235 what the protocol should be here since they've been active at the case recently. Maybe this has a better place at the case itself, so it's probably best to see what they or other clerks/arbitrators say rather than continue this further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 is anxious to deflect from his own edit warring on the same page here,[104] here[105] and here.[106] It is quite clear that he and JzG are tandem-edit warring to push a mutual POV. I would have brought this to the attention of the admins here, but I was not sure of the procedure and although Kingofaces43 is definitely edit warring, he has technically not broken 3RR. I strongly urge admins to consider this as an isolated, but extremely disruptive, incident by JzG/Guy that should not be pushed over to ArbCom - they are already busy enough. I am confident that admins and the community can deal with this "in-house".DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that [107] and [108] are part of an uninterrupted series of edits in succession on my part. Removing a newly proposed piece of content followed by another revert asking the editor again to stop edit warring and come to the talk page is something I have no problem being open about, contrary to the aspersion that I'm "deflecting". Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This is within the scope of the case at ArbCom, and I have requested page protection: [109], which could also be an appropriate outcome here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The page has been full protected for one week. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • So, DrChrissy is editing an article with biomedical content, despite being topic-banned from biomedical topics (ssomething he tacitly acknowledges here), is being reverted by a couple of other editors, WP:OWNs the article, and, as always with DrChrissy, the problem is everybody else - which is why he was topic-banned from biomedical articles in the first place. I don't know about anyone else, but I can work with Atsme, SageRad and all manner of other people, but not DrChrissy, because DrChrissy consistently assumes bad faith, asserts that only xyr POV is neutral, argues by assertion and can't even spell compromise. A boomerang here would be richly deserved and would give the resto of us a chance to stop that article being list of reasons Glyphosphate is the spawn of Satan and turn it into something resembling a decent article that the reader might get more than halfway through before losing the will to live. As per Talk, in fact. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 21:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
At least I can spell "something"! The reason I was making those entries into Glyphosate was to introduce general information that glyphosate is found in our waterways. Nothing more, nothing less. This is to help the reader understand that the herbicide is out there in our aquatic environments, and the section then leads into toxicity in fish and aquatic mammals. My edits did not include any "scary" terms about the spawn of Satan, they simply provided RS-supported evidence about a fact something many of us already know - glyphosate is in our water systems. Regarding comments about not/working with "all manner of people", please restrict your comments to content and not the editors.DrChrissy (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I spell really rather well, but type inaccurately due to bone-deep burn scars on the fingers of my left hand. Your statement here was redundant to all the other self-excusing statements you always make every time your behaviour is questioned. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:93.135.14.96 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Block, Semi)[edit]

Page: The Flash (2014 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.135.14.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [110]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [111]
  2. [112]
  3. [113]
  4. [114]
  5. [115]
  6. [116]
  7. [117]
  8. [118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

Comments:

I am well aware that I myself accidentally went over the three-reverts limit by one, and will accept the consequences of this. My reverts were in good faith to restore the article to status quo against a troublesome IP editor. Alex|The|Whovian 12:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I was already in the process of looking at the edit situation when you made the report. Tabercil (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: May I kindly ask any Administrator to please notice that the reporting editor did not even mention with one word the actual issue at hand. Kindly take some time and read through the discussion on AlextheWovian's talk page - you will notice that the reporting editor failed to provide any Wikipedia Policy or Guideline when he was asked to provide a policy or guideline to support his removal of the Episode headline from a TV series. Even worse, this editor thought he could bypass Wikipedia's rules by proving a user-generated essay and a Wikipedia Information page as an explanation of his edits. This proves that this editor has no policy or guideline support for his edits.
    I went to the The Flash article in order to see when the latest Flash episode would air. To my surprise I didn't find the Episode link in the TOC. Some editor in June 2015 removed the Episode headline from the main article without establishing any consensus, and without providing any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and hid the Episode link underneath the Premise headline. The Premise headline has nothing to do with Episodes. As a result of this, readers of this article have their time wasted by scrolling down the entire article searching for the Episode link. Sure, the editors who hid the Episode link know that it is right there at the top underneath the Premise headline. But the casual reader of the article doesn't know this. Mostly all other TV series article have the Episode headline in the TOC. Those TV article who don't have the Episodes in the TOC have been tampered with by the reporting editor or his buddies.
    Also notice this short discussion here from one other reverting editor who appeared on the article after Editor AlextheWovian exhausted his 3 reverts. Coincidence? If any Editor wants to lower the quality of the article by hiding the Episode link from the TOC, they should please provide a Wikipedia Policy or Guideline to support their edit. Blocking me is not the solution to this issue. Thank you. 77.4.168.182 (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This user is now a self-admitted sock puppet, using different IPs to get around their block. Alex|The|Whovian 13:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Tabercil issued a block and I've semiprotected the article. The page seems to have a problem with long-running IP vandalism independent of this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:RedBoyLI reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Warnings)[edit]

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


3RR warning: [121]

Comments: I realize I've provided no diffs above, but it's fairly easy to see just by looking at the history of the article. RedBoyLI and BlueboyLI, both SPAs (RedBoy more so), have been having their own little private edit war on this article (this is not a report of a 3RR breach) since about September 28, which is when RedBoy created an account (the BlueBoy account is much older), clearly in an effort to mock the other account. Whether the red and blue in the usernames signify the two main American political parties, I'm not sure, but my guess is they do. I've been watching this little battle for some time in frustration because, unfortunately, due to a few past edits, I am WP:INVOLVED. So, finally on October 2, I warned both users about edit-warring. For a few days it was quiet, whether in response to my warning or not, don't know. I'm bringing this report because RedBoy reverted again. As you can see from his response to my warning, he thinks he's right and the other party is wrong. He also mysteriously thinks he's not reverting ("I have rarely ever reverted of edited any of BlueBoyLI's edits. He has edited every single one of my edits without fail. I understand this is an edit war however I am not the one at fault in this matter, BlueBoyLI has never allowed me to make an edit to this page."). There's nothing new under the sun.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you suggest what uninvolved admins should do? Except for occasional copyvio (text may be taken verbatim from press releases) I don't see any flagrantly bad edits. But both parties are risking sanction for long-term edit warring. Since 28 September they continue to revert one another without any use of the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Although there may be more, two possibilities come to mind. The first is to extract an agreement that they won't edit the article. The problem with that is the duration. In their case, one week simply wouldn't be long enough. If you make it too long, which seems to be warranted, you are effectively topic banning them. The other is to block them and to escalate the blocks if they resume the battle after block expiration. BTW, although I officially reported only RedBoy, I knew that one of the possible results would be blocking them both. For that reason, I notified BlueBoy of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm also curious about the similarity of the usernames. It seems unlikely these two would be created independently and be interacting with each other ... Redboy has now responded with a promise not to edit war. I suggest we wait and see. I'll watch list the article now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Stefan2 reported by User:CFCF (Result: both trouted)[edit]

Page: File:08klemperer.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stefan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:08klemperer.jpg&oldid=684143704

Diffs of the user's reverts: [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [127]

Resolution is available in edits on talk page and in edit summaries. With each revert a new additional explanation was given as well as discussion that adding the template was incorrect. See User talk:Stefan2. CFCF 💌 📧 22:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Seeking discussion at WP:FFD is not edit warring. Are you honestly suggesting that I should list a file for deletion without tagging the file as such? Enforcing WP:NFCC is not edit warring per WP:3RRNO §5. Also, you are not to delete file deletion tags from file information pages. That is to be done by an admin when the tag is evaluated after the timeframe specified in the template has expired, see {{uw-idt1}}. That's why we have templates such as {{hangon}} and {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the {{non-free reduce}} template is unrelated to the first two edits as it is about a different part of WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You should simply not be listing the file for deletion when you have no rationale and it is disputed, and should especially not reintroduce those templates. Your edits amount to edit-warring despite my efforts to introduce clarifying text you simply reinserted the template without so much as specifying any reason why it should belong. Deletion tags can be deleted as per WP:SNOW and do not need to be closed by admins as on commons. Neither does edit-warring require the exact same reverts, it specifies reverts in general. This is clear disruptive behavior and amounts to WP:POINTY, and the fact that the first three diffs are rotations of the same template makes no difference.
Each of my edits added content or specific rationale despite being clearly infer-able from the description text. I tried to improve the text and add information on why this page would be inapplicable for deletion. This is despite policy dictating that it isn't to use the specific template for rationale. Neither is it needed to specifically state that a new image of a dead author can not be taken, that can be inferred and was included in the description and clarified with each subsequent edit. CFCF 💌 📧 22:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The addition of {{non-free reduce}} has nothing to do with the other edits as it has nothing to do with the points at WP:NFCC which were addressed in the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template. WP:SNOW only applies in the event of obviously erroneous deletion tags. The snowball clause is normally only to be used if a lot of users disagree with the nominator and few agree with the nominator, but there were only two editors who made any statements about the file's compliance with WP:NFCC – you and me. Hardly the kind of 'mass agreement' that you'd expect in snowball cases. In this case, you just need to check WP:FUR#Necessary components and WP:NFCC#10c and you will immediately spot the errors in the original revision:
  1. WP:NFCC#10c states 'The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item' but the page says 'his article' without specifying any article title. The page does not even specify who 'he' is (although the person's last name appears in the file name).
  2. WP:NFCC#10c states that there should be 'a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item' but the page states that the file is to be used 'to illustrate his article' without telling why the image is supposed to illustrate the article or on what rationale it should illustrate the article.
  3. WP:FUR#Necessary components states 'What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage?' i.e. the FUR should explain why the image is thought to comply with WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3 but there is no information whatsoever about this. See for example WP:NFC#UUI §7 which addresses some images which do not satisfy WP:NFCC#2. The image is sourced to a newspaper, and newspapers contain many images of the kind which are deemed unacceptable per WP:NFC#UUI §7. How can I tell if this is one of those kinds of images when there is no information about this on the file information page?
  4. Next bullet point at WP:FUR#Necessary components: 'If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original?' but there is no statement about WP:NFCC#3b anywhere on the page. The article uses a significantly smaller thumbnail, so why do we need this larger image on the file information page?
  5. Next bullet point at WP:FUR#Necessary components: 'What purpose does the image serve in the article?' The file information page only says 'to illustrate his article' but the purpose of an image is always to 'illustrate' an article. It is obvious that you need to be more specific, as you see from reading the four indented bullet points below this bullet point.
  6. Next non-indented bullet point at WP:FUR#Necessary components: 'Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media.' The file information page states 'Dead in 2012'. WP:NFCC#1 states 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created'. That he is dead shows that no content can be created, but is there any free content which already exists? It seems that he worked for several years in the United States, and United States copyright law is a bit 'special' in that photos first published in the United States may be in the public domain in the United States because it was published without a copyright notice before 1989 or without a copyright renewal before 1964. Why are there for example thought not to be any such photos? The copyright notice & renewal rules can't be applied to photographs first published outside the United States, though – such photos normally remain copyrighted for 95 years from publication in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
{{non-free reduce}} was added twice and in addition to being WP:POINTY it does not fall under

Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.


Also 3RR-violation is unrelated to reason for the reverts, specifically:

An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.


There key here is unquestionable, and with rationale specified in the exact manner allowed by you even you concede the image is allowed-that doesn't sound like a unquestionable violation.
What we are getting at is that in each edit I made it full clear how and that I was trying to answer your specific concerns and you ignored and chose not to engage-simply readding the templates.CFCF 💌 📧 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can see, I have only added {{non-free reduce}} once to the page. After this, another user added the template to the page, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think this is a TROUT to both. To CFCF, you should not remove FFD tags; they should only be removed by SNOW if it is clear at FFD that the discussion is in favor of keeping the image. Additionally, Stefan is right about the non-free reduce aspect - that image is larger than it needs to be here. To Stefan2, a quick check shows that this seems like a valid image to be used (the infobox image for a deceased person) and while the NFCC rationale criteria needed to be fixed up, tagging for deletion is absolutely not the right way to go about it; it is a fixable problem that did need to be fixed to meet policy, but not with a heavy hand and edit warring to make it. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The problem is that CFCF insisted that the WP:NFCC violations mustn't be corrected. Per WP:NFCC, files which do not satisfy WP:NFCC are to be deleted – and since CFCF goes against any attempt to fix the file, the only other outcome is deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No that is not the problem, each and every edit I made opted to clarify. Also instead of tagging the file as being needed to improve or actually filling out the rationale as per your liking yourself you started out with deletion. The text included the entire rational, it does not need to be spelt out in your preferred machine-readable format, that is policy (WP:NFCC). The problem is that readding frivolous deletion tags when the rationale is clearly specified in text is WP:POINTY in addition to here a violation of WP:3RR. CFCF 💌 📧 00:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As noted above, the so-called 'rationale' didn't contain any of the elements needed in a rationale, and without knowing anything about the origin of the image, it is not possible to write a fair use rationale which properly addresses WP:NFCC#2 or WP:NFCC#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
2. & 4. The rationale linked those from the start ([128])! It specifies the NYTIMES obituary where the image was from and it specified that it was to be used in the article on Klemens von Klemperer only - so that proposition is patently false.
Also that is not the issue at hand here. The fact is that you violated 3RR despite my best attempts to in each edit to clarify, discuss, explain and to comply to your preferred format for showing the rationale (despite not needing to). CFCF 💌 📧 00:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
For 2, you need to know if it is an image of the kind mentioned in WP:NFC#UUI §7 or not. I am not able to tell whether this is the case from that source alone. The fact that the image comes from a newspaper could suggest this. About 4, sorry, I must have mixed this up with another image. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Stefan2 has reached but not exceeded 3RR (two of the diffs provided were not reverts). He/she should avoid this in future by seeking outside assistance instead of warring with the tag. CFCF has 5 reverts within 24 hours, and I suggest a 24 hour block for a first offence. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
That is entirely incorrect, and without any supportive evidence. Both has Stefan2 violated 3RR, and I have not. Each edit I made opted to answer Stefan2's concerns and did so. Despite my attempts to discuss and improve the rationale to exact spefication requested by a single user (and not supported by policy) templates were simply reintroduced. The fact that the templates differed in minor extent does not exempt from 3RR, they are all the same type of revert and calling it anything else is WP:Gaming the system. They are either simple redirects or very close alternatives.CFCF 💌 📧 10:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I admit that this was in error, [129]. I don't know how it happened and it must have been a miss-click from the watchlist page on my phone. Being one of the lasts edits of the night I was unable to see that it was accidental before this morning (I have since reverted it and will make sure to disable the rollback option on my phone (those links are less than 0,5mm high). CFCF 💌 📧 10:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I accept your explanation, but that was your fifth revert in 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, seeking outside assistance was precisely the intention of listing the file at WP:FFD – that's one of the places where you can find outside assistance about files. It might have been better to list the file at WP:NFCR instead, but it was late and I guess I was tired and that I didn't think as clearly as I should have. Sorry about that. Still, inserting the {{ffd}} template was not a reversion, nor was inserting the {{non-free reduce}} template a reversion. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Inserting {{Ffd}} is a very clear example of a revert, even though it was not the exact same template merely an alternative with ever so slightly different wording and formatting. As for {{Non-free reduce}} it is at least considered WP:POINTY to add it just after the prolonged issues with adhering to exact specifications of an arbitrary non-required template. CFCF 💌 📧 11:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Inserting FFd was not a revert. That is a different template with a different purpose (deletion discussion rather than speedy deletion). I'm not interested in analysing this further and presenting the diffs - the history of the page is sufficient evidence to any administrator of your violation of 3RR. I would also prefer not to sully your clean block log. What I am looking for at this stage is some kind of acceptance of your actions and reassurance that it will not reoccur. Your combative attitude is not really helping. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I will agree I have acted rashly in this case and have potentially overstepped my bounds. I did not consider removing the template once rationale had been filled out as a revert, but take it to heart. That said I am gladdened and hopeful that in the future we can use WP:NFCR in lieu of deletion nominations. As was clear there was a rationale for this image and if it were that the original uploader was not able to comment upon a deletion nomination within the specified time-period there is risk it may occur in error without sufficient review. CFCF 💌 📧 11:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
In that case I second Masem's suggestion above. Consider yourselves trouted and let's move on. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb reported by User:Logom (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: Aziz Sancar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684559249 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684559564 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684560203 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684561138

Blocked 24 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Logom's actions need looking at too, but don't have time now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Logom was reported by User:Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb at AIV. While not vandalism, it's clear they were also edit warring. Blocked 24 hours. --NeilN talk to me 12:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:2.98.38.127 reported by User:Jmorrison230582 (Result: Blocked 31 Hours )[edit]

Page: Scottish Parliament election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.98.38.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  1. 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

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

Comments:

I am disappointed that User:Jmorrison230582 has reported me for this. I am mewrely trying to defend a consensus that was previously established by a large number of wikipedia editors. On a number of occassions I have tried to point User:Jmorrison230582 and others in the direction of where this consensus was established. I have also engaged on the Talk page and User:Jmorrison230582 has not. Instead the argum,ent has been misrepressented (I suspect because no one has bothered to go and check what consensus was established). I have been trying to engage in dialogue on various talk pages, the same can't be said for others. When I revert an edit, I give good reason why, others have just done so. I am disappointed that User:Jmorrison230582 has reported me for this and has also started going through my edit history to start unding other constructive edits I have made, again User:Jmorrison230582 fails to say why or engage properly on the talk page. I am trying to act in good faith. It is ashame I am not met with the sameapproach. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been warned about your edit warring, yet you continue to do it! You have not pointed out where this supposed consensus was reached. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

GB fan beat me to it. Blocked for 31 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ofthepeace reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: Book of Isaiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ofthepeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [130]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [131]
  2. [132]
  3. [133]
  4. [134]
  5. [135]
  6. [136]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have informed the user of basic requirements for editing Wikipedia at [138].

Comments:


The reported user is a fundamentalist POV-pusher who does not recognize WP:RNPOV, WP:VER and WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Adon12 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Bongbong Marcos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Adon12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684597428 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism per WP:BLPSOURCES"
  2. 15:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684583988 by Non-dropframe (talk) Suggest discussing this on talk page WP:BLP"
  3. 15:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "source is not reliable"
  4. 15:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bongbong Marcos. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User reverted three different editors. These are this user's only contributions, subsequent to two identical reverts by IP 180.191.158.132 Scr