Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive322

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:ChowChowChowChow reported by User:TheFarix (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page
Dragon Ball Super (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
ChowChowChowChow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported
207.62.236.115 (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 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) to 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Then don't undo it. I already explained what I do. Help me make (show) icon with Other Networks..."
    2. 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "So what is. This clear a Dragon Ball Super logo not a Fairytail Logo for that matter."
  2. 22:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730954088 by TheFarix (talk)"
  3. 22:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730952980 by Sro23 (talk)"
  4. 22:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730950896 by TheFarix (talk)"
  5. [1]
  6. [2]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dragon Ball Super. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The editor first made a series of unproductive edits to the article as 207.62.236.115 (talk). When those edits were undone by Xfansd, the IP engaged in an edit war to restore these unproductive edits. —Farix (t | c) 23:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked by Nihonjoe (t c); given that the IP address has not edited after the user account was blocked, my supposition is that it is autoblocked. –Darkwind (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:122.62.21.135 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page
Panagiotis Kone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
122.62.21.135 (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 23:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC) to 23:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. 23:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    2. 23:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    3. 23:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 23:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    5. 23:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    6. 23:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    7. 23:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Reference update, and correct information."
    8. 23:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    9. 23:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    10. 23:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ grammar"
  2. 09:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 06:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) to 06:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. 06:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 06:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 06:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 06:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    5. 06:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 06:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) to 06:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. 06:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 06:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 06:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  5. 06:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Panagiotis Kone. (TWTW)"
  2. 06:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Panagiotis Kone . (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 14:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit-warring changes by IP */ new section"
Comments:

Ceaseless edit-warring by IP adding POV material to the article against consensus and MOS. Will not discuss on the talkpage. Dr. K. 00:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursDarkwind (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Robberey1705 reported by User:Seriesphile (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: The Collection (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robberey1705 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]

Comments:

The user mentioned above keeps putting the initials "MFP" of a production company that shows up on a Deadline article but there are lots of production companies with these initials.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriesphile (talkcontribs) 06:20, 22 July 2016‎ (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. @Robberey1705 and Seriesphile: You are both warned that your behavior on this article is approaching an edit war. Please create a talk page for the article and discuss the issue there. If you cannot come to an agreement, please use dispute resolution methods as needed. –Darkwind (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:106.194.64.84 reported by User:MRD2014 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Amjad Alsaboory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
106.194.64.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Hope they dont repeat Undid revision 730870519 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
  2. 14:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730869714 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
  3. 14:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730869025 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
  4. 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "You will be blocked if you keep vandalisingUndid revision 730868771 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
  5. 14:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730868456 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
  6. 14:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Can u pls stop vandalising this page Undid revision 730868112 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
  7. 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "OrphanUndid revision 730867582 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
  8. 14:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Maybe not orphan but other problems still need to be fixed page cite no reliable sources and if possible it should be taken to afd"
  9. 13:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730860292 by 14.203.225.52 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Amjad Alsaboory. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

14.203.225.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also involved but has not reverted since given warning. —MRD2014 T C 14:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sir i just reverted the deleted templates which was removed by other people who are keep removing templates without fixing issues the page dont have any reliable source and need more sources and its orphan but pther people keep removing templates and after sir MRD2014 gave me warning i only revert once and that was recovering of removed templates. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.194.64.84 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I will not revert again but as sir MRD2014 suggest me to create new account i will create account and start afd. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.194.64.84 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Now see other ip address reverted my edit again now i am not going to revert his edit but you need to revert because he again removed the templates without adding any reliable link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.194.61.124 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

See 14.203.225.52 reverted my edit after getting warning and i dont think so that anyone can remove tags without resolving issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.194.29.216 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You have semi protected the page but what about the tags which removed by the ip? The page have some issues sources are not reliable and some other problems also. I want to take this page on afd but then have to create new account then need to wait for to be auto confirmed. This is really funny that if someone do good edit revert vandalism you guys block tham not to vandal. I request you to put problematic tags back and i asked for reliable source. Thankyou @EdJohnston:

Ok i have created this new account because my ip change so much and i want to take this page to afd so this account will help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisePS (talkcontribs) 07:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected one month. Two IPs have already broken 3RR reverting one another. The IPs involved should explain their concerns on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:197.88.60.117 reported by User:Crash Underride (Result: Warned & Protected)[edit]

Page
List of WWE Intercontinental Champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
197.88.60.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730693944 by LM2000 (talk)rv, please read the discussion page before blanking something that has RS"
  2. 18:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 730679727 by LM2000 (talk)YOU see the long discussion, which was agreed to keep Holly as unofficial champion"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Violated 3RR (I can't seem to add the third for some reason), refusing to listen to conscious that was set in the past. CrashUnderride 14:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The 3RR states that An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.'

Ie. more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. Which never happened. There are also exceptions, such as,


The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:

Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.

Of course, the first edit I made was reinstating reliably Sourced and verified material that was blanked, without explanation on the discussion page, by a user who shortly thereafter blocked for vandlaism and disruptive editing. [7]

And the user who blanked information with a WP:RS, without mentioning why on the discussion page, was indeed blocked)and still is) when I reverted that blanking that (s)he took it upon him/herself to do, again without explaining why (s)he chose to simply blank reliably Sourced information.

But, most of all, I never actually violated 3RR. It's Don't Make The Same Edit More Than three Times. And I never did. 197.88.60.117 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 3 days // Additionally, 197.88.60.117 is warned from further edit warring behavior. You're right, no violation of 3RR, but that doesn't avoid a future sanction for edit warring if this slow-burn revert-to-revert continues. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Spm98 reported by User:Aspects (Result: Blocked indeffed)[edit]

Page: L'Etoile de Morne-à-l'Eau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spm98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11 June 2016
  2. 16 June 2016
  3. 18 June 2016
  4. 22 July 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Spm98#June 2016

Comments:
This is a vandalism only account, with only ten edits on Wikipedia and all on this article. Eight of the ten edits are vandalism, one adds under spacing to the file and the tenth removes the under spacing from the ninth edit. The article was and still is locked due to persistent disruptive editing from this editor and its likely IP address, User:92.5.17.154, who has five edits on Wikipedia and four of them vandalism to this article on 18 June 2016. Aspects (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of indeffed Aspects, this kind of editing could have been reported at WP:AIV if you want to make things easier for yourself. NeilN talk to me 03:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:荻野義人 reported by User:NgYShung (Result: Blocked indefinitely)[edit]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note

This user ultimately vandalize Wikipedia by creating a page with WP:A7 and WP:G11. This user recreate the page even though been speedily deleted several times. This user also remove CSD tags every time it was added. I require an administrator's attention ASAP. Thanks. NgYShung huh? 13:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Page
Music&Records Co. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
荻野義人 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

Older/Deleted:

  1. 11:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 11:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 11:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 10:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  5. 10:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  6. 10:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""

Reverted CSD tags:

  1. [9]
  2. [10]
  3. [11]
  4. [12]
  5. [13]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"
  2. 10:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"
  3. 10:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Music&Records Co.. (TW)"
  4. [14] "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on Music&Records Co.. (TW)"
  5. [15] "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Music&Records Co.. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Keep removing speedy deletion tags at Music&Records Co. and warned already. NgYShung huh? 11:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely There have been numerous problems with this editor, the most important one being that he or she is clearly here only to use Wikipedia for advertising. He or she has ignored numerous messages, and shows no sign of changing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:69.47.172.189 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No action, as the editor has not been warned about edit-warring.)[edit]

Page
Triple parentheses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
69.47.172.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731126759 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
  2. 03:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731012914 by The Almightey Drill (talk). Install the extension and find out for yourself who is included in it - by no means is it "an edit war"."
  3. 04:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Use */ Undoing ViperSnake151 and Gorthian's reverts of my edit per WP:BOLD."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Triple parentheses . (TW)"
  2. 12:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Repeated attempts to re-insert information that has already been objected to by multiple editors. Incorrect invocation of WP:BOLD as justification. ViperSnake151  Talk  12:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined The links above under "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" are in fact a message about original research and one about primary sources; at the time of this report the editor had not been informed of the edit-warring policy at all. I have now warned the editor about edit-warring, so if he or she continues, a report to this noticeboard may reasonably be considered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for declining the AN3 and putting ViperSnake151's editorship dispute to rest. I stand by the edit summaries listed and invite him to take a neutral point of view when it comes to improving Wikipedia. It's never too late to start. ;) 69.47.172.189 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:MrX (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Page
Hillary Clinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
CFredkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731188401 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Per WP:BLPREMOVE not supported by sources. pls seek consensus in Talk before restoring again."
  2. 16:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731185842 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Per WP:BLPREMOVE, not supported by sources"
  3. 16:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Email controversy */ according to the sources, Comey didn't say this."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The page is under 1RR (see edit notice). Technically, Volunteer Marek violated 1RR also, but to a lesser degree. - MrX 16:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe I properly invoked WP:BLPREMOVE in removing content from the article that is not supported by the sources provided and was twice restored by VolunteerMarek.CFredkin (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe you know you didn't. How is "though they were not properly marked as such" in the sentence "Among the findings reported by FBI director James Comey were that Clinton both sent and received 110 emails that were classified at the time as "Top Secret/Special Access Program level" including a "small number" that contained classified markings, though they were not properly marked as such" a BLP violation?- MrX 17:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It is contentious material that is not properly sourced.CFredkin (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC) That seems pretty straightforward to me.CFredkin (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Now you're just making things up. From the source cited immediately after the sentence: "Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." - MrX 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As I stated in Talk, where (exactly) in that source does Comey say that the "small number" of emails that contained classified markings were not properly marked as such?CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
From the report: Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.. Dr. K. 18:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
In case there is confusion about who said it, the headline of the press release reads: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System - MrX 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
That statement from the source does not support the claim that the small number of emails with classified markings were improperly marked. In addition, since this is a BLP, the burden of evidence resides with the editor restoring content. No effort was made by any editor at the article to justify its inclusion.CFredkin (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
CFredkin, you're engaged in a classic case of WP:WIKILAWYERING. BLPREMOVE means that you can move unsourced content which is defamatory to the subject. Putting aside for a moment the fact that this text was in fact sourced, it is also NOT defamatory. Indeed, the purpose of the text is to ensure that the remaining text is not defamatory. If someone writes in a BLP "Person X was accused of murder but was then proven innocent", and you come along and remove the "but was then proven innocent" part then YOU are the one violating BLP not the person who restores that relevant part. This is a pretty blatant attempt on your part to WP:GAME BLPREMOVE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually WP:BLPREMOVE refers to "contentious" content. I think it's fair to say that this matter is contentious. But, Volunteer Marek, now that you're here, could you point us to your efforts to substantiate the content before restoring it, not once but twice?CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Since much of the discussion above has related to the validity of the disputed content, I wanted to update here that based on information posted by User:Volunteer Marek at the article Talk, I now agree that the content is supported by one of the sources and have self-reverted.CFredkin (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a straight forward BLP violation to leave the part in question out, not in as the OP claims.--TMCk (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked CFredkn self-reverted, BLPREMOVE lives to fight another day, 1RR remains in effect.. Katietalk 22:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:85.26.81.242 reported by User:Pincrete (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: 2016 Munich shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.26.81.242 (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. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]
  5. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

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

Comments: Repeated insertion of poorly sourced contentious material in the lead of an 'ongoing' subject. Explanations in edit reasons and on his talk have not deterred

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katietalk 22:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:98.88.130.194 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 1 days)[edit]

Page
2016 Munich shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
98.88.130.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731239301 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
  2. 01:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "I discussed it."
  3. 01:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731238686 by Parsley Man (talk)"
  4. 01:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731238417 by Parsley Man (talk)"
  5. 01:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Shooting */ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/23/europe/germany-munich-shooting/"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. User_talk:98.88.130.194#July 2016
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 01:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* CNN: witness describes gunman shouting "Allahu Akbar" */"
Comments:

Warned at User_talk:98.88.130.194#July 2016 EvergreenFir (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 days NeilN talk to me 01:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Anna Lertreader reported by User:Jmorrison230582 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Scottish independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anna Lertreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [23]
  2. [24]
  3. [25]
  4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
The account is also edit warring at John McTernan, which is a BLP.

This user persistently follows my edits and attempts to revert/delete almost every one, as can easily be verified. On wider discussion, almost all of their reversions/deletions are found to be unjustified by consensus. Today I have attempted to instigate Talk-page discussion on all contested subjects, only for the user to engage in edit warring rather than discussion. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Keith-264 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Greco-Italian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Keith-264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731181998 by Dr.K. (talk) You cannot dictate a compromise, pls take to the talk page as requested"
  2. 15:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731181575 by Dr.K. (talk) A bit premature I fear, moved to talk"
  3. 09:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Reasons and consequences of the Italian failure */ It's part of the analysis, no need to split hairs"
  4. 08:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Analysis */ You aren't the dictator of proof and you don't demand, take this to the talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Greco-Italian War. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Will not stop edit-warring at the article. Keeps removing reliable sources. Dr. K. 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to the allegation on grounds of Dr K having a flagrant conflict of interest and conflating several matters being debated on the talk page, to create a spurious "pattern of behaviour". I have already stated that I will not edit the infobox now that other editors are involved and am happy to leave the lead alone while someone without a conflict of interest scrutinises all recent edits, with a view to establishing a consensus by fair means. Please refer to the talk page for the evidence of constructive intent re: Dr K's unhelpful edit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What makes you believe that I have a "flagrant conflict of interest"? Dr. K. 16:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This report is completely ludicrous! The source Dr K added has been questioned in the edit summaries and on the talkpage. Yet, he has not joined the discussion and reverts rather than debating then has the gall to launch this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yet, he has not joined the discussion and reverts rather than debating then has the gall to launch this. What do you think this post is? Please retract your false statement. Dr. K. 17:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Your edit was after the fact. Keith-264 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Exactly, the material had been challenged and discussed way before you swooped in with your reverts and warnings. I will retract my "false" statement when you stop throwing block warnings around and requesting admin intervention because you fail to acknowledge that material had been contested and discused. Basdd off your attitude, I guess it will bd a while before I retract my comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    You kept edit-warring removing cited information. There were other avenues suggested to you like going to RSN to check the supplied source. That you chose to keep edit-warring to remove the cited information instead of pursuing alternate steps and also your use of attacking edit summaries show that my choice to warn you about your edit-warring habits was the right one. Keith adopted a much more constructive approach and it was no surprise that we came to a quick agreement. Dr. K. 19:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Please! The source was questioned yesterday, with an extremely civil edit summary, and immediate discussion on the talkpage. Today, you initially ignored everything that has taken place and issued block warnings (despite your own edit warning). You only reached an agreement after you took the time to discuss the contested matererial (and after you initiated this).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) And just the other day he had racked up 3 reverts in very quick succession [29] [30] [31]. I warned him [32], but apparently he felt it didn't apply to him [33]. Athenean (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I request that an uninvolved administrator study the overt reasons for the disputed edits in the infobox and lead and then dictates a solution or route to consensus, because there is more energy going into these disputes than the article, which in my opinion is further away from a B class rating than ever. Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the lead, I have proposed a compromise formulation and you have responded with your own, with which I agree. There is no reason for "dictation" by anyone. Dr. K. 17:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've locked the article for one week. There are several very experienced editors edit-warring at the article. I can count the reverts by each editor, but at this point that is of little importance as the overall thrust of all these reverts is disruptive to the article and to the project. As for resolving the disputes, all these editors should know the various dispute resolution mechanisms to doing so. Use them while the article is locked. If I see a return to the edit-warring after the lock expires, blocks may be imposed without notice. And let's lose some of the aggressive allegations against other editors. Stick to the content and don't speculate as to another user's motives or interests.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Dr K started edit warring after I deleted a unsourced phrase a week after asking for sources in the talk page (a discussing that he didn't even participated) and none appearing. Not the first time a editor tried to push his views by threatening of a block either. Uspzor (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please leave the obfuscating nonsense. You asked for sources and I provided one that covered both sentences while copyediting the sentences to avoid duplicating the "first victory" mention as you wrote in your edit summary. The source was published by Oxford University Press and is very reliable. Doing the hard work of finding a reliable source is better than deleting information without bothering to check if it is supported by sources. Finding a reliable source after being asked for one, restoring and copyediting a deleted edit is not "edit-warring". Dr. K. 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Athensrobbery reported by User:Penguin888 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page:Kim Dae-eun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Athensrobbery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

User is a known troll from the International Gymnast Forum and has been posting there bragging about his edits. No talk page conversation would help here.Penguin888 (talk)Penguin888

  • Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Toss-up between that, vandalism only, WP:BLP violations, and disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MisterAnthony reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )[edit]

Page
Garry Marshall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MisterAnthony (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 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) to 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 23:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 23:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 23:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    5. 23:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    6. 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    7. 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    8. 23:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    9. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    10. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    11. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    12. 23:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    13. 23:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    14. 23:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    15. 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    16. 23:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    17. 23:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    18. 23:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    19. 23:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    20. 23:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    21. 00:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    22. 00:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    23. 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    24. 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
    25. 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Illness and death */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 11:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC) to 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. 11:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Trying to improve"
    2. 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 12:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 12:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [34] 03:41, July 24, 2016‎ Jim1138; (Message re. Garry Marshall (HG) (3.1.21)
Comments:

Right after 48 hour block for edit warring and other shenanigans, user returned to the same behavior: edit warring through outright reversion and incremental edits as well as placing templates/tags he was told not to place (in the same article). The edits and changes to the article are the exact same edits and changes he made previously while edit warring and was asked not to make. User never communicates via talk pages, but only removes warnings and discussion attempted with him. Behavior did not change at all following lift of block.

Diff to block by Ian.thomson [35]; diff to comments by Ian Thomson at user's talk page [36] following block; and another from Ian Thomson [37]. -- WV 00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking into it, the three edits you needed to link to were 1, 2, 3. The big list seriously makes it hard to figure out what's going on, please link to the specific points where he reverts something in future reports. The big list of sequential edits counts as a single revert, not the dozens it looks like.
This was filed a touch early and he's only at three reverts, buuut he did just get of a block for edit warring over pretty much the same content and is definitely currently edit warring under the spirit of the law (if not the letter). I've been out of the house for about 11 hours and walking for about half that in 104 °F (40 °C) weather, so I'm not handling this now. If someone else does, just bear in mind that I'm leaning heavily toward blocking MisterAnthony a week with a note saying "I'll reduce this to 48 hours just for engaging in any sort of meaningful communication, 24 hours if that communication shows you understand why you've been blocked." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
"buuut he did just get of a block for edit warring over pretty much the same content and is definitely currently edit warring under the spirit of the law (if not the letter)." Ian.thomson, that's precisely why I came here. It's edit warring behavior, not 3RR - but, because he's just off a block for the same behavior, the same edits, reverting the same stuff he did when edit warring previously, it seemed to me that the writing is on the wall and the WP:NOTHERE applies. -- WV 03:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:173.58.228.186 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked 3 months)[edit]

Page
Scotty Beckett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
173.58.228.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731399005 by Winkelvi (talk)"
  2. 03:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731398932 by Donner60 (talk)"
  3. 03:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Your dates are wrong"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Introducing factual errors on Scotty Beckett. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring over vandal edits, introducing factual errors. Won't stop. Doubt if he will outside of a block. -- WV 03:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 months The IP was blocked for 2 weeks at the end of June. This is resumption of the same behavior. NeilN talk to me 04:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Anna Lertreader reported by User:Jmorrison230582 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Scottish independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anna Lertreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
The account is also edit warring at John McTernan, which is a BLP.

This user persistently follows my edits and attempts to revert/delete almost every one, as can easily be verified. On wider discussion, almost all of their reversions/deletions are found to be unjustified by consensus. Today I have attempted to instigate Talk-page discussion on all contested subjects, only for the user to engage in edit warring rather than discussion. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Keith-264 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Greco-Italian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Keith-264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731181998 by Dr.K. (talk) You cannot dictate a compromise, pls take to the talk page as requested"
  2. 15:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731181575 by Dr.K. (talk) A bit premature I fear, moved to talk"
  3. 09:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Reasons and consequences of the Italian failure */ It's part of the analysis, no need to split hairs"
  4. 08:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Analysis */ You aren't the dictator of proof and you don't demand, take this to the talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Greco-Italian War. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Will not stop edit-warring at the article. Keeps removing reliable sources. Dr. K. 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to the allegation on grounds of Dr K having a flagrant conflict of interest and conflating several matters being debated on the talk page, to create a spurious "pattern of behaviour". I have already stated that I will not edit the infobox now that other editors are involved and am happy to leave the lead alone while someone without a conflict of interest scrutinises all recent edits, with a view to establishing a consensus by fair means. Please refer to the talk page for the evidence of constructive intent re: Dr K's unhelpful edit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
What makes you believe that I have a "flagrant conflict of interest"? Dr. K. 16:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This report is completely ludicrous! The source Dr K added has been questioned in the edit summaries and on the talkpage. Yet, he has not joined the discussion and reverts rather than debating then has the gall to launch this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yet, he has not joined the discussion and reverts rather than debating then has the gall to launch this. What do you think this post is? Please retract your false statement. Dr. K. 17:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Your edit was after the fact. Keith-264 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Exactly, the material had been challenged and discussed way before you swooped in with your reverts and warnings. I will retract my "false" statement when you stop throwing block warnings around and requesting admin intervention because you fail to acknowledge that material had been contested and discused. Basdd off your attitude, I guess it will bd a while before I retract my comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    You kept edit-warring removing cited information. There were other avenues suggested to you like going to RSN to check the supplied source. That you chose to keep edit-warring to remove the cited information instead of pursuing alternate steps and also your use of attacking edit summaries show that my choice to warn you about your edit-warring habits was the right one. Keith adopted a much more constructive approach and it was no surprise that we came to a quick agreement. Dr. K. 19:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    Please! The source was questioned yesterday, with an extremely civil edit summary, and immediate discussion on the talkpage. Today, you initially ignored everything that has taken place and issued block warnings (despite your own edit warning). You only reached an agreement after you took the time to discuss the contested matererial (and after you initiated this).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) And just the other day he had racked up 3 reverts in very quick succession [45] [46] [47]. I warned him [48], but apparently he felt it didn't apply to him [49]. Athenean (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I request that an uninvolved administrator study the overt reasons for the disputed edits in the infobox and lead and then dictates a solution or route to consensus, because there is more energy going into these disputes than the article, which in my opinion is further away from a B class rating than ever. Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the lead, I have proposed a compromise formulation and you have responded with your own, with which I agree. There is no reason for "dictation" by anyone. Dr. K. 17:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've locked the article for one week. There are several very experienced editors edit-warring at the article. I can count the reverts by each editor, but at this point that is of little importance as the overall thrust of all these reverts is disruptive to the article and to the project. As for resolving the disputes, all these editors should know the various dispute resolution mechanisms to doing so. Use them while the article is locked. If I see a return to the edit-warring after the lock expires, blocks may be imposed without notice. And let's lose some of the aggressive allegations against other editors. Stick to the content and don't speculate as to another user's motives or interests.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Dr K started edit warring after I deleted a unsourced phrase a week after asking for sources in the talk page (a discussing that he didn't even participated) and none appearing. Not the first time a editor tried to push his views by threatening of a block either. Uspzor (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please leave the obfuscating nonsense. You asked for sources and I provided one that covered both sentences while copyediting the sentences to avoid duplicating the "first victory" mention as you wrote in your edit summary. The source was published by Oxford University Press and is very reliable. Doing the hard work of finding a reliable source is better than deleting information without bothering to check if it is supported by sources. Finding a reliable source after being asked for one, restoring and copyediting a deleted edit is not "edit-warring". Dr. K. 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Athensrobbery reported by User:Penguin888 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page:Kim Dae-eun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Athensrobbery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

User is a known troll from the International Gymnast Forum and has been posting there bragging about his edits. No talk page conversation would help here.Penguin888 (talk)Penguin888

  • Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Toss-up between that, vandalism only, WP:BLP violations, and disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:173.58.228.186 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked 3 months)[edit]

Page
Scotty Beckett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
173.58.228.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731399005 by Winkelvi (talk)"
  2. 03:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731398932 by Donner60 (talk)"
  3. 03:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Your dates are wrong"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Introducing factual errors on Scotty Beckett. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring over vandal edits, introducing factual errors. Won't stop. Doubt if he will outside of a block. -- WV 03:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 months The IP was blocked for 2 weeks at the end of June. This is resumption of the same behavior. NeilN talk to me 04:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Sumitkashyapjha reported by User:BU Rob13 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Mayur Shekhar Jha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sumitkashyapjha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Removing deletion tags. There is no issue with the page. Please don't unnecessarily mess with my page. Please."
  2. 19:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 19:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removing {{afd}} templates on Mayur Shekhar Jha. (TW)"
  2. 19:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Abusing multiple accounts */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Not applicable; involves deletion of XfD tags, not a content dispute
Comments:

Several other warnings given by another editor as well. This editor is edit-warring to remove the AfD tags after repeated attempts to explain that this is disruptive and doesn't stop the deletion discussion, including by using either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet to make a revert that isn't listed above. ~ Rob13Talk 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for persistent removal of AfD tags. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Sk200608 reported by User:STSC (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Permanent Court of Arbitration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sk200608 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [51]
  2. [52]
  3. [53]
  4. [54]
  5. [55]

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

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

Comments:

This user persistently removed the content of Income and expenses section from the article without giving any reason in the edit summary; in one occasion he/she just changed the content to "The commies lied thousands of times on this matter".

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 3 days. Disruptive editing and POV-pushing at Permanent Court of Arbitration. On 22 July 2016 he added these words to the article text: "The commies lied thousands of times on this matter" EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Zakawer reported by User:Darouet (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Outline of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zakawer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [59]
  2. [60]

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

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk pages: [62], [63]

Comments:

Zakawer was blocked only 10 days ago for repeatedly ignoring RS and community consensus that the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état should not be renamed to something else, like "2013 removal of Morsi." The recent diffs, discussion and block ruling against Zakawer can be viewed here.

Now, Zakawer's first edits after returning from the block are to:

  • Request that 2013 Egyptian coup d'état be merged with June 2013 Egyptian protests in a manner that flagrantly disregards all the discussion that got Zakawer blocked in the first place. Zakawer explains his attitude towards other wikipedians as follows: "Many Sisiphobes here on Wikipedia will want this article separate and promote their revolution-hating POV, which "consensus" agrees with, because their view of Egypt post-revolution - though not necessarily the rest of the world - largely agrees with the Muslim Brotherhood and its cause. And you Sisiphobes are the reason I can't make bold edits without getting reverted; I get angry when you revert, restore my edits, then end up in an edit war."

Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to be the very same attitude, edit warring, and ignoring of consensus discussions that Zakawer himself requested, that led to Zakawer's block. His statement implies that he has not only hardened in his beliefs but in his views towards the consensus process. If something else can be done to reform Zakawer's behavior, great, but I don't see that happening. -Darouet (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Darkwind: who was the last admin to deal with this case. -Darouet (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Fuck Wikipedia! I'm leaving this subject temporarily (going on lurk-only mode and ignoring the 2013 revolution) until someone can either question you or a third solution to make us both happy! Zakawer (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Zakawer is warned they may be blocked if they make any further reverts on the topic of the 2013 political events in Egypt (revolution, protests, coup d'état or whatever) without a prior talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Mathsci reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history |