Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive329

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Edit-warring on Arrow (TV series) (Result: Already protected)[edit]

Page: Arrow (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [1]
  2. [2]


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Comments:
The user is but one editor of four involved in a slo-mo edit-warring over a single word. The reason this user was specifically singled out for complaint is that they were explicitly asked to stop reverting over the matter and hash it out in article discussion. They continued to post an aggressive comment immediately after reverting yet again (removing cited material for the second time). They were asked to self-revert and continue discussion, and this complaint is the result of their failure to do so.
While the typical 3RR report is a simple counting of edits to determine violation, its my understanding that anyone choosing to edit-war can be warned and/or blocked for edit-warring. I suspect that (because I myself was blocked less than a month ago for this same sort of thing), that requests for other editors to use the talk page instead of the edit summary to make their arguments were falling on deaf ears. I'm not instigating; I honestly want to improve the article, and being faced with people equating change with being wrong is making editing collaboratively excruciating.
Knowing this, I had previously requested full protection for the article at RFPP to force editors to discuss collaboratively instead of dancing at the electric fence of 3RR. While waiting, this problem became emergent. Thus the complaint. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that there is no violation of 3RR here of the reported user, even while the reporting editor himself reverted four times within 24 hours. [5][6][7][8]. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ahh yes, I was wondering when my wikistalker would show up. A more careful look at those edits will indicate that I've added content upon request, not simply reverted, as the contributor above. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course I would show up, when you report a well-respected member of the Television project that I've worked closely with before, who's talk page I also have on my watchlist. The content of the reverts doesn't matter - you violated WP:3RR yourself: "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". You have no room to talk. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
While I am loathe to reply in any way to someone stalking me (seriously, stop - its creepy and uncomfortable), I will point out that successive edits does not qualify as edit-warring. At the risk of venturing into content disputes, you reverted an uncited statement added by someone else. I re-added it back in with a reference. You reverted it back out saying that there weren't enough sources. I reinstated it and added three more sources and statments, adding to the article in both content and length. I hardly see how those are considered reverts. And wtf are you stalking me for?
(edit conflict) I brought the matter here in the hopes not that Favre gets blocked, but that a warning is issued to use the talk page - which what the rest of us want. If that request for RFPP can get instated, that would be even better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This report is completely baseless for me, given I edited once on the article to the content in question (after just coming to the page history after being offline for a day and a half), responded on the talk after I saw Jack had previously started a discussion regarding the content in question, and then reverted Jack once. That's not edit-warring, yet like Alex pointed out above, Jack reverted four times in 24 hours. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, let's address those "reverts" - or as they are more appropriately called, successive edits:
  1. [9] -reinstating multiple sources
  2. [10] - reinstating sourced descriptor
  3. [11] - adding word to article
  4. [12] - adding sources to complement new statements in the article.
And here's something odd that I just noticed. AlexTheWhovian reverted precisely three times this same content (1, 2, 3), and then - almost as if by magic - Favre (whoAlextTheWhovian has already admitted is a close friend) shows up ands starts reverting the very same content as well! What a coincidence! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, Jack said They were asked to self-revert and continue discussion, and this complaint is the result of their failure to do so. They gave me a whole 19 minutes from responding on the Arrow talk to filing this report. Wow!. Luckily I logged back on in time to see and make responses. But seriously, jumping right to reporting, especially when I was active in the talk page discussion (but not active enough for Jack's liking apparently), is not the way to go about resolving disputes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, this doesn't seem to fit your own contributions history. The span between my request for you to self-revert and discuss and your reply was actually much shorter than that, you apparently edited several articles in the interim.
To be clear, the reason you were reported is that you were politely asked to stop reverting and instead contribute to the discussion taking place on the talk page, You disregarded that request and didn't bother discussing again, except to make the same point as before. Kind of the definition of edit-warring is to disregard the collaborative editng environment to do whatever you want. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what timeline of events you are looking at. I made my first unrelated edit, then responded on the talk page. You then reverted me on the article, I reverted you, then I responded again on the talk page, after you had made a response too, to which my response was in part to you and another editor. You then made your ultimatum of self revert or get reported when neither of us had made edits to the article again. So I continue to fail to see how I disregard[ed] the collaborative editng environment to do whatever [I] want[ed] and why you actually reported me instead of continuing the discussion process, when that avenue was not lost or hit a dead end to anyone involved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw this complaint, based upon discussions with Favre at their talk page. Feel free to archive this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:TheErectile reported by User:Dane2007 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
O. D. Kobo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
TheErectile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 05:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 09:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 03:16, October 21, 2016
  5. 17:21, October 20, 2016
  6. 05:11, October 20, 2016

There are more edits but I think this illustrates the point.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:54, October 11, 2016‎
  2. 03:49, October 21, 2016‎
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user is continuing to Edit War on the O.D. Kobo article after a block and was previously engaging in the same behavior at Bebo Kobo. Their edits remove sourced information and add unsourced information that does not comply with WP:NPOV. This user has also engaged in sock puppetry regarding these edits. -- Dane2007 talk 06:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:82.132.228.40 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Arena Park Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
82.132.228.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Updated parking information automatically"
  2. 20:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Amended typos and updated parking to reflect the use of ANPR camerw ontrolled parking and associated fines."
  3. 19:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Updated to reflect the ANPR camera controlled car park."
  4. 19:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Updated parking information to include recently introduced ANPR cameras and associated fines. Also updated on parkopedia and other social media platforms."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Arena Park Shopping Centre. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Parking */ new section"
Comments:

I told the IP twice to discuss it and have since started a discussion myself however they've made no effort to discuss it and have carried on reverting, I have a feeling the IP is 992264OP who was also adding the info, Admittingly I could've discussed it abit quicker however late is better than never but either way the IP has no interest in discussing it, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks EdJohnston - Wasn't expecting to see your name pop up as the "protecting admin" but anyway thanks for protecting it - much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Tsailand reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: diff (incorporated ref from first diff below which was otherwise reverted)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 20:30, 22 October 2016‎
  2. diff 21:41, 22 October 2016‎
  3. diff 23:32, 22 October 2016‎
  4. diff 23:45, 22 October 2016 (after reversion by 3rd editor)
  5. diff 23:51, 22 October 2016 (after reversion by 4th editor)



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning #1, was overwritten by user, warning #2 by third editor; warning #3 by 4th editor; both overwritten by user again; but first they copied warning #4 and stuck it in the midst of my talk page, here. oy.


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Toxicology#Replacing_animals (see strange history too)

Comments:

New editor came into WP full blast; no stopping to engage with policies and guidelines much less other editors. Sorry to be back here and sorry that a new user is brought here, but some folks drive right over a cliff as soon as their wheels hit the road here. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems the editor has stopped warring and is now discussing. @Jytdog: do you feel that action is still warranted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatulic (talkcontribs) 06:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. don't know if they just tired and are going to start up again tomorrow. :) hopefully they have stopped. would be great to decide tomorrow. thanks again Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That's my fear too. The editor may have stopped making the edit for now, but does not seem to be constructively discussing the edits, and still has not provided the requested page numbers from the 217 page document sourced. Meters (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
An IP gave User:Tryptofish an "only warning" this afternoon for removing talk page comments - the only action I can see that matches this accusation is this where Tryptofish removed a comment by Tsailand and replaced a barnstar that Tsailand had removed, presumably be accident. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Afterwriting reported by User:CFCF (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Naturopathy (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
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745646606 by CFCF (talk) You are REQUIRED to follow WP:STATUSQUO. Which part of this don't you understand?"
  2. 11:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745646373 by CFCF (talk) Stop creating edit wars and follow WP:STATUSQUO as you are required to do."
  3. 11:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745646070 by CFCF (talk) As per WP:STATUSQUO."
  4. 11:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745643933 by CFCF (talk) POV. The term "naturopathic doctor" is in common use whether you approve of it or not."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ledes & merge tags */ new section"
  2. 11:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ledes & merge tags */"
  3. 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ledes & merge tags */"
  4. 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ledes & merge tags */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See User talk:Afterwriting

Comments:

Lack of acceptable sources/any sources, no rationale. Quoting essay in order to obstruct actually basing the lede on the body of the text as well as the sources. Removing merge tags on Phytotherapy despite ongoing discussion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

These comments are risible. The other editor's changes were reverted with explanations but instead of following WP:STATUSQUO and properly seeking discussion and consensus initiated edit wars instead by insisting that the changes be accepted. Totally disingenuous. Afterwriting (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
As an example of the other editor's disingenuousness on this issue he has now "archived" my own comments on his own talk page. First he initiates edit wars when reverted but then has the audacity to report me for this instead and also hides my comments on his talk page. This is extraordinarily strange behaviour by the other editor. Afterwriting (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
after having seen article, agree w/ CFCF--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
What do you agree with? This all started with CFCF's factually false claim that "there is no such thing as a naturopathic doctor" and his removal of the term from the article. It was perfectly acceptable and correct for this edit to be reverted and not acceptable or correct for the other editor to then restore it and to provoke an edit war. Afterwriting (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 5 days. In addition, I am alerting User:Afterwriting, User:CFCF and User:Delta13C to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User: ‎Lithopsian + User: Arianewiki1 reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: WR 31a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

User being reported: ‎Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: See [13] Too long to list.

Comments:
Please see article WR 31a [14] regarding edit warring, and note the long history + Talk page [15]. Editor User: ‎Lithopsian refuses to engage in Talk page and requests no contact by User: Arianewiki1 on own Talk page, continues to throw insults and perpetually reverts. Happy to suffer any consequences, but this clearly must end. Fed up. Help. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Also. Evidence of "requests no contact by User: Arianewiki1" by User: ‎Lithopsian is here. [16] Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected, Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned I could issue symmetric block against both of you for edit-warring, which both of you were clearly engaged in: but that would be a waste of time. Instead, I have protected the page; please come to a consensus on the talk. Also, @Arianewiki1 and Lithopsian: you are both warned that further edit-warring, on this page or other pages, with or without 3RR violations, may result in a block. You have escaped a block, but it is not because your activity was acceptable. Vanamonde (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Question: This edit warring was certainly unacceptable, but this editor has point blank refused to engaged with the Talkpage process at all, as seen in this WR_31a talkage. What else could I do? All you have done is reward the perpetrator with their contentious edits. I even tried to engage other editors to resolve this conflict to no avail. When I ask for help, it is just ignored. When I request a fair resolution, it is ignored and replaced with a threat of sanction. Frankly pretending a threatened block against the clear evidence of having no willingness to discuss the issues to resolve this is just abysmal. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Arianewiki1: I have not "rewarded" anybody with anything: protection is not an endorsement of either version, but a tool to prevent disruption. You have several options available to you: you could ask for a third opinion, ask for dispute resolution, or open an WP:RFC. If your version is indeed the policy-compliant version, as you say, and the other editor is not willing to engage in this process, then your version will naturally win out over time: or more likely, a compromise of some sort will be reached. Please remember, there is deadline. Vanamonde (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Fair enough in your comments, but I have attempted this all before. The utter denial of interaction with me appears here [17] with a third opinion by User:Coffee on article V399 Carinae I.e."Yes, I am refusing to engage with Arianewiki1. If I get in trouble for that, then so be it." I've been falsely accused of "After repeated previous attempts to resolve differences about content impersonally and calmly, I can no longer assume good faith." My response have been specific, and with the example of the Talk page WR 31a[18]. I explain the problem with the edits with this response to me here.[19] under ""My last word." I was then accused here[20]. Each are a personal attacks, which this edit refuses to engage. I.e. No responses to the edits or queries were made ev en made to me. As for dispute resolution or open an WP:RFC, I tried this with WP:ANI in the V399 Carinae Talk page[21], as suggested by User:Coffee. (Read the Section "Non-Consensus and Deliberately Avoiding Good Faith") I got zero response.
Frankly, I'm so tired of trying compromising with this editor via the means you've suggested. So far I have for ages tried to avoid slipping into WP:3RR, and have tried to resolve this amicably. Also, this is why I posted to the ANI 3RR, to resolve this problem. Worst, half the battle is there few editors are capable of understanding the arguments, making "policy-compliant version" near impossible. Hence the 'missing' neutral editors. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, warning noted. I'll try harder. Lithopsian (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Lengthy post removed) This is not the place, Ariannewiki. This is the edit-warring noticeboard: the edit-warring reported here has been dealt with. This thread is not the place to rehash your dispute. Take it elsewhere, to ANI if necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Good to see that you were able to solve the actual problem. Not. So I will be immediately revering the continuous edit on the 28th when the embargo is lifted. Your 'resolutions' to this are clearly inadequate, especially when I've followed that paths you suggest. The delete information actually explained what I've done to solve this, but you've ignored it. Clearly the other editor has no desire to come to some compromise. I was obviously totally stupid to point out the possible 3RR violations here, because it benefited no one, and just fueled the flames and made matters worst. Pity. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:107.77.215.190 reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: Block, Semi)[edit]

Page: All Eyez on Me (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.77.215.190 (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: didn't have time to start a discussion

Comments:

A word to the wise, the last diff this editor posted was a revert I performed, not that of the disruptive anon. X75.74.40.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: IP blocked 24 hours for disruption of AN3 by removing the report. Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:112.209.129.187 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: DWRC-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 112.209.129.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [28]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [29]: The re-addition of a logo removed on this edit made on October 15, 2016
  2. [30]
  3. [31]
  4. [32]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34], [35], [36]
Comments:
IP is edit warring over a non-free image at DRWC-TV. The edit sums I left here, here, and here include links to the relevant policy pages. Further more detailed information was posted on the IP's user talk. IP was invited to participate in an FFD discussion regarding th file's use here, but the IP's response was to remove a "ffdc" notification template added to let other editor know about the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Ks0stm (TCGE) 06:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Elvey (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [37]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/744789969
  2. Special:Diff/744793647



  1. Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [38] ({{2016 US Election AE}})
  2. Another edit warring / 1RR warning: advocacy
  3. Diff of another edit warring / 3RR warning: [39] and there are many more on the user's talk page.
  4. Another edit warring warning: [40]
  5. Another edit warring warning: [41]
  6. etc: "edit war" appears on the user's talk page TWENTY-THREE times.
  7. Addendum: I haven't looked through AE archives, but Per SR's comment below, I'm guessing there has been even more warning regarding 1RR there.

Talk page discussion: [42] (Failed. No acknowledgment of or apology for the violation!)


Comments:


Looking at the user talk page, I see a pattern. The edit warring needs to be made to stop.

(i) I did not realize that the Clinton Foundation page was under 1RR. I wouldn't have done it had I known. (ii) Anyway, the original revert was perfectly reasonable and the user who added the content originally and then restored the content is a loon who has been banned from editing on the Jill Stein page (note that many of the 'edit warring' warnings on my talk page come from this lunatic regarding my encounters with him/her on the Jill Stein page - this user was eventually topic-banned for repeated violations of wikipedia rules). Having been topic-banned from Jill Stein, the user is now going from Clinton article to Clinton article to add a bunch of nonsense, some of which I have reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reporting this, Elvey, I've tried to draw the user's behavior to admin's attention before, but the evidence always seemed to be too detailed, so it didn't get read. I cannot defend myself from the ad hominem attacks because of a gag-rule, so I'll just ask that Snooganssnoogans drop the stick and stop casting aspersions. I had planned to let consensus emerge from the talk page without reporting the incident after close consultation of WP:BULB and WP:WIKISPEAK, but it's certainly just as well that you brought it up here. SashiRolls (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I would ask that Snooganssnoogans be sanctioned for the many blatant personal attacks on SashiRolls, above, in addition to the bright line violation I've identified. We'll see if there's any retraction using strike or {{tl:rpa}} before that happens. WP:CIVIL isn't just a good idea. It's policy.--Elvey(tc) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposal: weekend block. I would ask that an admin carefully weigh the claim "I did not realize that the Clinton Foundation page was under 1RR." against the evidence - 1)of FAR more than adequate notification regarding 1RR, and 2) of attitude when notified of it.
I wouldn't bring this here if it looked like an isolated incident; it would be different if there wasn't A)frequent edit warring, etc, B)no apology, and C)more defending of the sanction-able behavior above.
--Elvey(tc) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • First, there's no doubting SashiRolls' off-kilter editing behavior (just read the proceedings that got the user topic-banned). I feel perfectly within my right to call the user a loon based on the user's record, which includes repeated harassment on my talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Second, I do know that politicians' pages are 1RR (I edit extensively on several politicians' pages). I didn't know the same applied to the Clinton charity. I was under the impression that it would be under the same rules as any other non-profit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Third, the accusations of frequent edit warring are false. Most of those accusations stem from my interactions with SashiRolls on the Jill Stein page, a page that he/she eventually got a topic-ban on. After SashiRolls got booted off the Jill Stein, the page returned to normal, with normal editor interactions. My interactions with other editors have been perfectly normal. Interestingly, the only one initiating edit wars and removing long-standing content on the Jill Stein page for ridiculous reasons has been you for the last few days. I've mostly left it alone though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Fourth, the only edit warring I did was when I was new to politicians' pages (and new to highly active pages where it was necessary to revert content regularly): I wasn't aware of 3RR, which applied in May/June 2016. After being cautioned, I of course obliged by the rule. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Fifth, I don't shy away from calling things what they are. Vaccine fear-mongering is a shitty position. SashiRolls following me from page to page to make bizarre edits on issues he/she knows nothing about (Icelandic politics), I do consider "sabotage". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sixth, my account is definitely not dedicated to political edits. I started out editing to add academic content, and still do. It's just that news about the election gets published more rapidly than the studies that would make a worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia. If you were to actually check my history, you'd see that I've written almost whole pages and large sections from scratch (some that come to mind: coup d'etat, "immigration: economic effects", "human capital flight: advantages", "human capital flight: disadvantages", "immigration and crime", "resource curse"), with nearly all edits consisting of academic research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Seventh, Survey Monkey is a C- rated pollster on FiveThirtyEight. I'm frankly not the biggest fan but as it stands, it's one of few comprehensive polls we have about a recent event, which makes a totally worthwhile contribution to the page that I added it to. I added the tweet from a reliable journalist, because I was short on time and wanted to add it to the page before I forgot about it. Thankfully, because Wikipedia is full of great editors, some other editor added a full citation and provided a better source than the tweet for the same content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Eight, as the admins are reading this, I think they should be aware that there are forums on the Internet where conspiracy theorists and Jill Stein supporters talk about me, disparage my intentions and discuss getting me thrown of Wikipedia (SashiRolls posted on one such forum under the same username as one of his/her sockpuppet accounts - yes, SashiRolls also got temporarily blocked from Wikipedia for using sockpuppet accounts). I don't know Elvey's intentions, but I think it's worthwhile to point out that the user only started to edit on the Jill Stein page a few days ago, immediately tries to get me sanctioned for edits on unrelated pages, runs through my history, and recites the same claims that SashiRolls raised against me repeatedly (and frankly uses very similar language and editing styles). Elvey's edits on the Jill Stein page are also very similar to the types of edits that SashiRolls tended to do (disruptive edits, combative interactions with other editors, inability to back up claims, a tendency to speak in word salads). Those familiar with SashiRolls' editing behavior (those involved in his/her Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but also with specific experience of the editor's editing style) might want to chip in: @Neutrality: + @Timothyjosephwood: + @Clpo13:, @Tryptofish: . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Then Tryptofish will note that it is not canvassing, because nobody is being misled. The pings are plainly visible here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
You were canvassed; visibility doesn't make it not canvassing. Stop making personal attacks; anyone is welcome to use {{rpa}} when attacked. --Elvey(tc) 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"Bugger off and stop making personal attacks": that's priceless! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
It is perfectly acceptable (and indeed is common courtesy) to ping users who have previously been involved in or expressed interest in a topic or a dispute. This is certainly not "improper canvassing" and the guideline makes that very clear (WP:APPNOTE). These kind of spurious accusations against Snoogans seem designed to "nail him for everything and anything" and that's really not the type of behavior that should be encouraged. Neutralitytalk 18:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, if you define the topic broadly enough, there' no such thing as canvassing. I recall seeing users sanctioned for pings better justified than the ones above. The policy is not applied fairly. I'll consider performing that courtesy as appropriate if I'm in that situation next time. --Elvey(tc) 22:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
After some more looking around, I do see that the talk page for the Clinton Foundation has a very clear template right at the top, indicating the existence of ArbCom restrictions including 1RR, so I would think that anyone really ought to have been aware that 1RR applied to that page. Anyway, that really does fall under the purview of AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
tl;dr. Moving this to WP:AE would be forum shopping. Snooganssnoogans should also be sanctioned for canvassing those four users though. You have diffs to support your EW accusation? Snooganssnoogans launched a massive reputation attack without offering a single diff. Not cool. Still: B)no apology, and C)more defending of the sanction-able behavior above plus D) no retraction of the many blatant personal attacks on SashiRolls, --Elvey(tc) 23:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Please do not edit my comments[43]. Interesting that you did that. SashiRolls had a tendency to repeatedly edit other editor's comments, in particular, removing words that he/she took offense to. I had never seen that behavior before and I hadn't again, until you just did it now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't make personal attacks and I won't edit your comments to remove them, as I did. The user that you canvassed to this page has restored them, thereby makeing persona attack as well.
  • Comment Uninvolved non-administrator input: it's obvious these editors have a history. While it does look like User:Snooganssnoogans made a bright line violation on 1RR, it could easily be accidental. User:SashiRolls could do better to WP:DGF but instead immediately reverted Snooganssnoogans' revert without any attempt to compromise or follow the D part of WP:BRD. In Snooganssnoogans' 1RR-violating edit summary, he asked to take the discussion to the talk page, which seems like reasonably civil behavior to me. I propose a warning to User:Snooganssnoogans to be more mindful of 1RR. AlexEng(TALK) 01:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
User:AlexEng: Which editors have a history? The ones that were canvassed? True! Going how far back? How long have you been editing, by the way? You registered in 2007... and have just ~100 edits under your belt, and you ignore all the other violations I've noted, and the edit warring history. Curious. You think it's WP:CIVIL for an editor (say, Snooganssnoogans) to call fellow editors (say, you, a friend of yours, or someone for whom the description is fitting) a loon ... a lunatic who adds nonsense to articles ... describe their edits with the terms "nonsense", "shit", "sabotage", "ridiculous"? --Elvey(tc) 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC),
User:Elvey - I apologize if I was not clear. The editors to whom I referred are User:Snooganssnoogans and User:SashiRolls. However, I would also point to your conflict of interest with Snooganssnoogans over the Jill Stein dispute. This is clearly an emotional issue for all involved parties, but the discussion now appears to be closed. I hope you folks can WP:DTS and WP:DGF in the future. Take care. AlexEng(TALK) 20:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposal: Block Snooganssnoogans for 72 hours. The claim "I did not realize that the Clinton Foundation page was under 1RR." strains credulity to the breaking point given the evidence - of FAR more than adequate notification regarding 1RR, and 2) There's the attitude when notified of it. (I wouldn't bring this here if it looked like an isolated incident; there was A)frequent edit warring, etc, B)no apology, and C)more defending of, and incidents of the sanctionable behavior.)
--Elvey(tc) 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1) Snooganssnoogans has said I have "sabotaged" an article on Icelandic politics. In fact, I rendered it more readable for a non-Icelandic speaking readership by adding a legend into the text added by the other editor. Nobody has complained about the way I left the article in question, not even Snooganssnoogans. (total interaction on the page in question: diff). Now s/he calls it sabotage without providing diffs... though in my view it is evidence of working "well" together to improve the readability of an article. 2) I agree with Elvey that the user should be strongly sanctioned for their continual personal attacks of multiple users. Likewise, observing WP:BRD ("Consider reverting only when necessary.") would mark a positive and radical change in this user's behavior. SashiRolls (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Having interacted with Snooganssnoogans and others in the past, I think anything more than a warning would be uncalled for and would be essentially punitive rather than protective (which is of course counter to our blocking policy). I agree with the considerations articulated by Snooganssnoogans, AlexEng, and Tryptofish:
  • Snooganssnoogans made one revert that ran afoul of the rule, does not have a recent history of edit warring, and is an editor who abides by consensus and does careful work in difficult topic areas.
  • The revert in question asked for discussion on the talk page, an edit summary was given, and the summary was polite and reasonable. It is also relevant that the article in question has been the subject of problematic editing in the past.
  • Snooganssnoogans has acknowledged that he ran afoul of the rule and has said that he would not have done it had he known of the 1RR application on that particular page. There is no reason to doubt this. (We assume good faith.)
  • A factor that should also be weighed in the analysis, as Tryptofish articulated, is that some of those who are pressing this complaint against Snoogans engaged in conduct that was similar and in some cases much worse (unclean hands).
In sum, this should be closed and everyone should move on and return to productive editing. Neutralitytalk 18:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I would indeed warn Snoogans that he should have seen and paid attention to the 1RR notice at the top of the talk page, rather than to guess whether or not 1RR applied. But I otherwise agree, and with the time that has passed (amid a wall of tl;dr nonsense), this has become a stale request, because there are no further reverts by Snoogans. I would also warn the two editors with "unclean hands" that a failure to resume productive editing, as opposed to making a battleground, will inevitably lead to a serious boomerang. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Snooganssnoogans is warned for breaking the 1RR. User:SashiRolls is reminded that consensus is needed before undoing someone else's revert on this article. SashiRolls apparently broke the restriction on October 17 which says "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." This consensus requirement is the same box on the talk page which announces the 1RR restriction. So SashiRolls was obliged to get consensus before undoing the preceding revert by Snooganssnoogans, but did not do so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Feeling disappointed... and frightened because I see the silent consensus is that it's WP:CIVIL for an editor (say, Snooganssnoogans) to call fellow editors (say, you, a friend of yours, or someone for whom the description is fitting) a loon ... a lunatic who adds nonsense to articles ... describe their edits with the terms "nonsense", "shit", "sabotage", "ridiculous". That it's CIVIL to ignore reasonable questions. But so be it. I regret the time I spent on this. Question: EdJohnston, would you enforce "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." evenhandedly to all users editing (on both sides) if in future you were again wielding the mop in an edit war in violation of {{2016 US Election AE}} or do you only apply sanctions to one side? In other words, once 1RR is violated, edits that add or remove the same content should face the same sanction, whether adding or removing? What sanctions are typical? Feel free to reply privately.--Elvey(tc) 22:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for trying Elvey. I hadn't planned on trying because I've learned that WP:CIVIL is only Wikipedia policy for the lucky many -- some Snoogs are more equal than others, after all. Unless you want to find yourself in a boiling pit faster than you can say WP:WIKISPEAK, it's best to meditate on the peaceful and forgetful sheep. SashiRolls (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The wording of the consensus requirement (as put in place on this article by User:Coffee) seems to put the burden of discussion on whoever wants to undo the revert. Speaking of civility, if other admins see violation of civility by anyone named in this report they should do whatever they think is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your polite response on your talk page concerning the non-enforcement of WP:CIVIL. I'm very surprised by this text "all editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" which isn't mentioned anywhere in the WP:ARBAP2 decision (unless my search and reading skills are slipping). Maybe the justification for locking down pages so that information cannot be added is somewhere else? Anyone know where this comes from? SashiRolls (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That restriction was not created by Arbcom. It was applied by User:Coffee as a discretionary sanction. That is, WP:ARBAP2 allowed him to use his discretion to impose it. For details see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#American politics 2 and search for 'Clinton Foundation'. If you don't like the restriction, read WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications for the appeal options. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I was not aware that systemic bias tags could be removed without consensus. I see you have decided to protect the page just after the tag was deleted. I've moved on to editing elsewhere, but did want to acknowledge your response. SashiRolls (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:121.214.169.171 reported by User:2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.214.169.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=746059393&oldid=746059178

Keeps deleting my report. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff



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


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

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned I've responded to the noticeboard and left warnings on both involved. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Mawlidman reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page
Badr Jafar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mawlidman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745792569 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) undoing edit again by cabal of authoritarian wiki editors who think they are somehow entitled to silence what doesn't suit them."
  2. 09:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745791731 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) Not at all "peripheral" if those people are prominent as shown on blp Noticeboard."
  3. 09:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745758056 by Johnuniq (talk) restored spiteful content removal. countless wiki articles mention prominent family of the main subject in their article"
  4. 02:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */ re-worded for easier comprehension" -- repeats the substance of this earlier revert
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 09:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC) "/* October 2016 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. BLPN
Comments:

Me and User:Nomoskedasticity filed at the same time; my comment below.

  • Has been warned about (and indeed blocked for) edit warring on this and other articles many times. Repeatedly inserting ethnocentric factoids peripheral to the subject. Probably this WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour should be unsurprising, given the sole notice on his UP informs us that his 'mission' is to edit a related page. Muffled Pocketed 09:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • These editors have in quick succession ganged up on me even after i re-wrote my edit. They seem more driven by the desire to stamp their authority over underlings than to uphold any real wiki policies. I re-wrote the edit to mention Mr Jafar's notable family (as the sources clearly mention), but apparently not abandoning my project was reason enough to gang up on me and remove any new content i added. I was told that mentioning prominent relatives is peripheral to the subject! So why does G W Bush and countless other people have their prominent relatives mentioned in their articles? This is hypocrisy clothed with very weak arguments.
      NB.: my comment here was first removed by the commenter above then gingerly restored by another gang member with the arrogant edit summary "let's put his own comment in..." Mawlidman (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment @Mawlidman: As well as WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, could you please desist from your personal attacks? Calling editors 'spiteful sods', and arrogant, hypocrite and gang-members as you did above is not helpful. Muffled Pocketed 10:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, and you should know better than to remove my comment as you did here. Mawlidman (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Negative. The entire thread was removed; when that happens (and it is not uncommon) comments within it are- logically- removed too. Nomoskedasticity was kind enough to reinsert it here, for which you then abused him. Nice attitude. Muffled Pocketed 10:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Wrong. Go down to the bottom of my link provided and you will see that the entire thread wasn't removed. Your edit was conveniently still there. And "Nomoskedasticity was kind enough to reinsert it"...Seriously!!! His condescending edit summary was quite clear that it was not done in kindness -- perhaps out of a desire to not expose the removal in the first place, seeing as i was re-adding it at the same time which created an edit conflict. So he just beat me to it. Perhaps there was hope for a quick blocking of my account if my side of the story was silenced; who knows. Mawlidman (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No; when I deleted my duplicate thread I unfortunately removed your comment as well, which is just the way of things, somewhat. And as I have pointed out before (but perhaps in the general, rather than now, in the particular), you need to assume good faith that other editors are not in fact silencing your 'side of the story' or hoping 'for a quick blocking.' These knee-jerk comments are, as has also been pointed out, less than helpful. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 15:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment as a user rather than as an admin, as I too have interacted with this user before. Whether or not a block is deserved in this case, the battleground behavior is very much in evidence; and the fact that this user has managed to enter into conflict with three experienced users within the space of their first few hundred edits is saying something. Fresh eyes on a topic are generally a good thing, but Mawlidman also needs to learn to take a step back and actually listen to those they are interacting with. Vanamonde (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I would have thought this one would be quite straightforward, given the previous block for the same problem... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours --slakrtalk / 04:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:91.61.68.107 reported by User:Attar-Aram syria (Result: protected)[edit]

Page
Human rights in Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
91.61.68.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The IP just popped into Wikipedia and know his way perfectly. He knows how to edit war, revert, use talk pages and leave messages. He came to restore a controversial edit after the user who made that edit stopped his own edit war to keep it (you make the connection).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1
2
3
4
5 this is after I told him in my precious edit summary that he has passed his 3 revert limit.

He also refuse to actually engage in an actual discussion (that require you to wait for a result), instead, he just write what he think should happen in the talk page and then do what ever he wants as if it is enough to just lay out your opinion on a talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

This IP is probably a sock puppet of the blocked user User:PoliticoSearch who also used the sockpuppet User:Wikiwürmleini. Just like the IP, this user came brand new and immediately into the said article and denied being a formerly blocked one...etc.

In this edit, Wikiwürmleini claimed to be a casual reader who dont have any interest in the topic. The IP made the same claim. Also, Wikiwürmleini accused me of believing in conspiracies and being delusional, which is a theme for the IP.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Attar-Aram syria did not only make more reverts himself than anyone (including me) to fight through his controversial selective deletion of human rights violations of a certain faction in Syria. It is him, not anyone else (including me), who refuses any discussion on the merits of his deletions, and only resorts to try intimidate other editors. He himself violates every rule for civil conduct towards other editors both on the talk page and in his edit summaries.

Please see talk page of the article (and go through edit summaries). 91.61.68.107 (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The rule for controversial edits is keeping the former status quo then discuss the introduction of the controversial edit. You want it to be the other way around. Now, it is perfectly fine to revert blocked users and it is not a 3rr violation. And you, (with your experty in editing and focusing on one subject despite making your first edit this week) proves to be a blocked user with a single purpose for existence in Wikipedia.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I kindly ask you to stop calling me "blocked user". This is uncivil and slanderous. I can assure you that I have never in my life had a Wikipedia account blocked. And I find it patently absurd how much effort you put in trying to intimidate other users instead of trying to argue your controversial edits. 91.61.68.107 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected and added templates related to WP:GS/SCW. Please beware this page, as well as all others in the topic area of the Syrian Civil War are WP:1RR --slakrtalk / 04:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Attar-Aram syria reported by User:91.61.68.107 (Result: protected)[edit]

User:Attar-Aram syria makes persistent reverts in the Human Rights in Rojava article, to fight for his selective deletion of Syrian civil war war crimes of one particular faction (Free Syrian Army) in the area. He makes no serious attempt to argue his controversial deletions, but puts his efforts into trying to intimidate and threaten other editors.

His most recent reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=next&oldid=745832537

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=745832005

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=745829401

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=745687195

Please look at edit summaries and talk page of the article. 91.61.68.107 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

My answer is in the above section. Im merely reverting a blocked user.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not "a blocked user". Repeating this slander all the time belongs to the intimidating conduct I complain about. 91.61.68.107 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected see above. --slakrtalk / 04:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Pristino (Result: )[edit]

Page: Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:Number 57 has repeatedly removed factual information from an election results table despite being invited to resolve the issue in the Talk page first:

  1. Removes factual data, stating Clearly not right as actual number of registered voters is higher. Suggest this figure should only come from RNEC if needed, which is a puzzling argument to make for someone who apparently likes to edit election articles. Registered voters is different from Voting Age Population, and he should know this, but he apparently does not. Voting Age Population is the number of people over the legal voting age (usually 18) living in the country. This figure is given by statistic offices, not election offices, and it is widely used to gauge the true level of participation within a political unit, as the electoral roll usually includes people residing overseas, skewing the turnout rate.
  2. Second revert.
  3. Third revert, after being invited to resolve the matter in the Talk page.
  4. Fourth revert, after being warned he had exhausted his slot of reverts.

He has not actually broken WP:3RR as the edits are over a period of eight days. However, he continues to revert the inclusion of factual, properly cited data (usually a few hours after they're added). His defense is based on weak and/or ignorant arguments, that sound more like a desperate attempt to keep the table unchanged. It does not appear that he is going to stop, as he has a long history of reverting users which add, modify or alter election articles in a way he does not like. Pristino (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note See my comments above, in the other thread. --slakrtalk / 04:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Pristino reported by User:Number 57 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pristino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Pristino has repeatedly added the same dubious information to this article (a figure for voting age population which is lower than the number of registered voters) multiple times despite being asked to stop due to WP:SYNTH, WP:BRD and a direct warning that he would be reported for edit warring.

  1. Adds voting age population
  2. Readds after it was removed
  3. Readds despite request to respect BRD
  4. Readds despite warning that it would result in a report for edit warring.

He has not actually broken WP:3RR as the edits are over a period of a few days. However, he has readded it every day he has logged into Wikipedia during this period and it does not appear that he is going to stop. He has responded on the talk page, but is continuing to revert in the meantime. If he isn't blocked, then can someone at least fully-protect the page. Thanks, Number 57 11:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Number 57 has repeatedly removed factual information from an election results table despite being invited to resolve the issue in the Talk page first:
  1. Removes factual data, stating Clearly not right as actual number of registered voters is higher. Suggest this figure should only come from RNEC if needed, which is a puzzling argument to make for someone who apparently likes to edit election articles. Registered voters is different from Voting Age Population, and he should know this, but he apparently does not. Voting Age Population is the number of people over the legal voting age (usually 18) living in the country. This figure is given by statistic offices, not election offices, and it is widely used to gauge the true level of participation within a political unit, as the electoral roll usually includes people residing overseas, skewing the turnout rate.
  2. Second revert.
  3. Third revert, after being invited to resolve the matter in the Talk page.
  4. Fourth revert, after being warned he had exhausted his slot of reverts.
He has not actually broken WP:3RR as the edits are over a period of eight days. However, he continues to revert the inclusion of factual, properly cited data (usually a few hours after they're added). His defense is based on weak and/or ignorant arguments, that sound more like a desperate attempt to keep the table unchanged. It does not appear that he is going to stop, as he has a long history of reverting users which add, modify or alter election articles in a way he does not like. Pristino (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Pristino and Number 57: Might it be an idea to bring in a third opinion? Back-and-forth reverting between yourselves is problematic, and over time it doesn't matter if 3RR is broken; it's still edit warring. --slakrtalk / 04:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Slakr: I've requested input from the Elections & Referendums WikiProject. Cheers, Number 57 07:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Light show reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Light show (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC) "/* top */Trimmed factoid supported by links to other articles. The lead is a summary of this article."
  2. 19:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC) "/* top */ trimmed material supported by link to another article, not this one. Talk if unclear about BLP"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC) "/* October 2016 */"
  2. 07:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "/* October 2016 */"
Comments:

Article subject to 1RR. Editor acknowledges he didn't bother reading the prominent warning on the edit page. All sorts of arguments can be mounted here (RfC under way, etc.), but they don't amount to a reason to violate 1RR; strict adherence to that restriction is required, unless we want to open the doors to violations for other reasons. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Light show has clearly engaged in disruptive edit warring in blatant disregard of the ongoing lengthy discussions of the issue in question on the talk page over the last couple of weeks and ongoing discussions on the discretionary sanctions enforcement page, and all consensus-finding processes over the last couple of weeks. He has seemingly taken it upon himself to edit war the now stable few sentences on the sexual assault controversy – the result of painstaking work by numerous editors to find an acceptable, neutral and WP:DUE wording – out of the article. On the talk page he revealingly refers to what we on Wikipedia call reliable sources with the pejorative term "MSM". --Tataral (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Also note that the claim that there is somehow a "BLP problem" with the wording in question has, prior to the edit warring by User:Light show, been described as "a case of WP:CRYBLP" and without any merit in the ongoing, related discussion concerning the exact same wording on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. As he has commented on the talk page in the discussion on this exact issue, he is obviously aware of the current discussions of it. --Tataral (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale I thought about a block, but Light Show has had some straight talking on their page, plus at least one editor defending them, so that's probably not a good idea. As LS has not touched the article since yesterday, I'll let them off with a warning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:LouisAragon reported by User:570ad (Result: declined)[edit]

::Tiptoethrutheminefield: As you can see, I tried to escalate the issue with this article's current state in order to bring attention to the underlying problem, but unfortunately the problem still persists. Thanks for your help! -570ad (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

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


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: mentioned edit wars in the note


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

Comments:
I've tried to highlight the issue under the article's Talk page and asked the user to stop reverting the page to the version that removes the "Regions with significant populations" table, stating the reasons why the table was established there and requesting that it be left alone because of those reasons. However, instead of actually reading my appeal, the user simply deleted it from the Talk page, as well as reverted the article back to an inferior version, simply citing "sleeper account" as his justification of doing so, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not sure what the user's agenda is with regards to this article and Persians, but clearly, there is some motive that is behind the user insisting on reducing Persian population numbers from ~90 million in the region and beyond to 49 million confined to only Iran. 570ad (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

100% BOOMERANG. This user, an obvious sleeper account, with no more than 150 edits over the span of five years, and with his last edit having been made in late 2015/early 2016 (more than ten months ago), literally all of a sudden hopped in, mass-reinstated all non-WP:RS sources (e.g. JoshuaProject, Mayhew (2011), published by Lonely Planet) and unsourced content, to support his agenda. None of the reliable sources (such as Encyclopedia Iranica, Iranologists, etc.) ever coined the Persian people, also known as the Persian ethnic group, to include Hazaras, Tajiks, etc. Hence, I believe this is nothing more than blatant POV-pushing, for which he was rightfully reverted. None of the links in the infobox confirm his stance either, e.g. that ethnic Persians includes the present-day ethnic groups of the Hazaras, Tajiks, etc. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Notice also how, when I reverted his talk page commentary, which was a clear essay (per WP:FORUM) I was almost instantly reverted by an IP. Hence, clear sock/meat-puppetry on top of this frivolous ANI report. Notice also, furthermore, how said user had also written a similar essay here a while ago, fully in line with his ungrounded stance, because he just thinks it should be like that, and not what the reliable sources tell us. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Lastly, he didn't even leave a notification on my talk page. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
There you go yet again completely side-stepping the issue and bringing up points that have nothing to do with the basic argument. What I'm saying is not POV-pushing, I think on the contrary it's you who is pushing your own agenda. Look through the edits as well as the talk page, removal of the table has been brought up by others as well. Perhaps you're unaware and so that's why you're only seeing the question with a boxed-in 1-dimensional mindset that is typical of someone actually unfamiliar with a certain topic, but the Persian identity and culture is constantly evolving and our understanding is evolving as well. You play the same old broken record of "but the sources don't say this," without asking when those sources were created? You don't think knowledge becomes outdated and gets built upon? Typical medieval mindset, good job. You're clearly just a troll who removed 40 million people from the stats page without researching the issue simply because the old sources never mentioned such and such as part of the Persian race. Did you know about the political friction Afghanistan and Iran had in the last century that prompted Afghanistan to officially change the name of the language from "Farsi" to "Dari" simply to set itself apart--even though everyone to this day says they speak "Farsi" and rarely do they say "Dari." So it takes little imagination to see how politics can play a role in "sources". And in fact there are more non-Hazara Persian speakers in Afghanistan than Hazaras and yes, Tajikistan is a Persian country. To completely remove these people from the total estimate/statistics (as well as the millions in Uzbekistan and other parts of the Middle East, such as the Gulf Arab states, which has sizable Persian communities known as "Ajams"--but you wouldn't know that) is spreading misinformation under your false expert pretenses, which are completely disconnected from the topic in all reality. Lets remove these 40 million people who make up almost half of the entire Persian population of the world, whose ancestors (spread all throughout Wikipedia articles) as well as themselves, have made significant contributions to the overall identity of the Persian culture because one user thinks he alone is the gatekeeper on who is Persian and who isn't.
And to address your other irrelevant points: The system only allows users to be logged in for 30 days straight; I am on Wikipedia a lot and there are certainly times where I'm just making a minor edit to improve the quality of the articles here, I don't feel the need to click on "Login" every time I make a minor grammatical correction, etc., just to "get credit" and have it "logged" under my account name. I am voluntarily doing this to help improve the overall quality of the Encyclopedia, I don't need any recognition for my tiny part in this community. Please stop trying to question my contribution here and bringing up these and other moot, irrelevant points and lets address the actual issue of removing the Regions with significant populations table. 570ad (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no valid edit warring warning of User:LouisAragon. A comment in an edit summary is not sufficient, even more so when it is directed at a different editor. LouisAragon had not edited the article in five days when that supposed edit warring notice was given. There's also no clear edit warring by LouisAragon. He or she has only made two reverts today of the article, exactly the same number as User:570ad. I suggest that LouisAragon should either open an SPI connecting 570ad and the IP to one or more previous accounts, or retract the socking accusation. Meters (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined --slakrtalk / 04:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2607:fb90:1e0b:e660:0:47:7857:9e01 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Doc Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2607:fb90:1e0b:e660:0:47:7857:9e01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [44]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  3. [47]
  4. [48]
  5. [49]
  6. [50]
  7. [51]
  8. [52], after notification of this report


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: indirectly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doc Love

Comments:

  • Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:95.133.148.13 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page
European Open (snooker) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
95.133.148.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Chris Turner archive listed Irish Open after the German Masters, which have own article. European Open, German Masters, Irish Open are the separate entities in the title of that page."
  2. 18:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "sorry I don't know what is hÉireann, but do you have the sources which says, European Open and Irish Open are the same tournament??"
  3. 18:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Irish Open is not European Open. source please?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on European Open (snooker). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Requested protection, and a small discussion took place, which is good. Muffled Pocketed 20:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  • And? 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. Here is three edits only. There are no any sources which say, European Open and Irish Open are the same tournament. Linked in the article Chris Turner archive [54] listed Irish Open after the German Masters, which have own article. European Open, German Masters, Irish Open are the separate entities in the title of that page. I only removed the entry which not supported by any sources. 95.133.148.13 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The IP has always been prepared to discuss his edits so we have to give them that, but he refuses to accept consensus when it goes against him. European Masters (snooker) has had to be protected because this particular IP refused to accept the outcome of an RFC. He hasn't broken 3RR but I think an enforced 12-hour break wouldn't be such a bad thing for him. He can take the evening off and chill out a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Good try. If so I think 6, 8 or 12-hour break for BettyLohan must be applied also for the same number of reverts in that article. He can take the morning off. Edit war is a two-way thing. 95.133.148.13 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    I haven't reverted at all in relation to the issue you have been reported for and I only reverted once at