Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive319

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:The Master reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
Randolph Stone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
The Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724742292 by Alexbrn (talk) Per discussion, the article is not to be about Stone's ideas. Please reach consensus on talk."
  2. 05:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724741538 by Alexbrn (talk) Revert whule talk page discussion ongoing"
  3. 05:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724739250 by Jytdog (talk) Revert per discussion on talk. It discusses Stone's ideas. Stop edit warring or you may be blocked from editing."
  4. 05:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724738979 by Jytdog (talk) Please stop edit warring"
  5. 04:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "This is not what was discussed on talk. Also fails WP:MEDRS"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[1]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This grew out of this talk page discussion, in which The Master expressed dissatisfaction with prior removal of extended content about Stone's ideas, which had been removed per COATRACK. They got support to have ~some~ more discussion of Stone's ideas; The Master took that as license to restore the entirety of the rejected content. I reverted that edit since it was not what they had support for (and was still under discussion), and obviously in retaliation (and like the 3RR report below) The Master POINTY-ly removed well sourced info required by PSCI. This is disruptive edit warring and is blockable in my view. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Lies and misrepresentations, as usual, from the above editor. Jytdog regularly abuses guidelines to preserve articles in his preferred version and whenever he's about to hit 3RR, Alexbrn magically appears to continue reverting (this has happened repeatedly and across multiple articles and involved multiple other editors). Earlier, he said he didn't want anything in the article about the subject's ideas, citing WP:COATRACK, which was fine with me. Except that now he does want a paragraph about the subject's ideas because this one is negative, while the others are neutral, and Jytdog wants to push his POV. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz and User:208.81.212.224 reported by User:Evrik (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: I Predict 1990 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 208.81.212.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:02, 6 June 2016 Preferred version of the article: 15:51, 9 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 00:33, 7 June 2016 - first edit after protection removed
  2. 01:16, 8 June 2016
  3. 13:11, 9 June 2016
  4. 19:29, 9 June 2016 - reverted edit where disputed source had been removed and {{cn}} tag put in its place

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This is not the first go 'round for this disagreement. This is really a tempest in a teapot, but more than the content difference, I don't appreciate the bullying behavior exhibited by Walter Görlitz and his IP 208.81.212.224.

Let me state the facts as I see them.

I admit, the few other editors involved don't think it's a great source, but even after I removed the disputed source in an attempt to meet half-way, I'm being reverted. I will admit to using Pinocchio to comment on the truthfulness of a statement, but I don't deserve the insults:

Thank you. --evrik (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

So he did not list his own reverts, against WP:CONSENSUS. One editor here indicated that he believe the source was not reliable. Two at RSN have stated it as well, and of course, since the start, I have claimed the source is not reliable.
After the first RSN editor commented and I replied and there was a lull, I removed the content at the article.
evrik said that it should be taken to RSN on the article's talk page, I indicated that it had been and part of his response was "Really though, I would say that the commentary in the blog is good enough to substantiate one line of text" essentially saying "I don't care, I'm going to use it because I think it's a good source for its purpose". At that point, he restored the content with the unreliable source to the article.
I continued to remove it explaining why each time and discussing on the article's talk page as I did. All this was over the course of two days.
Now I am really digging into the issue and have discussed the other salient point on the discussion at article's talk page: why does this one song need to be mentioned at all when there are nine others that are on the album. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, I use this IP while at work and the registered account from home. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this feud before, can't remember where from, but I think it was a thread on WP:ANI last week. Anyway, I would recommend that everyone on the talk page calms down a bit, and the current state of the article as I look at it now does not look obviously problematic. I can't see any immediate need for protection or blocks, as there's not enough activity on the article to justify it. The only real thing I can suggest is the dispute resolution noticeboard. In any case, since I have had a finger in this debate, I am going to declare myself WP:INVOLVED (particularly since I think I expressed an opinion that the blog wasn't good enough to be used as a source) and let another admin take the decision on what to do with this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – Unless I misread it, there was no support from anyone else in the RSN thread for Evrik's desire to use empoprise-mu.blogspot.com to make a point about 'cult of personality'. Evrik should not count his own opinion as being enough to decide the matter. I urge User:Evrik to let this matter go unless he can find another source for the point he wants to make. For him to include the 'cult of personality' wording with *no* source is not meeting anyone halfway. It goes against WP:V. (Contentious material that is challenged and can't be sourced should be removed). Some people have engaged in personal attacks (as pointed out by Evrik) and that should not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, and thanks for not using a WP:BOOMERANG. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that the WP:BOOMERANG is now in order. Doesn't understand that the messages are warning templates. Doesn't understand that wikipedia is not a battleground. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Evrik is now angry that that things are not going his way and has decided to become WP:POINTY in the article and talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not angry. If I am making a point, it is to show that whatever edit I make is being reverted. This is the best example, I removed the disputed citation, left a tag on the text saying it needed a better citation. That too was reverted. I don't believe that Walter Görlitz is editing in good faith. I also don't appreciate the warning messages left on my talk page and the insinuation that I'm being a vandal. --evrik (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The point was made on the talk page: I have removed sentences about individual songs. However the qualitative difference between a sourced controversy and the meaning or theme of a song was not recognized. The last time you tagged the musical themes, I removed the tag as it was referenced in the liner notes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify the edit that evrik linked is not the current issue, this one is. It removes a reliable source that indicates Taylor's concert tour in Australia was cancelled because of a controversy around a song he wrote. It is similar to this edit where he tagged the stylistic origins of two songs—relying on two classical pieces. http://www.allmusic.com/album/i-predict-1990-mw0000864119/credits supports that, in part, but not to the song.
No, my issue is that WHATEVER edit is made gets reversed. --evrik (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page is around discussing the theme or thoughts behind the songs themselves. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion on the page has rambled from the quality ONE citation, to whatever it is now. The reason I have brought this issue here twice is the way that Walter Görlitz and the IP SOCK User:208.81.212.224 keep driving an edit war, using insulting language and abusing the term vandal to get what they want. --evrik (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
First, I am not an IP SOCK puppet. I use the IP while at work. That use is declared on my user page. I won't go into the reasons why I elect to do so while at work, but there is a rationale.
Second, the discussion on the talk page has progressed from discussing the source to questioning why there needs to be a discussion about themes of individual songs. I'm sorry if that's perceived as rambling.
Third, there is no edit warring. What we'redagger doing is telling you not to impose your opinion on the article. At first, it was clear that you were ignoring advice that the source was not reliable and then continued to add the content without reference. You have yet to explain why, but I suppose that's not really important. There has been very little abusive language. The links explain what's going on. Again, I'm sorry you're reading the links such as META:DICK and WP:COMPETENCE and not following the links to the essays that discuss what's going on behind the comments.
Finally, I don't believe I have ever called you a vandal. If I have, it should not have been said. You are trying to improve the article, but you're going about it the wrong way. I'd be glad to fully apologize for calling you that if you simply point to where it was stated. If it's the warning templates on your talk page, they're not stating that you're a vandal. Disruptive editing, which WP:POINTY addresses, is not the same as vandalism. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
dagger The we here does not imply that I at home or while at work constitute two editors. Rather, all of the editors who have weighed-in have focused on your edits as being problematic, hence we. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
If you don't want your edits reverted, make good ones. Start by discussing the edits and waiting for other editors to agree or disagree. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:AmericanExpat reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Racism in South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AmericanExpat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "I had made proposals for change on the Talk page. Not my problem if you guys don't read what seems such an important matter to you."
  2. 07:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725207455 by Jim1138 (talk)"
  3. 07:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed citation"
  4. 22:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC) uw-3rr
  2. 07:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* edit warring notice */"
  3. 07:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* edit warring notice */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Introduction Overhauled */"
Comments:

The editor in question has responded to warnings regarding edit warring and BRD with claims that he doesn't require consensus [[2]]

Personal attacks [[3]]

statements that if he doesn't mind if he has to get blocked to get his way [[4]]

more personal attacks [[5]]

and a response to accusations of sockpuppetry stating "Let's say I am a sock puppet account. What of it? " [[6]]

So, not only edit warring. Incivility and a general lack of respect for any rules that all editors are required to follow. WP:NOTHERE would be an apt description Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This article has been plagued with what appears to be years of inflammatory opinions, bias, bad citations and insubstantiated claims. There appears to be several editors, who perhaps have had some unpleasant personal experience, who seem bent on retaining the bad quality of writing on the article with the excuse of "consensus prevails." That is rather like the proverbial three wolves and a sheep deciding on what to eat for dinner with the consensus prevailing.
The article page will not be edited to any extent without some adversarial conflict such as this. So be it.
Yes, what if I answered accusations of sock puppetry with "what of it?" Why does the editor not actually respond to the enumerated points of concerns on that same section instead of fulminating about my "fucking" edits and accusations of sock puppetry? Was the plan to ignore my concerns and engage in vituperative exchanges to delay and thwart attempts at conforming the page to Wikipedia standards?
As stated, the editor, unprovoked, accused me of being a sock puppet and started off the acusation with the word "fucking." So the claim of personal attacks seems a bit rich.
AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


Additional - Despite this being a new account, this editor has been editing under more than one IP in the past, so I'm assuming he is more than aware of 3RR rules. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You are ignorant on this matter and you have raised the issue so I think you shuld leave it there. I had one other IP address, which I had been using for very minor Wikipedia edits. I stumbled upon this disasterous article under the IP. I raised some concerns but it became apparent that the editors were intent on keeping the incendiary and biased tone of the article, not to mention illegitimate citations and outright inaccuracies. So I created the current account to make an official complaint with the Help desk. I freely stated there that I had made changes (under the previous IP). So this claim is ridiculous and unfounded.
AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


Also - 07:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Fixed citation" is a highly deceptive edit summary. It was a mass removal of content (-2,660) with a summary of it being merely fixing a citation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
There was a citation fix in addition to reverting back to my edits which instilled neutrality and objectivity to the article. I am sure anyone semi-intelligent can tell the motive was not to deceive other editors. Almost all of the citations in that introduction section were in need of removal or moving to another section.
AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has started an SPI, since this new account's edits are similar to the recently blocked sock User:Cleftetus. One of their first edits to the page was to propose renaming to Ethnic Issues in South Korea [7], the same title Cleftetus favored, complete with a capital "I". Random86 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Good call. I guess as soon as I get a moment free in my (not very busy) workday, I will be filing an SPI report as well. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I find it very amusing that this editor takes the same ("similar"?) edit suggestions on a very controversial article and presumes it must be one person making the same suggestions. I think it shows lack of judgement, curiosity and intellectual honesty.
By all means, please do file the report. AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


Admin, please be advised there is a request for an admin oversight on this page. It really needs to be rewritten and completely overhauled. It is far below the quality standards dictated by Wikipedia. AmericanExpat (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged here by Jim1138 (thanks). I warned AmericanExpat about edit warring, but unfortunately that seems to have been ignored. Having said that, I'm not without sympathy for the editor, I myself found the tone of the article deeply disturbing and near-racist in tone. I've avoided editing it myself in case I needed to use the mop, but it really needs some serious oversight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. But, that's a content issue, and certainly no excuse for edit warring, especially when you have been warned and you combine it with a "go ahead a ban me, I don't care" attitude .If you don't like content, you follow BRD then try the vast array of options we have for discussions, resolutions and third party opinions. I might have some sympathy if he had tried every avenue and eventually got sucked into an revert war...but the account's first ever edit was a revert. [[8]] - which kinda shows he is here to revert, not discuss. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
All the more then- the SPI should be interesting! Muffled Pocketed 14:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
No. One, my first edit was not a revert. Two, there appears to have been many attempts to tone down the language on this article and you guys through "consensus" shut them all down. The last AfD was dismissed with "change the content, if need be." Did it change?
You guys have the most ridiculous and asinine statements on there. You take some stupid article, like the BLOG STORY on one black person who (along with a white person) did not get a job interview and you use that to cite for "black Americans are frequently denied jobs." What kind of joke is that?
You make claims like that the US expressed concern over "the widespread nature of racism in SK," then you link to some unpublished article by some imbecile who teaches English just because he submitted his UNPUBLISHED document on a DOE affiliate site. It wasn't even reviewed by an editor. The site is open submit to the public. But being on that website makes it "US (not even the Dept of Education but the US Sec of State or something) expressing concern over widespread racism" in a foreign country. Like the US really cares? Doesn't the US have its own problems?
Then you have some idiot who pretends to be a foreign policy expert on South Korea but who is, in fact, just a lit professor (that was his PhD). He self-publishes (wow, that's got to instill confidence) and true NK policy experts all pan his books. Yet, somehow, an OPINION EDITORIAL he wrote is a legit reference for "Koreans believe that they are the least inclined of all people to commit evil," and that's why SK didn't believe a warship sinking was perpetrated by NK. As I stated, do you not think SK witnessed horrific evil, maybe unprecedented evil, committed by the Communist North? Really? And that gives you the perfect segue into, "so Koreans denigrate foreigners by calling them filthy and unclean"?
And that is just the intro and the first paragraph of the main body. It is a disgrace. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If you don't like Korea, just don't go or live there.
I find it really curious how my Talk points have been up there nearly a week and not a peep from any of you except one to accuse me of being a sock puppet doing "fucking" edits but the minute the suggestions get implemented, all you so called so-busy people come out of the woodwork to defend complete drivel. How very curious!
AmericanExpat (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


Admin, please note how some people in the general public do not understand that Wikipedia is an open source reference material. There is a Reddit thread discussing racism in South Korea and the OP starts, "How's racism in (south) Korea doing? Wikipedia says it's not doing so well, unless they're mistaken?" And s/he goes to link to the article in question and explains how the citations checked out. Really this article needs to be completely overhauled. It is really embarrassing. AmericanExpat (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, thanks for the heads up, regarding the SPI. It saves me wasting more time on the seemingly millions of Massyparcer socks accounts, that I've had to report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

71.217.109.105 and 79.75.109.90 reported by User:Gladamas (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Galkayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 71.217.109.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)79.75.109.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
  5. [14]
  6. [15]
  7. [16]
  8. [17]
  9. ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts: [18]


I (Gladamas) am a completely uninvolved user relating to this topic. I saw this hours-long edit war involving two anonymous editors while patrolling on Huggle, and thought it would be better to bring the issue straight here rather than to the talk page. –Gladamastalk 13:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Semi-protected 1 month. NeilN talk to me 14:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:64.151.2.245 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
List of Girl Meets World characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
64.151.2.245 (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

[19]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This is not in the letter of WP:3RR (though edit-warring is not restricted to violating 3RR), but the user in their edits [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] has insisted on making some character descriptions in the article that are broken into separate paragraphs into one paragraph, without explaining why. Warnings are on their talk page, all in this month, and user has not made any effort to discuss their change after reverted. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've re-added this report as it was prematurely archived. Unresolved. Amaury (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Amaury: Thanks. User still does not get it, and continues to make unconstructive edit [25]. Still not violating the letter of 3RR given the difference in time between their edits, but nonetheless edit warring. I decided not to revert this edit for now, but having the article their way with the descriptions each in one paragraph does not improve it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: Semiprotected two months. The IP has previously been blocked three times and never uses the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bender235 reported by User:Jujutsuan (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Omar Mateen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bender235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: this revision

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]
  5. [30]

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

Comments:


This user has more than violated 3RR and refused to initiate a discussion per other editors' request (not me, someone else). Has been warned not to start an edit war by another editor via edit summary. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 05:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No one suggested to "initiate" a discussion. BrxBrx reverted my edits claiming that the issue in question had been addressed on the talk page already, which it had not. --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale – The latest diff is from June 13 and this is a very active article. If there actually was an edit war involving Bender235, it must be ancient history by now. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:100E:B141:37A0:1104:5BA7:5438:C3CF reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page
Sting (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:100E:B141:37A0:1104:5BA7:5438:C3CF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725446968 by Aloha27 (talk)"
  2. 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725446831 by Aloha27 (talk)"
  3. 18:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725446627 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk)"
  4. 18:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725446202 by Aloha27 (talk)"
  5. 18:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725445451 by Aloha27 (talk)"
  6. 18:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "Quack, revert."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP sock of blocked User:Who R U?   Aloha27  talk  18:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours @Aloha27: No need to add a 3RR report for a sock. Just report to WP:AIV instead for obvious socking or ask an admin who's familiar with the master. NeilN talk to me 18:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:B137 reported by User:Berkserker (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Climate of Miami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: B137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 12th June
  2. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 12th June
  3. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 12th June

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of my last warning, 12th June

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page as well as user talk page: [32] [33]

Comments:

I found this page to be under constant violation of this user (and some others) for several years, presenting personal beliefs, citing irrelevant sources, synthesising and fabricating facts. Tried to reason with the user, but the user prefers to avoid communication and reverts despite numerous warnings. The article is a complete mess, its only purpose is to debunk the facts with factoids and fabrications. The reverts are so fast that even caused me to make an edit conflict error while I was in the middle of my revision. The page is under constant supervision by the user and any changes by any user are reverted within minutes. I could date activity back to 2011.

I have responded to all your messages and discussions. The lead of the article relies clearly on the koppen classification. But there is well publicized evidence of falling short of a tropical climate, including the plant hardiness rating, documented cold spells, and occasional freezing weather. Not only did you effectively section blank, you removed relevant images. B137 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
While my earlier edits were of more questionable quality and I used to confront deletion and editors, I would say approximately my most recent 20,000 or so edits have been of objective quality. I create and add a lot of content to articles, including a few good articles. I have not been mired in any kind of significant controversy for several years. I recognize the lack of credence that may be asserted by my redlinked user page. It's been long deleted, I have little interaction with editors, and have enjoyed the stability of my contributions since raising the quality bar for myself. B137 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with your redlinked user page. In fact I support equality for all kinds of accounts and ip addresses. As for the content, it needs scholarly articles to question climate categorisation. According to what we have since the 1800s, as well as two revisions in the early 20th century and the later new classification systems proposed by other climatologists such as Trewartha, there is a consensus and all have the identical definition for tropical climates. The criteria have been revised for other types such as the threshold for the continental climates. The additional climatological revisions and new systems have been proposed to define mid latitude climates better, tropical and arctic climates have never been questioned. The limit set in all classification systems for tropical climates is 18 degrees Celsius for the coldest month and the city you are questioning has a mean temperature of 20.2 degrees Celsius, it is well above the threshold. There have been instances when numbers have been rounded up, for instance 17.5-18 degrees being considered for tropical climates or 0-0.5 degrees being questioned for continental climates. The thing is I was ready to discuss these with you on your personal talk page or the article talk page, however you chose to skip the argument, giving evasive answers instead and kept reverting. In order to cope with your methods the only method is to revert and edit-war, which is something I don't want to do, so you gave me no other choice to report the activity. It isn't my intention get anyone "punished", however on both your personal talk page and the article's, you didn't want to collaborate and discuss, instead you evaded my questions and comments and insisted on your synthesis of news articles, which have nothing to do with climate classifications. They are just proof that all cities/regions in the world experience record highs and lows, which is why extremes are documented by meteorological services for each locale. Otherwise extremes have nothing to do with climate categorisation (not only for tropical climates). If you have read about a scholarly article or publication contesting mainstream science, you are very welcome to present that. It would change the climates of the world we know as of today. However there is no such debate as of now, and the climatological community is in consensus with tropical climates for centuries. There are debates still going on for other types, such as continental and arid types. The thing is, this page (admin board) isn't the place to discuss these, if you had openly talked to me on talk regarding these topics, I would very well have explained you the same things, like I tried to do with other details both on your and the article talk page. Also I already explained why I removed some of the images, the article doesn't have enough text after the change, to support as many images anymore. Berkserker (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


I have been fairly busy in real life but let me just break the fourth wall here and say this is a ridiculous overreaction. The article starts out with and only includes that is is a tropical climate according to Koppen in the first paragraph. But to say a place that has recorded snow flurries and has had multiple instances of freezing weather, as well as weather that kills tropical flora and fauna, and then you add to that that it is literally outside the tropics and is also landlocked to the north, allowing occasional cold fronts that align just right to have little modification from water as Key West sees and even Miami Beach sees, enough for their all time record low to be five degrees Fahrenheit over Miami's. And when I say the data has recently changed. I mean that Miami (and much of the United States) moved up a half step in plant hardiness rating for the 2012 update, so if anything climate chage/AGW is now relevant to the discussion. The monthly averages chart has increased over the past five years as well.
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 3 days. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. You could ask for more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Miami or at WT:METEO. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page
Loch Ness Monster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bloodofox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725166439 by Moriori (talk) WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE"
  2. 00:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Fyunck(click) (talk) to last revision by Bloodofox. (TW)"
  3. 01:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "RV: Stop with the pseudoscience. Read WP:UNDUE. Folklorists study folklore, which the loch ness monster is a prime example."
  4. 02:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "No, "cryptids" are a concept in the pseudoscience of cryptozoology. In folkloristics, there's no such term—for a reason, as it's an academic field. Enough with the bullshit."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Loch Ness Monster. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC) on User talk:Fyunck(click) ""
Comments:
This guy. Welp, first of all, this is the anti-climate change guy that popped up waving a flag over at the cryptozoology talk page some time ago ([34]). He's got a problem with science and academics generally, as that diff will make clear.
Next, that last diff isn't a revert but a modification of his fourth edit. He's again inserted cryptid, but this time decided that it has something to do with folkloristics (or the general concept of folklore, who knows in his case). The diff to "resolve dispute" is apparently something that doesn't even involve me.
Finally, we've got a general problem with these articles getting hijacked by cryptozoologists despite WP:UNDUE. I recommend more eyes on the article to keep the pseudoscience at bay. For that matter, the whole thing needs to be rewritten from reliable secondary sources, i.e. academics that study folklore—folklorists—publishing through peer reviewed sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This did not start with me. It started with reverts of administrative editor @Moriori:. I asked user Bloodofox to self revert because he had reverted 4x. he refused with a "bring them around" request. So here we are. His edits on my own talk page about the subject may not cross over to outright nastiness, but they were not exactly friendly either. He does not own the article and he certainly needs to learn what edit warring is. He needs to self-revert this pronto. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Nah, that fourth "revert" is me modifying your inaccurate edit, not a revert. And actually, this guy has been ignoring WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and WP:FRINGE for some time to promote cryptozoology concepts. See edits like this one ([35]) and his leaning on cryptozoology sources here: ([36]). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You had best read up on edit warring because you are wrong. You are also woefully inaccurate about my beliefs of climate change and cryptozoology, so please stop spreading lies and focus on your own poor choices. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Outside of those edits, I don't see how anyone could otherwise interpret this edit ([37]). :bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Just checking on the status before undoing the 3RR violation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Laser brain (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    I want to make sure this is noted as a very poor decision by an administrator. There were at least two of us being reverted (one was another administrator), I'm not the one who reverted 4x in 24 hours.... I backed off to let it stand... I'm not making personal attacks. I just want to make sure this is noted for future reference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: warned)[edit]

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


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]


Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: He's been blocked for breaking 1RR before.


Comments:
First revert he changes annexed to occupied, second revert he reverts another editor changing Palestine to Land of Israel.

Comment by Debresser[edit]

Wait a second. These are completely unrelated edits. Also, the second was a very tiny partial revert at best (worst). Thirdly, in view of the misleading edit summary of the the previous editor, as I mentioned specifically in my edit summary, the one word I reverted was close to a deliberate disruption. Fourthly, please notice that my edit has not been reverted, including by you, meaning that editors agree I did the right thing. Lastly, I am willing to self-revert, if an uninvolved admin here will tell me to do so.

However, in view of the above, I think that telling me to self-revert would be a futile exercise in bureaucracy, since my edit seems to be acceptable to the community and is correct in and of itself, not to mention that in just another few hours I can repeat it. In any case, I definitely had no intention to cause disruption with a 1RR violation, and as said am willing to self-revert. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser See what an admin tels you. But here is my comment: Even if you undo a ridiculous edit, or even if you undo vandalism, though there was no "edit warring" just reverting two edits - I would say that you should self revert just to show that you respect the 1RR (which could very often be mistakenly violated). You could specify in your edit summary that you are ONLY doing so out of respect to the Israeli Arab arb and request that another user should undo your edit). CaseeArt Talk 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Debresser, the way the 3RR/1RR rules are written, it doesn't matter whether you revert the same material or, as in this case, completely different material. It appears you have violated 1RR. Since yours was the last edit, I would recommend that you simply follow Caseeart's advice: self-revert with an edit summary that indicates you realize you violated 1RR, and wait for another editor to restore your sensible edit. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Done.[40] MShabazz, as I showed above, the second edit reverted one word out of a whole bunch of other things, while that change was not even mentioned in the edit summary which was misleading, and this is all very farfetched, but I have no problem being on the safe side. I do want to stress, that I think my edit was completely correct and necessary, and I fully intend to repeat it by tomorrow morning, if no other editor has done so by then. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Ha. Academic.[41] Took no more than 2 minutes. Just comes to show... Debresser (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Debresser has shown his good intentions by self-reverting, as recommended. As his original edit was sensible and an improvement, I've restored, still in line with the recommendations. I don't think there's more to do here, and certainly nothing to be gained from blocking Debresser who has shown good faith. Jeppiz (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The violation was unintentional, and it has been self-reverted. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned — since the user self-reverted, it seems reasonable to consider them warned. Everybody gets one. *slings web and flies off*. :P --slakrtalk / 05:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:AesopPeep reported by User:RolandR (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page
Ode to Joy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AesopPeep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Lyrics */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC) to 22:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    1. 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725316855 by RolandR (talk)"
    2. 22:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 725317262 by WikiPedant (talk)"
  3. 22:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Lyrics */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 22:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) to 22:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    1. 22:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Lyrics */"
    2. 22:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Lyrics */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ode to Joy. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This editor is continuing with the same disruptive behaviour, even after being informed of this report.[42] They have now repeatedly reverted, and been reverted by, three separate editors. RolandR (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This editor is becoming quite a nuisance. He has ignored the explanatory edit summaries of more experienced editors and persists in exactly the same practice. A good blocking is in order here. -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week — although the user was already blocked by another admin (31h), they evaded with a sock (now blocked) while still blocked themselves. --slakrtalk / 05:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:VLP + NP reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: protected, warned)[edit]

Page
Hillary Clinton email controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
VLP + NP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Inspector general reports and statements */"
  2. 13:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* FBI investigation */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 12:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    1. 12:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* BlackBerry phones */"
    2. 12:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Initial awareness */"
  4. 06:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* May 2016 report from State Department's inspector general */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 03:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC) to 04:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    1. 03:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Initial awareness */"
    2. 03:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Classified information in emails */"
    3. 03:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Initial awareness */"
    4. 03:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* FBI investigation */"
    5. 03:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* FBI investigation */"
    6. 04:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Classified information in emails */"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 12:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC) to 12:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    1. 12:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Initial awareness */"
    2. 12:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Classified information in emails */"
  7. 02:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Classified information in emails */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Napolitano */ new section"
  2. 14:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Wikileaks */ WP:PRIMARYWP:SELFPUB"
  3. 15:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Wikileaks */ r"
  4. 20:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Wikileaks */ r"
Comments:

WP:SPA. No engagement on user or article talk. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ditto from me: same edits over and over, we have to revert all of them, no discussion with us. MikeR613 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 1 year (semi; as an WP:ARBAP remedy), user Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned properly of 3RR and WP:ACDS. Feel free to reopen here or at WP:AE if they continue. --slakrtalk / 07:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:77.93.29.14 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result:blocked 31h)[edit]

Page: Szczecin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.93.29.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [44]
  2. [45]
  3. [46]
  4. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: It's a sock puppet, user fully knows the rules

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

Comments:

Straight forward 3RR violation by a sock puppet of an indef banned user. See [48]. Semi-protecting the page would also be a good idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

And how did you reach that article other than WP:STALK? I made an edit restoring neutrally worded version. And why were your 3 reverts legitimate, even if they restored non-neutrally worded offensive wording with zero sources? The same goes for your revert warring at Azov Battalion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also 3 reverts: [49], [50], [51]) or these 2 no-brainer blanking reverts at Human rights in Ukraine: [52], [53]. 77.93.29.14 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Note they're not even denying being a sock puppet of a banned user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, seriously. As if your ES on "Human Rights in Ukraine" didn't give you away, Lokalkosmopolit. Your disruptive spirits have been lifted by the emergence of other block evaders there for the past couple of weeks. You're perfectly aware that multiple reversions by VM are sanctioned when it comes to socks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours, since I blocked yesterday another reincarnation I do not see why this one should be allowed to continue editing.Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:49:4001:97A5:F8F7:FF5C:6109:CEB5 reported by User:Drmies (Result: )[edit]

Page
Ron Wyatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:49:4001:97A5:F8F7:FF5C:6109:CEB5 (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:

Article history is obvious. Ping Doug Weller as well. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm mobile--can't do diffs. Ha, I can barely see what I'm typing. If Noah's ark was on this screen I'd miss that too. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

To top it all off, the user logged in to continue this War For Pseudoscience. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I've warned the new account and done some more editing. Since there is an account now, perhaps we can wait and see. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User: Dhinawda reported by User:71.217.109.105 (Result: Declined – malformed report)[edit]

Page: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galkayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dhinawda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galkayo&diff=725408552&oldid=725408304
  2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galkayo&diff=725437678&oldid=725416693
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
This user keeps deleting cited content with credible sources such us UNHCR and International Crisis Group

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Katietalk 12:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User: Dhinawda reported by User:71.217.109.105 (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Galkayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dhinawda (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. [54]
  2. [55]

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

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

Comments:

This user keeps reverting content with credible sources from UNHCR and International Crisis Group

  • Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:NeilN. There is so far nothing on the talk page about this dispute. If either party is hoping to win support for their changes, it would be helpful if they can explain themselves on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cardinalfan24 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Baylor University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cardinalfan24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [57]
  2. [58]
  3. [59]
  4. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:

  • Result: Warned. The user may be blocked the next time they remove the scandal-related material unless they have first obtained a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:SheriffIsInTown (Result: )[edit]

Page: Koenraad Elst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 11:02, 13 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 13:14, 13 June 2016
  2. 18:28, 14 June 2016
  3. 20:39, 14 June 2016
  4. 15:52, 15 June 2016
  5. 18:18, 15 June 2016


Comments: Seeing this edit-warring happening from the sidelines, this needs to stop, admins should give a wake up call to the editor with some sort of block for obvious violation of 3RR. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Phew! I am sorry for destroying the viewing pleasure of SheriffIsInTown from the sidelines. But I don't think this is edit warring. This page is one among a myriad pages that are on my watch list for defending against vandalism and sanity checks. When I realised that there is a disagreement, I opened a talk page discussion, inviting both of the other editors. A discussion followed, another editor Joshua Jonathan joined and an agreement has been reached. The last edit was a copy-edit, not a revert. However, I wonder what Sheriff's interest is in this dispute. He has never had any interest in this page or any related page. This is a low-traffic page at this time and shows no sign of "heating up." It appears to me that Sheriff is just interested in hounding me. Frankly, I am disappointed. This is not what I expected out of a member of WP:INDOPAK. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be agreement indeed. What's the use of this report? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I missed to add the initial revert which I have added now. It can be clearly noted that the fourth revert is an example of WP:GAME as it is done just outside of a 24 hour window. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You are joking! Do you imagine that I sit here watching my clock to see when the 24 hours expire? Discussion was initiated at 20:52 and an agreement reached at 05:45, in between which I made no edits. By the end of it, what happened yesterday was history, and I wouldn't connect the new edits with the old ones. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, I don't see an agreement over there. Lorstaking posted at 5:45 on 15 November that he changed the lead and removed the reference to "fringe theory" from the lead which he did at 5:35 but instead of continuing discussion you are reverting two of his edits in the diff number four above calling them WP:OR. You did not continue with discussion so an agreement can happen, you waited long enough so 24 hours can pass and then reverted Lorstaking. Is that not gaming the system if nothing else? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no case against Kautilya here. Sheriff, better luck next time.:-) --Ghatus (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a clear violation of 3RR, what else you need or we should make certain editors exempt from following the policies? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


User:Signedzzz reported by User:Urutine32 (Result: nominating editor blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [64] 17:56, 15 June 2016‎ Signedzzz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (143,011 bytes) (+648)‎ . . (restore last clean version from 11:29, 31 May 2016 before unilateral deletions) (undo | thank)
  2. [65] 14:14, 17 June 2016‎ Signedzzz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (143,425 bytes) (+514)‎ . . (restoring article version 01:27, 16 June 2016 (per talk)) (undo | thank)
  3. [66] 18:22, 17 June 2016‎ Signedzzz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (143,425 bytes) (+514)‎ . . (Undid revision 725763244 by Urutine32 (talk) What part of WP:BRD do you not understand?) (undo | thank)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User seems to believe that I can no longer make any contribution in this article without his prior agreement

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Signedzzz#Death penalty

Comments: As I have explained in EdJohnston talk page, these three changes include deleting much new text and references and some uncontroversial changes from User:Skynden and User:Motivação. Signedzzz wrongly uses the WP:BRD (which is indeed optional and not a rule) to justify this abuse, while is outgoing a discussion (about only some of these changes indeed) during which I agree not to remove his added contributions.

Signedzzz also said personnal attacks against me, accusing me two times to "troll".
Urutine32 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I will just comment here to correct whatever you want to call your above statement. The edit summary in the second diff, (as well as my explanation on article talk) makes it perfectly clear that I was only deleting your edits. Also, "during which I agree not to remove his added contributions" - you were warned already on this noticeboard 2 weeks ago not to remove those "added contributions". zzz (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
What is important is not what you said in the edit summary but what you did in actuality.
It is not because I am warned against something you can do the same, to the contrary.
The WP:BDR say "BRD is never a reason for reverting" and "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work".
Urutine32 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It really appears to me that both Signedzzz and Urutine32 are engaging equally in an edit war here. See here and here for clear examples by Urutine32, but I would recommend that anyone thinking of evaluating this report should look over the entire recent revision history (2+ days) for this article to get an overall feel of what has been going on. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Urutine32 has been edit-warring with multiple editors over the same material for weeks. Every editor commenting so far disagrees with his edits. zzz (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 72 hours Clearly long-term edit warring / disruptive editing. --slakrtalk / 03:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Afterwriting reported by User:Knowledgebattle (Result: Filer warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 01:05, 16 June 2016‎
  2. 01:07, 16 June 2016
  3. 01:36, 16 June 2016
  4. 01:55, 16 June 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mother Teresa#Kodak

Comments:

  • As user was reverting edits, I was fixing edits I made previously. One objection by the user was that the article was written in British English, so I conformed to that objection, and resubmitted. After several times, user still reverted the whole thing, and demanded consensus. Edits were not of such significance that the user should be demanding consensus, as the meaning of the overall edits had not changed, but made more clear.
  • User eventually did respond in the Talkpage, and I responded, but due to 4 reverts by the user, and ignoring my request for conversation prior to the reverts, the user has not shown himself to be amenable, as I had attempted to be, in response to their objections.
KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 07:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Slakr: Actually just to correct you, I'm not in violation of the three-revert rule, as it's stated in the 3RR that the 3-reverts must occur within 24 hours, and that reverting your own edits does not count. My 3rd revert was a revert to my own edits, within those 24 hours, so it doesn't count. (3RR exemptions, point #1) Now, please address User:Afterwriting. Thank you. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 08:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Knowledgebattle: Actually 1 2 3 4 are all variations on the original. Of course, even if you didn't violate the 3RR—that I hope you realize and figure out you so totally violated—you're clearly edit warring, and considering you're convinced that you're not (to the point of reporting someone and challenging a patrolling admin's review, a block will happen if you so much as make a single additional change to the same content over the next week or two without gaining clear consensus for it. This is your last warning. --slakrtalk / 08:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Slakr: So, you figured out that editing an article is a "variation on the original", huh? Way to change the topic away from your original accusation, that we were "both in violation of the three-revert rule", instead of just saying, "My bad, you're right." Oh, and just as you pointed out to Afterwriting that WP:STATUSQUO is neither a policy, nor a guideline, I'd also like to point out that WP:BOOMERANG is neither a policy, nor a guideline. Do a better job from now on, and have a fantastic day.
KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 21:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Knowledgebattle: Clearly you feel I'm inaccurate in my interpretation of the policies and guidelines with which, over the course of a decade, I feel I've become intimately familiar. I mean, there's at least a chance that you're right—that I've, like, gone totally mental and have no idea what I'm talking about. It'd be an interesting turn of events in my life; it's great dinner conversation: "So... you finally cracked?" they'd inquire. "PURPLE!" I'd respond, feeling the utmost lucidity of thought and certainty that it was the appropriate response in-context. I'd be believing I was right. So I guess if that's actually the case here, then you'd have nothing to worry about. Otherwise, I'd strongly recommend heeding my words and at least considering the possibility that I'm spot-on in everything that I've said. Your choice; I've got other stuff that needs doing. :P Best of luck. --slakrtalk / 02:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Slakr: Brilliant, facetious ridicule; love it. I do disagree with your conclusion in this specific case of 3RR (as even professionals are not 100% correct, all of the time); nonetheless, that response was fantastic. Fine, I'll ignore the article. For a while. And future edits will not be bold, nor will they be done without consensus. And, you too. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 03:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:112.215.124.169 reported by User:Random86 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Heo Ga-yoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
112.215.124.169 (