Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive308

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Jewjoo reported by User:Chrisw80 (Result: Duplicate)[edit]

Page
Meryl Dorey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jewjoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "I don't care that your pc is disfunctioning, details on page 312 - its a RS. stop it, ur being disruptive. pls go and buy book. u are calling me a liar - stop it"
  2. 07:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "pft, heres link with extra info to link to page 312. btw shes proud of, not derogatory. change text if not 100% ok, pls don't delete"
  3. 06:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "heres your Rel Source - any more excuses avoiding truth of someone signing name to this??"
  4. 06:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "yes her name is a signatory on that page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Meryl Dorey. (TW)"
  2. 07:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "Regarding book citation"
  3. 07:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Meryl Dorey. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "Some sources for consideration"
Comments:

I think the diffs stand for themselves, I did try to work with the user to resolve this. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Unhappy that I pointed out that the book has a blank page (my computer isn't malfunctioning) where he says there's content to support his addition and that the other source is considered unreliable per Wikipedia guidelines. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok have ur way Chrisw80 and delete the RS, ur the only one who cant see page 312 (btw RS don't need to be no net - remember!) and use it as an excuse to get nasty, report me on this page without substance, deny a RS on a page and u have a a problem with medical theory of aids dont u?. its pathetic and abuse of power some may say. to all others heres the page 312 that Chris cant see on purpose to support his excuses https://books.google.com.au/books?id=647iSGYuEa4C&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=%22meryl+dorey%22+aids+theory&source=bl&ots=UIVa5oPH1O&sig=n_LX2BcDstMygSxIbGsPjwdiHGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsjd23mf7KAhXKppQKHTgcCKMQ6AEIRTAG#v=onepage&q=%22meryl%20dorey%22%20aids%20theory&f=false Jewjoo (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jewjoo, as I've explained previously, my concerns are only with whether the sources are verifiable/reliable and (at this point) your behaviour surrounding the repeated addition of the content and incivility towards others here. I have been civil with you, I would appreciate it if you return the favour. I tried to work with you to resolve the disagreement you are having with myself and several other editors. I'd be happy to work with you, but we all need to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Arnav19 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: )[edit]

Page
List of Tamil dubbed soap operas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Arnav19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 00:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 10:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 00:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 10:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Currently airing 2016 */"
    3. 10:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 10:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

He keeps creating articles on dubbed TV serials, not original ones, even though it is discouraged here. He does not respond to warnings, and reverts edits by those who oppose him. Examples: En Anbu Thangaikku, Priyamana Thozhi (TV series), Poomagal and Moondru Mudichu (TV series). Kailash29792 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the above. Dubbed serials are usually simply redirected to the original serial's page or hould have a small section referring to the dubbed version on the original version's page. Most of the time, the actors and technicians are unaware of the dubbed serial being screen else where - and it is usually hastily put together by a distributor with local dubbing artistes to make quick bucks. The same goes with dubbed films. The editor in question has blindly reverted some of my edits too, without discussion. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

203.158.49.44 reported by User:Wcp07 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Bankstown railway line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 203.158.49.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

203.158.49.44 and other related IPs continue to make POV edits to the article without discussing them on the talk page, despite being advised to do so. The user appears to be disgruntled by the planned conversion of the Bankstown railway line to the Sydney Metro and wants to advertise that on the article page. The user's edits involve using POV language ("downgrade", "unfit for purpose") and not using references to back up his/her assertions (e.g., that the Sydney Metro will be a "low capacity" service). Despite warnings on the article talk page and user talk, the user continues to make these edits. It seems like a block might be the only way to curb his/her behaviour. Wcp07 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) Pictogram voting comment.svg Note I've watchlisted the page, but it seems that the IP changes too much for a block to be likely. If I see anymore edits, I'll take it to WP:RPP -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

User:209.66.197.28 reported by User:Zanhe (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page
Taipei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Tongyong Pinyin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Pinyin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), many others
User being reported
209.66.197.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC) "enough bullshit with the wrong characters.nobody in taiwan uses the wrong tai anyways. stop reverting wtf."
  2. 20:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "wrong.nobody uses that tai in traditional. the taiwan on taiwan beer is there because it was founded under japanese ruler. nobody uses that taiwan."
  3. [8] "wrong characters removed"
  4. [9] "stop reverting to completely wrong chinese characters!"
  5. Many more, see user contribs
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [10] from LiliCharlie
  2. [11] from Jayaguru-Shishya
  3. [12] from me
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [13] on Talk:Chinese Taipei
  2. [14] on Talk:Puzi
Comments:

Can administrators please take action already? This disruptive IP has been edit warring for weeks across a number of articles against multiple editors. An ANI complaint was filed last week, in which at least five users complained about the IP, but it was neglected by admins and became archived before action was taken, leaving the IP free to make disruptive edits again. Zanhe (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Please take action. Note that this user was reported last week on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have put a lot of effort into attempts to engage him in dialog on several talk pages since February 9th, most recently on Talk:Taipei, but he has steadfastly refused to discuss, apparently preferring to edit war. Phlar (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Put an end to these abuses. This user has been distracting lots of serious editors from their work far too long. I wanted to explain them why all their edits are against the manual of style for China related articles and why their use of the |p= parameter of template {{zh}} for Tongyong Pinyin is incorrect but they don't show any interest in discussion or cooperation. Instead they keep doing the same thing that seems ideologically motivated over and over again. Do something now. LiliCharlie (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakrtalk / 03:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aricialam reported by User:Reiuji (Result: protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1[diff]
  2. 2[diff]
  3. 3[diff]
  4. 4[diff]
  5. 5[diff]
  6. 6[diff]
  7. 7[diff]
  8. 8[diff]
  9. 9[diff]
  10. 10[diff]
  11. 11[diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #1[diff]

  1. 2[diff]

Comments:

Editor Aricialam has been previously reported and warned by several editors for edit warring. The result of that was the page being frozen. Notwithstanding this, for the past few months now,User:Aricialam has reverted more than 20 edits in an attempt to keep the Calvin Cheng page as a piece of puffery. Myself, User:Lemongirl942, User:Khairulash, User:JQTriple7, several anonymous editors around have all tried to improve the page but are all getting reverted by Aricialam. My previous attempt to raise the issue on the talk page was met with the section on the talk page being deleted wholesale by Aricialam. Clearly this user has not shown any intention of engaging in any serious discussion and is merely using reverts and delaying tactics to wear out other editors in an attempt to keep the current state of puffery.


Reiuji (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have now engaged with Aricialam and some progress has been made. I do not feel any action is necessary at the moment. Reiuji (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected --slakrtalk / 03:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fez120 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Kosovo Liberation Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Fez120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "See talk page! Sourced content is wrongly interpreted."
  2. 20:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705489621 by FkpCascais (talk) No reasons were given for last revertion."
  3. 19:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705469498 by 23 editor (talk) The text in the source is presented as accusations, not as facts. Also why did you revert my changes?"
  4. 17:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Aftermath (post-1999) */ FRY accusation to gather support for their case are not facts. If y2000 incidents happened surely there must be better sources."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

The user was blocked for 31h for edit-warring on another article (also covered by discretionary sanctions for Balkan-related subjects; diff for DS-alert) 10 days ago so they know the routines.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

POV edit-warring, repeatedly deleting sourced content they disagree with. Thomas.W talk 21:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that he also commented in article space.--Zoupan 21:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 3 days by User:Slakr. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: also WP:ACDSed to 1RR for 3 months, too. Twice in one month isn't a good sign. :P --slakrtalk / 04:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon self-reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: warned/troutted)[edit]

Page: Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]

I am self-reporting myself for edit warring. I have no excuse, but as an explanation, I simply forgot about the first revert (in the body of the article) and thought that I was at 3RR for my reverts of the infobox -- and I really should have stopped at 1RR or 2RR. I am well-aware of our policy, and clearly violated it. For what it is worth, I apologize and I won't do it again. Please note my record: over 30,000 edits and ten years as an editor with zero blocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rainbow trout transparent.png Troutted — And here. Take an {{Alert}}. Now just chill, take a deep breath, and either use the talk page or get some fresh air. Just don't do it again, because it's a WP:ACDS area and self-reporting what appears to be an honest mistake will only ever work once, if that. Be a cool voluntary 1RR-er like many of us. --slakrtalk / 03:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Understood, and thanks. 1RR it is. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bonadea reported by User:Spidermanandsuperman (Result: Reporter blocked)[edit]

<!Article name :List of records of India

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]
  5. [24]
  6. [25]
  7. [26]
  8. [27]
  9. [28]
  10. [29]

<!Please take necessary action <!Bonadea is sock puppet of nsmutte.Bonadea name entered in to the list of Nsmutte sock puppet list [30] <!Please take necessary action(1000mnb (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)) Please verify the primary and secondays sources of this matter .This is indian record created by a doctor,can see in primary source .[1].←So kept in the "list of records of india"page.I cant understand what is the mistake in this.Bonadea and releted socks wantedly try to delete this above matter from the page many many times.It is purely personal attack on the doctor(1000mnb (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

References

User:71.17.185.31 reported by User:Jess (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Intelligent design movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
71.17.185.31 (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 21:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) to 21:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 21:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 20:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 20:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 20:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 20:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  5. 20:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [31]
Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W and User:Sapphorain and User:LouisAragon reported by User:Aidepikiwnirotide (Result:filer blocked 24h)[edit]

Page
Qajar dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Thomas.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Sapphorain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Comments:

These user work as a cartel - a tricks to show that a single user is against multiple users. - Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Baseless nonsensical allegations against three users. Hmmm... what's that thing flying over there... - LouisAragon (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) A totally frivolous report in retaliation for the report above. Thomas.W talk 15:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours, clear 3RR violation and I see no discussion at the talk page Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aidepikiwnirotide reported by User:Thomas.W (Result:24h)[edit]

Page
Qajar dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aidepikiwnirotide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Sure, always I prefer to discuss so I explained my "logical" reason, but apparently you along with your friend are doing "Edit-War". Perhaps some editors here think that Wikipedia belongs to them and their friends!"
  2. 14:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "As mentioned in Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti article it was ruled by Iran ["...from bringing it fully back within the Iranian domains."]whereas Iran was NOT ruled by Russia, but also it lost "ONLY A PART OF" its territories which means totally different."
  3. 12:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "As mentioned in the article Qajar is "AN IRANIAN DYNASTY" So, the next dynasty must belong to Iran not other country such as Russia or any other county."
  4. 10:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "losing a part of a country by another country is a usual matter in history. It is not an exception."
  5. 02:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Russia is unrelated to this article that is about history of Iran"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Qajar dynasty."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

POV edit-warring against multiple editors. Thomas.W talk 14:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

edit-warring against "multiple editors" or a "cartel!" ? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC), clear 3RR violation and I see no discussion at the talk page Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Satesclop reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Catalonia protected)[edit]

Pages:

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


Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]
  5. [37]
  6. [38]
  7. [39]
  8. [40]
  9. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments: Multi-user edit-war among no less than three articles and probably more than those. A current flare-up of nationalist vs. separatist sentiment among Spaniards. Page protection has been declined. Elizium23 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely false. I am not nationalist. The user Elizium23 is clearly separatist and supports that the articles of three regions of Spain include maps as if it they were countries or Europa's nations, and they only are regions. It is unacceptable that these maps appear and it has been discussed in the corresponding pages. Satesclop 03:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I have full-protected Catalonia for three days, as that has had the most back-and-forth on it. In his defence, Statesclop has stated his position on the talk page, and while Basque nationalism can exhibit some of the most contentious politics in Western Europe, I have to assume good faith he is trying to get a consensus for his changes, so a block is not appropriate. If the other two articles exhibit similar levels of edit warring, consider filing a request at WP:RPP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Since we can't edit the Catalonia article anymore, I request to recover the text and the maps that most users agreed to display — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 16:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion Satesclop's behaviour is not good as he's constantly edit warring and he's done canvassing — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 16:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
With all respect, @Ritchie333:, you may have overlooked data, Satesclop's attitude is nothing short of "my way or highway", breaching the basics of WP at all levels, consensus and trust of the editors. The disruption of Satesclop on other pages may continue for the boredom of other editors. Please do read the talk pages, there is no consensus attempt at all, only rant. I do not understand the comment on Basque nationalism (irrelevant), we could go through details on Spanish nationalism or mafioso policies of some political agents if you want, which I do not thing applies here anyway. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I have read the talk page. I don't see much discussion before January, and following that I would say that Statesclop has generally responded in kind. All I see is a few editors complaining that somebody has a strong POV they don't like. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Really? Well, that is not what I am seeing with my own eyes and what other contributors are seing. Check out this and this, and this, plus the following WP:JDLI tantrum of the editor in question. You know, good editors are leaving the EN WP because of this kind of Satesclop interventions with no consequences. Plus the editor has engaged in canvassing, plus... (sigh). Iñaki LL (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
It's funny that a user that just puts his point of view in edit summaries and talk pages, does not dialogue with other users, and has no problem to break any rule to impose his POV — including canvassing (see [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], etc.) and sockpuppetry (see [51]) — can go through an edit-warring inquiry with no consequences. No wonder that good editors are discouraged. (Yes, Satesclop has finally been blocked indefinitely for using a sockpuppet, but that doesn't wash the stain of this inquiry.) --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 14:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aelimian21 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aelimian21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705868049 by Qed237 (talk) Please, inform me why you are repeatedly reverting or undoing to protect your preferred version."
  2. 00:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705863724 by Qed237 (talk) It is adding more detail."
  3. 00:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705857428 by Qed237 (talk) Why?"
  4. 23:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705847574 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
  5. 22:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705846570 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season. (TW)"
  2. 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring against multiple users at 2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season, 2015–16 West Ham United F.C. season and 2015–16 Southampton F.C. season. Editors User:Joseph2302 and User:Andre666 have opened discussions at User talk:Aelimian21#Your edits and User talk:Aelimian21#Southampton season article respectively, but despite that and warnings for edit warring the editor has continued their disruption. Qed237 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree, I've made clear at their talkpage that the WikiProject Football consensus is to only list a player's primary position, not all of them. They've made no attempt to communicate or try and gain a new consensus on the matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have simply tried to put more detail onto the page, I don't see the consensus. You are the one Edit warring because you were the one that was repeatedly reverting or undoing to protect your preferred version.Aelimian21 (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I also tried to receive a explanation on User:Joseph2302, as I have opened a discussion on his page.Aelimian21 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It was posted on my userpage, not my talkpage, so it was deleted.
Also, my talkpage comment and the other one clearly explain that no other Wikipedia football article does it- the reason is it clutters the page, has little value, and is unsourced.
Also, I made 2 reverts with clear edit summaries and attempted to talk to the user- they have made 5 reverts, and so unless they self-revert, they should be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The editor has continued doing the same thing on other articles and show now sign of listening and following community consensus. Qed237 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree a block is overdue, their editing is disruptive, edit warring, and in some cases just plain incorrect (Graham Dorrans has not played much or at all at RM or LM for Norwich this season, so listing him as either is just plain wrong). And their "discussion" on my userpage was just telling me not to revert them, which is not a discussion at all.
Possibly a good-faith editor, but needs to learn to cooperate with other members of the community. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't personally see how it "clutters the page" because at most maybe 3 positions more will not be a inconvenience. I should listen a bit more to others, but as should you as I just want to see were it says that only the primary positions should be shown. In 2015–16 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season some of the extra positions were there already, I simply added more. Graham Dorrans has not played much at RM or LM for Norwich this season, but he has played there before. Aelimian21 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
So Dorrans shouldn't be listed as playing there in this season's article, since that's entirely misleading (he hasn't played there this season). Same for about half the positions added on the Norwich season article, they haven't played there.
And as explained at your talkpage, more information isn't always necessary, per WP:INFO. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Dorrans has played there in the past, which allows people to see the positions he can play. In this case it is necessary to provide info. Aelimian21 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. The user has continued with the war even while this report was open. If this continues a longer block is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexander's Hood reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Monarchy of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alexander's Hood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20:30, 19 February 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:55, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 20:30, 19 February 2016‎)
  2. 17:51, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 17:26, 20 February 2016‎‎
  3. 17:54, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 17:26, 20 February 2016‎‎
  4. 18:49, 20 February 2016‎ (reverts to 18:39, 20 February 2016‎
  5. 19:07, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 18:49, 20 February 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52] (also warning earlier in edit summary here)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Monarchy of Canada#"Succession and regency" update

Comments:
FWIW, I think 'more eyes' are needed on the article-in-question, concerning the content being disputed. Dare I say it, an Rfc might be required. BTW - such an Rfc, won't be started by me. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Alexander's Hood is not as new a user as the account's edit history might suggest. -- MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe SPI, is the proper place for that. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact, User:Miesianiacal is conflating separate issues and also overlooks his own edit warring. For example:

  1. 17:53, 20 February 2016
  2. 17:35, 20 February 2016
  3. 17:01, 20 February 2016
  4. 22:49, 19 February 2016

In any case, the issue seems to have been resolved. Alexander's Hood (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's evident at least one of those could in no way be classified as a revert. -- MIESIANIACAL 19:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Similarly, you class as reverts this edit and this edit which do not touch upon the content of the article at all but in which I removed your tag with an edit note explaining how, in fact, your tag was unwarranted -and you do this despite the fact that your subsequent edits appear to accept the source as legitimate. These last two edits are quite separate from the other three and conflating them in order to create the impression of a 3RR violation is unwarranted, particularly as, again, your subsequent edits accept the validity of the sources.Alexander's Hood (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what a revert is. But, it's not me you have to prove anything to. -- MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, it didn't occur to me that the last two edits counted as reverts and I have accordingly self-reverted the last two edits and will be more careful in future. However, I think you should attempt to be more collegial in your editing and less belligerent and perhaps this tagging dispute could have been handled better by raising it on the Talk page. Alexander's Hood (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Your "self-revert" restored the tag but reverted my additions and changes to the third paragraph. So, your tally still stands at five.
I suggest you not be hypocritical about other people's attitudes. You won't win hearts and minds that way. -- MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to be accommodating but since you're after a pound of flesh I am voluntarily ceasing editing for several days. Alexander's Hood (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm a WP:RETENTION member & this type of reason to go on a wiki-break, isn't nice to see :( PS - Return soon, Alexander's Hood. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: No action, in view of User:Alexander's Hood's agreement to stop editing the article for several days. It would be helpful if people will try editing more slowly on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:WrestlingPS456 reported by User:Krj373 (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
 Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported
WrestlingPS456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Seems to be edit warring on wresting based pages. Not quite sure what is going. May be a sock puppet of banned user. I am not familiar with the subject matter to understand what is going on. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 15:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely – as a sock by User:Materialscientist. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:LegalTrivia reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
LegalTrivia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
  2. 23:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 22:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC) to 23:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 22:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
    2. 22:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
    3. 22:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Jack Ruby */"
    4. 22:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Mafia Boss Carlos Marcello */"
    5. 22:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Mafia Boss Carlos Marcello */"
    6. 22:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Mafia Boss Carlos Marcello */"
    7. 22:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Mafia Boss Carlos Marcello */"
    8. 22:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Mafia Boss Carlos Marcello */"
    9. 23:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Santos Trafficante */"
    10. 23:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Santos Trafficante */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 21:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) to 22:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 21:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
    2. 22:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "added materials re Jack Ruby, Carlos Marcello and findings of House Select Committee on Assassinations"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Assassination of John F. Kennedy. (TWTW)"
  2. 23:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. (TWTW)"
  3. 23:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. (TWTW)"
  4. 23:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Adding unsourced, poorly formatted, content with fake references and POV wording. Will not stop despite multiple warnings. Account makes similar edits across several articles dealing with American politics. Disruptive editing, rapid-fire edit-warring. Dr. K. 23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Blocked by Acroterion for 48 hours. Dr. K. 23:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours by User:Acroterion, as noted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:100.43.29.68 reported by User:Jess (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
100.43.29.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 706228630 by Jess (talk)"
  2. 04:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 706197407 by Jess (talk)"
  3. 23:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 706081604 by Theroadislong (talk)"
  4. 07:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "Craig is as much of a philosopher as Plantinga or Dennett. Go look at Dennett's article and notice how he isn't referred to as an "Atheist Philosopher". Look at Plantinga's article and notice how he isn't referred to as a "Christian Philosopher"."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on William Lane Craig. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 01:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC) "/* What's an "analytic Christian Philosopher"? */ Reply"
  2. 05:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC) "/* What's an "analytic Christian Philosopher"? */ Reply"
Comments:

Note the first edit is a revert of content that has been extensively discussed over the last several years. See, for example, this edit and the talk page. Given the ip is at 4 reverts, I'm not sure if a block or temporary page protection would be most appropriate.   — Jess· Δ 07:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected As an IPv6 joined in the war, a block may just lead to them IP hopping. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Opdire657 reported by User:104.162.193.17 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Category:Temple Mount (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Opdire657 (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. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56]

Comments:
User has been blocked before for edit warring and continues to persistently push POV and edit war, despite being warned numerous times.

104.162.193.17 (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2016 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The IP is not allowed to edit or file reports because of the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 restriction. Blocked them along with the coordinated IP Special:Contributions/2604:2000:F20E:2800:7135:8C2:C554:2169 might help. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:LightandDark2000 reported by User:2A01:CB04:63D:D700:2135:C5BE:CDA7:AA6D (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria & Iraq modules. His bad faith edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000 and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000. In spite of being blocked many times for breaking 1RR, he continues to edit war & broke 1RR again. 2A01:CB04:63D:D700:2135:C5BE:CDA7:AA6D (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Those were size changes, not really anything related to content. In any case, I fail to see any good reason why you reported me, other than to get me thrown off of Wikipedia. In any case, the vast majority of your written arguments are biased and inaccurate; they sound like personal attacks to me. By the way, you can't report someone just some users are complaining or have personal issues with another. Also, the way you wrote about me sounds like you might be a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of a former user who was blocked from Wikpedia (though I could be wrong); there were multiple users blocked, some of whom are now socking, due to violating Wikipedia policy in that topic. BTW, I did not turn every single user against me, and I was not "blocked many times for edit warring", and I do not "continue to edit war" (the last time that happened was in November 2015), at least not intentionally. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
But if what happened constituted edit warring in any manner, I deeply apologize. It was not my intent, and I will take more steps in the future to prevent or mitigate future conflicts like this one. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The reported user found nothing better than to edit himself the "Result" of this report as "No action". This is highly unethical and deserves a sanction in of itself. 2A01:CB04:63D:D700:C453:D029:C2B6:89C2 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought that anyone could close off cases (esp. if it got stale). However, you cannot call down punitive measures on other users, not only is that bad faith, it is also a violation of Wikipedia conduct. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. Swarm 00:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: All parties warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [58]
  2. [59]
  3. [60]
  4. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]


Comments:
There was a dispute over some sections of the article which led to edit war between FreeatlastChitchat. Thanks to Toddy1 and HyperGaruda, we were trying to build a consensus. Suddenly, FreeatlastChitchat jumped in and started reverting without paying attention to the ongoing discussion on the article talk page (which he himself had started but had not led to consensus yet). Anyway, after his jump I reverted his edit and asked him not to be disruptive and pay attention to the current discussion. To my surprise he reverted me once again and claimed that there was a consensus over what he alleges (which was clearly not true!). Note: The reported user has been blocked five times till now (three times for edit warring). Moreover, he were unblocked by slakr provided that he attempts to self adhere to WP:1RR (his contributions shows that he has shown zero effort to respect WP:1RR). Mhhossein (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Rationale aka defence

Explanation for EdJohnston who was kind enough to ask about this on my TP. So here goes. The simple fact is that three editors agree with me that the text I removed falls under WP:COATRACK, one of them is the longtime editor and admin Drmies, the other two are also editors in good standing. However IF the nom can PROVE to anyone that the text is not WP:COATRACK I will accept any sanction given. On the other hand if the nom cannot give even a single argument for his editing, then the question should be "why did he revert me?" and he should be blocked for 24 hours as per his disruption. This is wikipedia, not a playground. A revert should be made only when you can argue for something. If you do not have rationale you should not revert simply based on the fact that someone has agreed to 1PR; for in this case you are just harassing that editor. As far as the ongoing discussion on TP is concerned, it is about other things, not about coatrack. The issue about coatrack has already been decided. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

First, there's no consensus on removing all the sections regarding the events (as you did). Second, I simply reverted you as there were an ongoing discussion on the TP, ignoring which you did what you wanted. Two of us were mentioning that the article needs some information on "on the holiday as it is celebrated nowadays", and "how are their actions related to the historical events from 1979". Anyway, it's not a matter of WP:COATRACK or other things, you're edit war is discussed here. Third, At EdJohnston's request I can provide some other violation of WP:1RR by the reported user. Mhhossein (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Mhhossein Firstly I hang my head in shame when I see that your sole reason for reverting me is "I simply reverted you as there were an ongoing discussion on the TP". Discussions are ongoing on TP All the Time, you should first see if the discussion is about a certain topic or not. The discussion about coatrack had been concluded, hence my removal. Secondly please stop this foolish forum style posting. You made a report. I made my defence. Let admins decide. If you want to make additional comments, fine with me, make then in the comments section. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
No, there were no conclusion over that! before you started your second round of reverts, you asked me and HyperGaruda if we were agreeing that they were coatrack, and I told you what my concern were (HyperGaruda did not make any comments). BTW, I see that multiple warnings and blocks has not made you refrain from calling other's edits "foolish". FYI, this is how we usually discuss in Wikipedia and it has nothing to do with "forum". Mhhossein (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein as per your own words your "concern is on the fact that the article lacks information on "how the holiday is revered in Iran" nowadays." How can you address WP:COATRACK concerns with a comment saying that the article "lacks information"? Seriously dude? Did you even read the coatrack essay? Just for once, read the guideline and policy. To be frank this is just a mockery of editing! Someone says there are coatrack concerns in their edit summary and a guy reverts them by saying "Yeah dude the essay lacks information" and then lodges an edit warring complaint. Really? I mean Seriously? I think WP:BOOMERANG of a 24 hour block and a reprimand should be served now, seeing that he himself gave the diff which brought to light his "grave concerns" which he had about the article, and perhaps the next time we won't have to go through this waste of time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a clear "No" in my comment. Are you trying to see it? Mhhossein (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein for that "NO" you should be blocked for 24 hours and given a stern warning. Saying "NO" is not enough, you must give a reason. As I said before this is not a playground. Why are you digging yourself deeper into this hole btw? Furthermore I will not be replying here anymore. Perhaps User:Drmies will be kind enough to take a look at this thread and close it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I had clearly explained why I was not in agreement. You're again uncivil enough to call my attempt to gather more views "ridiculous" (however it's more polite than using the "F" word (and it's derivatives such as "what the f**k and Shut the F**k up), "[you have] mental disease"[64], "you are a liar" and etc). Stop block block block please. Mhhossein (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

He also reversed me 4 times over the last few hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC) And before you claim anything, correcting an obvious mistake is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked the case. Both of you had clearly violated WP:3RR, as I explained below. Mhhossein (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: All parties are warned against further edits that don't have consensus support on the talk page. There is now an open RfC on the talk page; please use that to resolve the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston I would not open this topic (and a RFC), if I were to make further edits. Did you just notice that I was talking about an edit warring trend? The user is clearly accused on another case. Anyway ... . Mhhossein (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein TP discussion shows that 5 editors disagree with you with no one agreeing to you coatrack, your RFC shows that no one agrees with you. Show some good grace and let it be. Bottom line. The text you want to insert remains deleted unless you can address WP:COATRACK concerns. What you call a "trend" on my part is something normal wikipedians do all day long. i.e remove policy violations. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
See the the other topic reporting you. You are already guilty of violating 3RR. Mhhossein (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SethAdam99 reported by User:Nikki311 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: The Undertaker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SethAdam99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [66]
  2. [67]
  3. [68]
  4. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

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

Comments:
User:SethAdam99 has also had several warnings for disruptive editing. Nikki311 02:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As well as a final warning for pretending to be an admin on his user page. B. Mastino (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakrtalk / 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FreddyNietzche reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked indefinitely as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)[edit]

Page
Jürgen Graf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
FreddyNietzche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user ·