Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive297

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:73.159.141.25 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Blue Lantern Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
73.159.141.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 17:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) to 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    1. 17:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Changed to document FIRST publication of drawn Character of the drawn character and titled "Blue Lantern " as referenced by Author and publication and documented."
    2. 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Changed to document FIRST publication of drawn Character of the drawn character and titled "Blue Lantern " as referenced by Author and publication and documented."
  2. 16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685887705 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
  3. 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685886963 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
  4. 16:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684577957 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Blue Lantern Corps. (TW)"
  2. 16:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Blue Lantern Corps. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has been attempting to restore contentious and uncited material for weeks. This is just the latest attempt. IP is reverting multiple editors. ScrpIronIV 17:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Yanping Nora Soong (report #2 for a different article) (Result:blocked)[edit]

Page: Anna Politkovskaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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. 1st revert
  2. 2nd revert
  3. 3rd revert
  4. 4th revert
  5. 5th revert

There are other reverts on the page but these five reverts are clear reverts. He claims a W:BLP exception but he is not using the BLP noticeboard and is being antagonistic in discussion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a diff, but there is clear evidence that this addition complies with on the talk page supports WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR that would make the claimed WP:BLP exception invalid. I am not "retaliating" as Beyond My Ken claims but simply looking into problematic edit warring behavior by this editor. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not 5, but 8 reverts!--Galassi (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Plus 2 on october 13. Which makes 10.--Galassi (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Removal of BLP violations is an absolute defense against edit-warring sanctions.

Here's the situation: Anna Politkovskaya‎‎, a critic of Vladimir Putin, was murdered on October 7, 2006.

October 7 is the anniversary of the American victory in the Battle of Bemis Heights, and of the opening of Cornell University. It's the day in 1840 when Willem II became King of the Netherlands, and the day in 1996 when Fox News started broadcasting. In 1977, the Fourth Soviet Constitution came into effect, and in 1963 John F. Kennedy signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. October 7th is the birthdate of American baseball player Evan Longoria, the cellist Yo-Yo Ma, the singer-songwriter John Cougar Mellencamp, as well as Oliver North, at the center of the Iran-Contra Scandal, psychiatrist R. D. Laing, the Australian playwright Thomas Keneally and the American poet Amiri Baraka.

All of these birthdays and events are connected with October 7, but the one thing that User:Volunteer Marek, User:My very best wishes, User:Alex Bakharev and User:Galassi want to make note of in the article on Politkovskaya is that October 7 is the birthday of Vladimir Putin. This is not a fact that is in dispute, the murder occurred on the birthday of Vladimir Putin. However, many people have speculated that there's some connection between the murders and Putin's birthday, and an impressive list of sources has been accumulated which show, without any doubt, that that theory, those speculations, do indeed exist. What hasn't been presented is anything beyond speculation and conspiracy theorizing. There are no sources presented which actually present any evidence of a causal connection between the murder and Putin, or, even, a correlation between the murders and it being Putin's birthday.

Absent such evidence, including in the article the information that the murder took place on Putin's birthday is not an innocent addition, it carries with it the clear implication of some sort of connection between Putin and the murder or the killers. Such an implication is a clear violation of the BLP policy, because although the speculation and conjecture is well-sourced, the obvious implication is not sourced at all: there is no evidence, as of yet, from a reliable source which purports to show that there is a relationship between Putin's birthday and the murder of one of his critics. If and when such information comes to light, then it can be reported on, but until that time, including mention of Putin's birthday in the article is a BLP violation, and is subject to immediate removal. BMK (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the OP is just following me around making trouble for me because of the other dispute. BMK (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry? You're the one who's been performing retaliatory reverts against me on articles that have no interest to you whatsoever. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
For the record the OP started this highly inappropriate thread on the article talk page. At best the OP is a newb (less then 150 edits as I write this) who doesn't understand WikiP's policies and guidelines. At worst this is a display of WP:BATTLEGROUND MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure why this is inappropriate. I have tried my best to follow guidelines and policies; I am not mass-messaging individual people, or even talk pages. I have only posted a single notice in which BMK has engaged in retaliatory and antagonistic behavior against half a dozen editors on that page, if not more. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The OP went to Anna Politkovskaya, which she's never edited before to revert my BLP-removing edits, I ran into the OP on Williamsburg Bridge and she claimed I was following her, when in actuality it's on my watchlist and I have the largest number of edits to that article of any single editor. Just now the OP went to 1900 Galveston Hurricane, where's she never been before, to revert my edit there, an article also on my watchlist, to which I have 66 edits, again the most of any single editor.
Who, I ask, is following who?
This all stems from our dispute on Union Square, where the OP wants to inappropriately extend the section on chess players in the park, when she admittedly is one of them and wants to write a whole article about them. The rest of her actions are retaliatory in nature. BMK (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yanping Nora Soong, this text yourself and others are repeatedly reinstating starts with WP:WEASEL text "Many sources have noted…". It is inappropriate for a WP:BLP. Please stop adding it. —Sladen (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
That is readily fixed (if naming of individual sources is required) but I am not sure if this really justifies BMK's edit warring behavior. BMK has shown no attempt at trying to create a modified version that doesn't violate WP:BLP. That would be constructive editing. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'd like to note that the OP just WP:CANVASSed Volunteer Marek [2], My very best wishes [3], and Alex Bakharev [4] to come to this discussion. BMK (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing applies to things like featured article/picture candidates, articles for deletion, RFAs and the like, or anything where broad community consensus is required. WP:CANVASSING does not apply to requests for administrator attention. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yanping Nora Soong, it would be extremely hard to reformulate the text in a compliant way because the text involves WP:SYNTHESIS. —Sladen (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that the last time this issue came up, admin Swarm wrote:

I agree that this is a very well-grounded BLP concern. Thinly-veiled innuendo such as this that obviously implicates Putin in a murder of one of his opponents is entirely non-neutral and out of line with BLP. If reliable sources directly discuss his connection, there's nothing wrong with including it, but the contested phrase is horribly passive-aggressive innuendo that implies much more than is written, and that's not appropriate for a neutral article.

and the article was protected by Callanec. BMK (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Ok, let me try:

1) I have no idea who User:Yanping Nora Soong is or what other disputes with BMK they're involved in. They left a message on my talk page.

2) BMK has been edit warring on the Anna Politkovskaya page. Against multiple editors, including at least one administrator. They have made EIGHT reverts within 24 hrs, plus previous edit warring.

3) BMK claims a "BLP exemption" from 3RR. BLP is a very important policy. But it's purpose is not supposed to be a way to WP:GAME the system and get around the 3RR rule. The BLP exemption for 3RR applies only if the BLP violation is relatively uncontroversial. If the text under dispute is vandalism, or if it is unsourced, or sourced to obviously shoddy sources. This is not the case here. The text in question is sourced to multiple reliable, even academic and scholarly sources. A ton of sources have been provided on the talk page.

4) While BMK has made comments on the talk page they have failed to engage the discussion in good faith. All of their comments pretty much boil down to "I'm right, you're wrong, I don't feel like discussing this, BLP! BLP! BLP!". And then revert, revert, revert... revert x8.

5) I and others have repeatedly suggested that the matter be taken to BLP noticeboard for outside input. BMK has shot down that idea, insisting that their way is the only way.

So. There may be some ulterior motive to the fact that User:Yanping Nora Soong filing this report, I have no idea. But even if that's true that doesn't change the fact that BMK's behavior on this article - which includes misrepresenting sources and extensive edit warring - has been atrocious. Unless they're willing to make a promise to step back, chill out, and discuss the issue, a preventive block is needed. Volunteer Marek  03:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I had no idea that User:Alex Bakharev was an admin, but it wouldn't have mattered if I had. As an admin, he should be ashamed for trying to edit-war a clear BLP violation into an article. Shame. BMK (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, Q: have there been any changes in the intervening period that might lead to different outcome, from the outcome a month ago when you brought this up here[5]? —Sladen (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, there were significant changes since the previous report as reflected in this section of article talk page. Volunteer Marek provided ~30 new sources in the beginning of this section, and we briefly discussed this with him. No one else took part in this discussion during a couple of weeks, and no one including BMK objected (although BMK did make this very strange comment on article talk page during this time), so I thought this could be a good time to implement changes. I must agree with comment by VM above, and would like to add that: (a) BMK clearly acts against consensus on this page, (b) in this comment BMK refuses to discuss the subject and falsely blame other editors of hatred, and (c) here he makes a blatantly false claim that the content was not sourced, when in fact it was sourced to two books [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Local consensus cannot override policy, and BLP is policy. In fact, it's not just policy, it's POLICY. BMK (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems to be a serious and clear-cut violation of the 3RR policy. And when the individual violating 3RR knows better since he's been blocked 5 times in the last 5.5 years for edit warring. Most recently just 3 months ago. -- WV 03:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, if there weren't a clear exception to 3RR for removing BLP violations:

    3RR exemptions ... 7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). WP:3RRNO

    Do you seriously believe that I would be so freely and adamantly reverting if it wasn't exempt? C'mon, you don't have to love me, but at least concede that I'm not an idiot. BMK (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The BLP exemption applies if the edit in question is vandalism, if it's unsourced or if it's sourced to shoddy sources. None of these are true in this case. And you know this. You are just using BLP as a way to WP:GAME policy. The fact that you have failed to engage in constructive discussion is additional evidence of that. You seem to think that you have found a loophole which you can use to revert others as many times as you wish. That's, at the very least, disruptive and also sort of shitty to other editors.
In fact the very same paragraph of 3RR policy that BMK is quoting above also states: "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.". It has been repeatedly suggested to BMK that this'd be taken to WP:BLPN. They poo-pooed the idea basically saying that they get to do whatever the hell they wish. Their eight reverts in less than 24 hours shows that that is indeed how they wish to proceed here. Volunteer Marek  03:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Volunteer Marek's assessment. -- WV 03:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I blocked BMK earlier for edit-warring in this article followed a RFPP request (only came later across this thread). For the material, please follow the dispute resolution avenues.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Soundwaweserb reported by 94.253.23.60 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Talk:Novak Djokovic (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soundwaweserb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [7]
  2. [8]
  3. [9]
  4. [10]

Link to talk page: [11]

Here is another link to the talk page discussion, since the reported editor is removing it. [12]

The other editor close request. I gave relevant references, your reference is not relevant. Please stop reverting, obviously one user with more IP address vandalize that page.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That other editor really doesn't have any connections to the closure requests. This is the first one he had closed and it was not done properly. He is also Croatian or Serbian and it would be nice for uninvolved editor to close that request. That is why I reopened the request for closure in the appropriate place and that is why I reverted him on the talk page since I reopened the closure request. He hadn't complained since the morning and it really isn't your place to revert me. You could have complained to him that I'm removing something he had closed. I stress again. He really isn't an editor to do the closure, he had never done it. He came out of the blue sky , closing this improperly. Let's leave it for other experienced editors to close this. Him closing this request is pretty much like if I were to close someone's request right now. I'm sure those other person would also complain someone totally irrelevant is closing his request. 94.253.23.60 (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

IP continues to revert, please block IP, discussion is over and request is rejected. Also, this is obviously one person who have more IP address and constantly vandalize talk page.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary. You keep to revert. A discussion can't be closed with an open closure request. I reverted you since it seemed my upper comment had gotten to you, but I was wrong. Unfortunately, this will have to be resolved by an admin. To repeat, I still stand that it is not your busyness to revert me, since I'm going to a certain procedure. I filed a closure request that is opened and it now points to a "closed" discussion because you keep reverting me. You are highly disruptive and I'm really not surprised after this comment of yours to the other editor who entered the source to the article: "What's your problem and why are you introducing lies and Croatian propaganda to the article. No one made you to enter Novak parent's supposed nationality to the article. Without any reason you are destroying the article of such a great sportsmen. We all know Novak is Serbian and he represents Serbia, and we don't have to speak about how much he loves Serbia. It is not right for you to do this and with that you are backing up nationalistic and shovinistic propaganda.". I think it is obvious that is a POV pushing stand. You are highly rude to the other editor who entered the sources to the article. You are participating in edit warring and you are POV pushing. You are plain disruptive even without this edit warring. Your quoted comment perfectly shows you joined the discussion to push POV and deny a legit source. You went on putting a video as a source and you claim it says something, but when I asked you to point to it, you refused. You refused to provide an English quote from sour supposed source and you completely neglect it is a primary source, yet you keep denying my secondary source. That's plain disruptive and now an edit warring because you can't accept the fact that I'm following the procedure to close that request. Do you even realize that you are opposing an admin who made a suggestion, me who brought the source and another editor who entered it to the article with no source and with no valid stand but with this POV pushing stand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.23.60 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link to the closure request: [13]. It still stands open and not initiated. How can then a discussion be closed?? 94.253.23.60 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, and you continues to revert, I gave two relevant sources about that. You are pushing POV agenda, personally attack me and other user with which you disagree or have different views. I have no doubt, you are troll.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You did not provide a valid source. It is a primary source, which is not on English and you didn't provide any quote from that source to support your opposition. Not only that, but you yourself perfectly explained your point of view in that quoted comment I provided here. This is an edit warring report so please stop posting unrelated things. You are edit warring and it is being reviewed. You still did not provide any explanation for your behavior. Why are you reverting me to appear a discussion is closed when there is an open request for closure? Your reverts are disruptive and without any valid reason to be done. 94.253.23.60 (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. It appears that the warring has stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I stopped reverting, pending this report. Of course the other editor had stopped because he got his way by edit warring.194.152.253.48 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I just restated the request to be opened pending the closure request I filed. We will see if this editor continues with edit warring. The matter is very simple. Theres a pending closure request so this edit request can't be closed.194.152.253.43 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Here we go. You failed to react and mark the reverts that the reported user was doing as inappropriate which now encouraged another user that objected without a valid stand to put back the closed tag. I opened a closure request so lets please stop edit warring and let the request be closed in a proper way. You two expressed your opposal but othet 3 editors expressed their approval. Let this be closed in the appropriate way.194.152.253.40 (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Now we have an IP-hopping editor from 194.152.* reverting the close of the edit request at Talk:Novak Djokovic. This is considered abuse of multiple accounts, so I've semiprotected the talk page for two weeks. If your objection is due to the ethnicity of the closer, don't expect to get much sympathy from admins. EdJohnston (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, if you didn't notice, all my posts today are done over mobile editing, thus not surprising my Ip is changing. I'm not complaining about anyone's ethnicity. The request was not properly closed by an unexperienced editor. It's like I were to go to close other request. However, that's far beond point. I reopened it and the editor who had close it didn't complain, as nobody else had. It remains open and pending. As long that is the case I don't see how a request can be closed. I'm really done with this. I came here for help, and end up being prevented from editing. I already left the notice why this request has a closed tag while the request is formally opened. If you as an admin don't see the inconsistency, why should I corrent it. I filed a closure request and that's all that matters. Bye.194.152.253.49 (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Alwaysgreen reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
History of Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Alwaysgreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "again continuation by 2 editors to get ownership of article breaking wiki rules of ownership and neutrality"
  2. 16:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "tell that to the people who believe they have ownership of article"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) to 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    1. 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "no need to mention all titles of royalty and repetition, names of other monuments remains to present day"
    2. 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "restoring contributions from people who think they have ownership of article"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC) to 15:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    1. 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "no need to all details"
    2. 15:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "palais du louvre castle"
  5. 13:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on History of Paris. (TW)"
  2. 16:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on History of Paris. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Attempted to recommend talk page, but the editor's summaries indicate no intent to do so. Reverting three different editors, removing maintenance tags, and appears to be a sock account. ScrpIronIV 17:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


Here is page protection requests dtd 17 August [14], 8 & 15 of October [15] I left at History of Paris talk page. In that of 15 October 2015, I gave names of socks, aka Aubmn:

8/15 October 2015:

Requesting that article be given protection from rogue editor who is not a new editor but one of the many sock poppets of an editor who has been banned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aubmn#August_2015
This editor has been pursuing me at every article I have been working on, reverting me in order to drive me to edit warring. The edit warring he drove me into from end June to August 2015 at the Marie Antoinette article is what caused his banning; however, he had been disruptive, edit warring with other editors & causing endless discussions at the Marie Antoinette talk page for months before. His tactics are always the same, and so his interpretation of Wikipedia rules.
Following are names - since August 2015 - under which he has continued his disruptive behavior at article on Chartres, Welborn Griffith, then here at History of Paris:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whiteflagfl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Europatygr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntermiam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thesaviourblue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pirategreen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alwaysgreen
There is not an article at which I work where he does not show up under one of these names & begin playing his game.
--Blue Indigo (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It appears that User:Ponyo and User:Bbb23 have taken care of the accounts you listed above. They are all blocked except User:Thesaviourblue, who hasn't edited since August. For more details see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aubmn. The problem was originally reported at SPI by User:KateWishing. EdJohnston (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, could you please block the latest WP:DUCK, Merybeit (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)?[16] KateWishing (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Robert the Broof reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page
Tobacco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Robert the Broof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
[17]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "revert to previous; that edit removed and changed the reliably sourced info according to the references"
  2. 16:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686037522 by CorbieVreccan The content in the RS is accurate; it is you who are substituting your original expertise without any source; this will have to go to discussion."
  3. 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "back to stable version. per WP:BRD, the burden falls on you to defend your changes in discussion, in meantime per WP:VER and WP:3RR kindly stop edit warring to remove reliably cited info you DONTLIKE"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tobacco. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Inaccurate, colonial and new age content */ new section"
  2. 16:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Inaccurate, colonial and new age content */ The sources you're edit-warring to preserve are not WP:RS"
  3. 17:34, October 16, 2015 (UTC) "/* Inaccurate, colonial and new age content */ Again, you need to learn about this if you're going to edit on the topic."
Comments:

Fourth revert of same content after final warning on History of tobacco:[18]. Reverting all article edits wholesale via "undo", not just the source they mention in edit summary. - CorbieV 16:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same longstanding content "on a different page" that CorbieVreccan removed to continue the edit war, but it should not be counted as a fourth revert to the same article to remove me as a substitute for addressing the debate. Robert the Broof (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You mischaracterize how this works. I'm working on a lot of articles. I have no interest in you or edit-warring with you. It's not about you, it's about improving the 'pedia. - CorbieV 17:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You took the time to report me here to remove me from the equation for responding to your wholesale removal of longstanding reliably sourced info after I reverted you on a seperate article, counting that as a fourth revert. What exactly did I micharacterize?? Robert the Broof (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
How about instead of trying to ramrod your new revision in like there's no tomorrow with minimal discussion and remove all challengers, you let people have a chance to discuss this for a while, give it some time...? Robert the Broof (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 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. It looks like discussion is happening so I hope I don't need to protect the page or block anyone (and it'd be CorbieVreccan given you've broken 3RR at Tobacco). But be warned any more reverting an there will be blocks. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:75.150.96.1 reported by User:Steve Lux, Jr. (Result: stale )[edit]

Page
Pumpkin Fest (New Hampshire) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
75.150.96.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC) to 12:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    1. 12:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Pumpkin Fest (New Hampshire). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I already stopped posting. I guess trying to make listings truthful is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.96.1 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Continuously removing relevant information that is pertinent to the article is not helpful in any way. Your personal feelings towards the article/group/events related should not influence the way the article is written or the facts that are provided. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale It looks like they've stopped (given their comment above as well), if they continue please let us know. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:69.65.84.195 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: blocked )[edit]

Page
Bang Bang! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
69.65.84.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Action "thriller" */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Has an obsession to referring to almost any action film as an "action thriller"; does not stop at anything despite being warned, and most of the films he sees as such are either simply action, or action comedy. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Smoore95GAGA reported by User:SNUGGUMS (Result: blocked )[edit]

Page
Confident (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Smoore95GAGA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "That is not a sentence"
  2. 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "6 critics isn't enough? Very interesting, since Stories by Avicii only has 4, yet the score for that is displayed. You guys are hypocrites."
  3. 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Metacritic is perfectly stable. If the score changes, I will adjust it accordingly."
  4. 18:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Please stop. Ali Payami did not produce For You, Max Martin did"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 17:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC) to 17:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    1. 17:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "She said in an interview that Max Martin did produce For You"
    2. 17:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Why wait a month? It's only been a week since Revival's been out, and the meteoritic score is on that page"
  6. 13:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685974239 by SNUGGUMS (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Comments:

User has previously been blocked twice earlier this month for edit-warring. Does not appear willing to discuss edits outside of edit summaries. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The user who reported me has been taking down meteoritic scores with 8 reviews because they said 8 is "not enough", yet I looked at the page for "Stories" by Avicii, and that only has 4 reviews, so I reverted back because 8 must be enough if 4 is. I am not trying to edit war, just trying to make all pages equal. Also, I am very much willing to talk outside of edit summaries. SNUGGUMS is making that up, because if you look at their talk page, I messaged them first about all of this. They did not message me. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Struck the edit summary bit out. Anyway, regardless of review count, making 7 reverts to an article within 24 hours like this is considered edit warring. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm only reverting things that aren't correct. Metacritic scores are perfectly fine to add to the page, and SNUGGUMS for some reason has decided that it's "not stable." I have told them that if the score changes, I would update it on the page. Smoore95GAGA (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. @SNUGGUMS: you are very close to getting blocked for a 3RR vio as well, don't get carried away with the reverting, it's much better to report and wait. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:N0n3up reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked )[edit]

Page
Pound sterling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
N0n3up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686099716 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) No sources support this 40% data"
  2. 00:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686098877 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) I did, all there is, is a book title, and an rpi site, please read my message on talk before any further edits, youre past the 3RR by now"
  3. 00:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686098389 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) But there is nothing to support the number"
  4. 00:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686098168 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) No source point to 40% that you keep implying. Leave the neutral sentence alone"
  5. 00:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686097748 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) There is no misuse. I gave you the source. You went beyond the Three revert rule"
  6. 00:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "rv did you even read it? There is nothing that says that war debts created the depression"
  7. 23:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686095482 by 204.116.6.232 (talk) The last source, did you look at it?"
  8. 17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685999528 by 2600:1015:B118:8ADD:DDFA:9602:39C:5DCD (talk) take it to the talk page"
  9. 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685902889 by Bagunceiro When the edit isn't variable which isn't the case, you can pull WP:RS, but for now it's on a variable(stable) version. The IP is edit warring beyond the 3RR"
  10. 18:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685890852 I've already told you of the sources. Please stand by discussion before making edits without consensus"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Just noticed this from the ANI report. This user has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring and should know better. I also warned the edit-warring IP. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:204.116.6.232 reported by User:LjL (Result: not blocked )[edit]

Page: Pound sterling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.116.6.232 (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]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Comments:I'm an uninvolved editor, I simply believe this escalated well beyond reasonableness and should be adddressed.

LjL (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked Only because they have said they will stop and don't have a history of this. However I have blocked the new IP on the page. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:18.62.17.7 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked )[edit]

Page
Imia/Kardak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
18.62.17.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  • Please note: This is not a classical case of violating the 3RR in 24 hours but of persistent slow-motion edit-warring moving the name of Turkey ahead of the name of Greece in the infobox for no good reason. This type of POV edit is endemic to this article and has happened multiple times in the past.
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Will keep doing this."
  2. 22:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Turkey comes on top of Greece."
  3. 19:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685811393 by Dr.K. (talk)"
  4. 03:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Imia/Kardak. (TWTW)"
  2. 22:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Imia/Kardak. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Moving the name of Turkey on top of the one of Greece. Typical POV edit on this article as shown in this diff from 2012. Last edit-summary indicates intent of continuing the edit-war. Also please note IP's reply to warnings on IP's talkpage: "Will keep doing this, you fuckers should shut up!". --Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of two days. If they continue after that I'll stick a longer block on them. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton reported by User:190.20.157.16 (Result: Boomerang)[edit]

Page: Captive killer whales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captive_killer_whales&diff=686101036&oldid=686098794
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captive_killer_whales&diff=686108599&oldid=686108541
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captive_killer_whales&diff=686108866&oldid=686108837
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captive_killer_whales&diff=686109088&oldid=686109060

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jojhutton&diff=686108781&oldid=685927687
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jojhutton&diff=686108963&oldid=686108781

User has made 4 reverts in a little over an hour, undoing clearly described improvements without any explanation, though leaving attacks and false accusations of vandalism on my talk page. 190.20.157.16 (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Typical vandal adding false, misleading, uncited, and possibly libelous original research to an already contentious article. Vandal was warned several times. JOJ Hutton 02:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Typical liar slandering beneficial edits for pathetically self-serving reasons. I added nothing of any kind to the article. I only removed material. So what, pray tell, could possibly have constituted libellous original research? Kindly retract your own libellous accusations at once. 190.20.157.16 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
IP account just blocked one week for block evasion. JOJ Hutton 04:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 year anon only on range 190.20.0.0/16 per previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mneshat reported by User:William Avery (Result:24 hour block)[edit]

Page
Xerxes I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mneshat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Added Persian Spelling of the name in the introductory line"
  2. 09:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Name added in Modern Persian"
  3. 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Name in Farsi (Modern Persian) is omitted at the top ?! */"
Comments:

In a minority of one. Warned by User:Doug Weller. William Avery (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • While three reverts within 24 hours do not constitute a violation of 3RR per se, previous edit warring ([31], [32]) is sufficient to justify a 24-hour block for edit warring regardless of 3RR. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:66.218.112.1 reported by User:Stabila711 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
66.218.112.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "it was clearly one of the most memorable moments from the debate and deserves to be quoted in its entirety. Chopping off half the quote certainly violates WP:NPOV as doing so feigns support for HFA & takes the statement out of context"
  2. 20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686215606; quoting the entirety of the statement made by Bernie does not violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR"
  3. 19:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686214598 by 2600:1003:B85B:8C2A:0:49:CAEA:7401 (talk)"
  4. 19:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686213915 by JayJasper (talk)"
  5. 18:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686184325 by 63.131.224.128 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Repeated attempts to insert OR material into the article that fails NPOV. Stabila711 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Inserted material does not fail NPOV. It is simply the full version of the exact quote. Thanks.66.218.112.1 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:68.231.26.111 reported by User:Gizmocorot (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page
Portal:Current events/2015 October 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
68.231.26.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686236869 by Calinjaxnc (talk)"
  2. 22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686236635 by Gizmocorot (talk)sockpuppet you are in violation of 3R - you have given no source!!!"
  3. 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "I dont need to discuss sht with you sockpuppet - you have given no citation which anyone but a sockpupet like you would attempt to convince anyone is real"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) to 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    1. 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686234377 by Gizmocorot (talk)"
    2. 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686234307 by Gizmocorot (talk)i'm a vandal but you are trying to put in an item cited by no one anyone has ever heard of"
  5. 22:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "pseudo science tripe"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Portal:Current events/2015 October 17‎. (TW)"
  2. 22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 22:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Portal:Current events/2015 October 17. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Gizmocorot, you are very, very close to being blocked as well. NeilN talk to me 22:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Nonc01 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: No blocks. Just stop it, please.)[edit]

Page
Toronto FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Nonc01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685975471 by Bluhaze777 (talk) better before"
  2. 23:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686085091 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) run-on sentence doesn't make sense check grammar"
  3. 01:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "see talk page"
  4. 01:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686257180 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) it has to be concluded that it should be added, first."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Weak edit war with Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs). Has been in edit wars over this article (or was it a Toronto FC season article) in the past. Fewer edits and this editor's changes were usually attempt to come to a compromise, but to be fair to other editor, I feel that I should report 3RR violation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • This is too mild. No action should be taken. It is worth noting that the "run-on sentence doesn't make sense" edit undid a punctuation error. Walter Gorlitz, I don't know why you are reporting this since you also removed Vaseline's edit--unless you are suggesting that the patrolling admin of this board look carefully at Vaseline's edit warring in the article: they're at 5, and Nonc is at 3 or 4, depending on how you count. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs), kindly don't revert anymore and wait for talk page consensus. I'll be glad to weigh in as well: I can find Toronto on the map and I have a Canadian friend, so I know this subject matter. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Zacksfenton reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Warning )[edit]

Page
Discovery Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zacksfenton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686220973 by Dbrodbeck (talk) Ahh so he admits it"
  2. 20:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686220613 by Dbrodbeck (talk) This rendering is clearly less polemic and better reflects a NPOV."
  3. 20:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686207235 by Roxy the dog (talk) NPOV is not merely 'consensus'. Diversity of views and neutrality cannot be claimed while conducting censorship."
  4. 18:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686189014 by Robynthehode (talk) It has been discussed in the talk page. This page, as it stands, is outrageously biased. A NPOV is not inherently atheist naturalist."
  5. 12:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686160124 by Robynthehode (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* October 2015 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Undue weight, and don't edit war. */ new section"
Comments:
  • User:Zacksfenton, it's pretty clear that you're edit warring. That is a blockable offense. What's more, your account seems to have been made specifically to make this one edit. Now, you may discuss this to your heart's content at Talk:Discovery Institute, but if you revert one more time, or remove the informaiton one more time, without having gained consensus for it on the talk page (hint: you won't get it--it's a pretty clear case, I think, but please try and prove me wrong) you will be blocked, and it's entirely possible that it will be an indefinite block with an admin linking WP:NOTHERE. So please heed this warning. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )[edit]

Page
Toronto FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 00:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686243498 by Nonc01 (talk) it is not a run on sentence, it is a list. Perfectly fine"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC) to 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    1. 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "how is qualifying for the playoffs for the first time in franchise history a weak achievement? First time in its history is a strong achievement and should be stated."
    2. 00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 01:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ""
  5. 01:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "It has not been concluded that this should be removed"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "/* TFC article */ new section"
  2. 01:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC) "/* TFC article */ Moved from my talk page, as my talk page notice requests all conversation in one place and TB templates to be used, and replying"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I tried to discuss, but editor accused me of page ownership and continued to edit war over his preferred version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, to be fair, it is really a double edged sword. He accused me of page ownership even though it had yet to be concluded if the statement should be removed or not. All I am saying is, is that to accuse me of page ownership to my "preferred version" can be said the same for the version you "preferred". It has not been discussed yet on the talk page fully so there is no way to tell if either of us were attempting unintentional page ownership. Not pointing fingers, just my two cents. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It was also taken to the talk page after a few edits to have a calm discussion. Before I even knew how many reverts I made, I took it upon myself to not revert anymore edits before it has been concluded by discussion on the talk page, which I have made contributions to. My intention was never to edit war. I am much happier to see it settled by discussion. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina[edit]

violation of one revert restriction on Jeremy Corbyn - one two Govindaharihari- I notified the editor Govindaharihari (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Charlesaaronthompson reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: 16:54, 14 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18:34, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City]], [[New York]]
  2. 21:03, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City]], [[New York]]
  3. 22:54, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]
  4. 23:40, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]
  5. 23:50, 18 October 2015‎ Changed |city= to [[New York City|New York, New York]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
The user has already been blocked for 3RR in the past on 21 September 2015.[33] In the last few days, the user has received a warning by administrator Resolute and two followups by myself in three unrelated incidents where the user continued reverting even as talk page discussions were ongoing.[34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Brooklyn_Nets#Home city location for the Brooklyn Nets since 19:56, 14 October 2015.

In another discussion started 21:58, 18 October 2015 by Rikster2, the user is repeatedly asked to respect WP:NOTBROKEN for the same |city=, as Charlesaaronthompson was continuing to edit even with the other issue outstanding.

Comments:
The user has a persistent habit of continuing to revert even after other editors attempt to engage in discussion. In the above report, talk page discussions started October 14 and are still ongoing, yet the user resumed editing |city= on October 18.

Here is another discussion started by me on 05:58, 18 October 2015, asking the user why they removed information from another article, only to have them continue to revert.

Charlesaaronthompson mostly avoids egregiously violating 3RR (aside from the previous block), but is frequently in multiple isolated cases still reverting even after the WP:BRD should have reached the discussion phase. I'm not seeing a noticeable improvement in this behavior. WP:CTDAPE is a concern if the lack of restraint of reverts during ongoing discussion continues..—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Flushout1999 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


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

Consecutive deletions of previous edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [35]
  2. [36]
  3. [37]
  4. [38]
  5. [39]
  6. [40]
  7. [41]
  8. [42]
  9. [43]
  10. [44]
  11. [45]
  12. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
More than 12 reverts in less than 1 hour. Massive deletion of sourced material (around 30,000 characters) occurred under the claim that content was too similar to the inline sources and that they were "quotations". Can this be considered "vandalism" or "disruptive"? I reverted the deletions and added more sourced material, and then I left a long message on the talk page in order to further check the issue with this user in the existing discussion ongoing.Flushout1999 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Those are consecutive edits and count as one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)