Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive338

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:FF9600 reported by User:Wikiinger (Result: No violation—Page protected)[edit]

Page: Template:AMD Radeon Rx 400 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:AMD Radeon Rx M4xx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:AMD Radeon Rx 300 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:AMD Radeon Rx M3xx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:AMD Radeon Rx 200 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:AMD Radeon Rx M2xx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:AMD Radeon HD 8xxx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:AMD Radeon HD 8xxxM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FF9600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:AMD_Radeon_Rx_400&oldid=767544594


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAMD_Radeon_Rx_400&type=revision&diff=768415065&oldid=767544594
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAMD_Radeon_Rx_400&type=revision&diff=768599887&oldid=768553026
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAMD_Radeon_Rx_400&type=revision&diff=768611824&oldid=768610865
  4. [diff]

(I'm sparring the diffs for the other templates, but it is the same issue)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FF9600&oldid=768611689


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FF9600&oldid=768555211

Comments:
I proposed and implemented a new layout for the GPU chipset table (which is used in all of the aforementioned tables), which received positive feedback:

This was all around 2 weeks ago. Now comes FF9600 around and reverts everything without further ado.

Wikiinger never proposed the changed of the GPU chipset table on the ACTUAL (AMD) GPU list talkpage. I proposed the actual discussion on the talk page & Wikiiner continues to revert the edits, therefore they are one that is edit warring. As I also pointed out more dramatic proposed changes to established articles should be via userspace (sandbox) or a draft and a discussion should take place on the article(s) affected by these changes, but Wikiinger continues to disregard my attempts at having a proper discussion.  #FF9600  talk 21:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Check the links above, I started a discussion AND received feedback. It is true that I did not start a discussion AMD GPU list talk page (since I found this talk page only later). However the templates are used in several articles, so it isn't clear at all where the best place for discussion is.
After starting the edit-war you made a poor attempt to criticize the new layout. While it is true that the new layout has issues, they are much less than with the old one. Also I'm open to discuss these and further improve the new layout (see Template talk:GPU Chipset Table), however just reverting to the old layout is not going to cut it.--Wikiinger (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Report only lists three reverts—you need four to breach 3RR. Please discuss the issue on the article talk page; if failing to reach a compromise, you may wish to set up an RFC, or list the dispute on DRN. Addendum: I have also protected the page for a few days to discourageedit warring and encourage discussion. El_C 21:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I stopped after the third revert of FF9600.
You locked the page but in the reverted state from FF9600 :-( --Wikiinger (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Llamamall reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Marquis de Sade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Llamamall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:41, 5 mars 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768648273 by Morphdog (talk)"
  2. 00:35, 5 mars 2017 (UTC) "I edited the initial description of the Marquis de Sade to include his sex crimes."
  3. 00:24, 5 mars 2017 (UTC) "I edited the initial description of de Sade to include his sex crimes."
  4. 17:37, 4 mars 2017 (UTC) "I edited the page's initial summary of the Marquis de Sade to include his sexual crimes."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:13, 5 mars 2017 (UTC) "User warning for unconstructive editing found using STiki"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

No question he raped women, but the user seem to have a biased agenda, that this should be the first sentence in the intro. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Koui² and User:Iennes reported by User:Redrose64 (Result: Both blocked for 25 hours)[edit]

Page: Air (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koui² (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 11:54, 27 February 2017, but this is essentially continuance of this series

Diffs of the user's reverts:

I have gone right back to 23:46, 15 February 2017 (even though the dispute started somewhat earlier), listing many more than four reverts for each user, for reasons that should be apparent.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:02, 3 March 2017 (with a previous informal warning at 15:37, 3 March 2017) - this was Koui²; I also warned Iennes at 22:06, 3 March 2017 (previous informal warning at 15:37, 3 March 2017).

I have not personally tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, but Anne Delong (talk · contribs) has. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 04:50, 11 February 2017.

Comments:

I am prompted to file this report because Koui² made this edit less than five hours after being served a formal {{subst:uw-3rr}} warning. I could have placed a 24-hour block upon Koui² (not for 3RR violation but for continuing to WP:EW after a formal warning); but instead have decided to bring both Koui² and the other party to the dispute, i.e. Iennes, to WP:ANEW to gauge the opinion that both should be blocked, also that a longer block may be necessary. Both have been claiming the other's edits to be vandalism, even though a plain and simple dispute over wording is not considered vandalism.

This dispute has been going on for weeks, and WP:3RR was violated by both users on 17 February 2017, for which a block could have been imposed, but seems to have gone unnoticed. If it had ceased there, this would be a stale report; but the dispute is clearly ongoing, and apparently began somewhat earlier. Since 23:46, 15 February 2017, the only edits made in mainspace by these two editors have been to the article Air (band); and since that date, the only edit made to that page which did not involve the disputed phrase was this link addition by Koui². I first became aware of the problem soon after I put the page on my watchlist when making this edit to its talk page at 21:40, 27 February 2017. Hence I was not aware of the 17 February 2017 violation at the time.

I realise that behaviour on other Wikimedia projects should have no bearing on the matter, but in their edit summaries, they have both mentioned the French Wikipedia; it seems that both been warned (and at least one of them has been blocked) on French Wikipedia for similar behaviour, see fr:Discussion utilisateur:Koui²#Air (groupe) and fr:Discussion utilisateur:Iennes#Blocage 1 semaine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both users blocked. El_C 11:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    @El C: I've just noticed - the use of "both" in your closing comment, and in the section heading, implies that I was one of those that were blocked. For the record, I have never been blocked; the users blocked here were Koui² and Iennes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Report title was incomplete—I've now fixed it. El_C 11:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

User:L'honorable reported by User:DrKay (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Albert, Prince Consort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: L'honorable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk pages: User talk:L'honorable#Capitalization and overlinking, User talk:L'honorable#Blatant hostility from a fellow Wikipedian (much to my disappointment), and User talk:DrKay#Prince Albert

Comments:

  • L'honorable is the new account of Mabelina (talk · contribs) and was only granted an unblock after a successful WP:OFFER. He has immediately returned to the same pattern of behavior that got him blocked indefinitely in the past. I know from previous interactions that discussing the many reasons why his edits are wrong is totally pointless. He will simply carry on doing them regardless of how many times things are explained. DrKay (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Reply by L'honorable
This account is not a replacement of Mabelina (talk · contribs), which was my ex-wife's account name (which we jointly used).

I flagged up in advance DrKay's what has been a barely concealed premeditated attempt to instigate my being blocked "for edit-warring" at User talk:L'honorable#Blatant hostility from a fellow Wikipedian (much to my disappointment).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk pages: far from edit-warring I addressed all the issues raised by DrKay with detailed answers at User talk:L'honorable#Blatant hostility from a fellow Wikipedian (much to my disappointment) and User talk:L'honorable#Capitalization and overlinking, as well as User talk:DrKay#Prince Albert.

No attempt was made by DrKay to co-operate by way of reply, before he moved directly to launching this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring enquiry : I'm aware that you are trying to game the system but it's still edit-warring even if there aren't three reverts in 24 hours. You can avoid being blocked by undoing your last revert and raising individual issues on the talk page. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to game any system, but shall do as he requests, and trust that DrKay and I can co-operate fully (in true Wiki spirit) for the future. Subsequent to which I deduce that DrKay can run rings around me on Wiki procedure, because he had already intervened thereby rendering the option (he suggested) impossible.

All best wishes for future co-operation, L'honorable (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-admin observation There is enough evidence that DrKay made attempts to get get a useful discussion going, both on his talkpage as on L'honorables talkpage. L'honorable is also amply warned on his talkpage that it is his own behaviour that brings him into trouble. The Banner talk 10:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello The Banner : fancy you popping up here! I know you absolutely detest me but there is no need to rub it in. L'honorable (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
PS. so much of our time is spent nowadays arguing, one wonders whether anything useful can ever be added to Wiki's pages. Why is it that you want me blocked? Please explain, because I presume that any block (if achievable, and however short), will then become a launch pad for my permanent exclusion under my own user name. DrKay's opening comment "only granted an unblock after a successful WP:OFFER" is most revealing, and lays bare his ulterior motive : to have me blocked ad infinitem. If I knew why, then I could possibly help remedy matters, but as things stand, ie. basis this flimsy allegation of edit-warring, I really am not sure how best to reply (given that I have provided a most detailed response elsewhere, qv. User talk:L'honorable). There must be something else which is bugging you, otherwise why would you go to such lengths? Without knowing the cause of your angst, it is not easy to remedy matters, please explain - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The edits made by the Mabelina account are identical in tone, style and topic area to those made by L'honorable. The claim that the accounts were operated by different people is a variety of Wikipedia:My little brother did it that is neither sustainable nor believable. DrKay (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah now I see it, you do not believe me (& therefore seek to reverse the decision made following the WP:OFFER). You seem not to like that decision and therefore are doing your utmost to get it reversed, now via a trumped-up allegation of edit-warring. Firstly, whatever either you or I may say will prove nothing either way; Secondly, what was your grievance against my ex-wife? (although I see no reason to get embroiled yet again in her disputes); and, Thirdly, I am so dumbfounded by this attempt at subterfuge, I request an adjournment so that all matters (as necessary) can be properly reconsidered. This is no way for Wiki to operate and I repeat that I am not Mabelina, and that my sole aim is to improve the quality of Wiki's info. L'honorable (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
      PS. disappointed to discover DrKay's ulterior motive : qv. Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion.

qte

@DrKay: you are right about that - the discussion has spread like wild fire and as you attest boils down to whether or not I am Mabelina. I am not, but I am glad that we have at last got to the bottom of why you are so keen to see me blocked (nonetheless I am not so naïve as to think this is the last I will hear about this). When will my divorce ever end? L'honorable (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

unqte

(Non-administrator comment) I can't find any signs of you discussing your preferred wording on the article's talk page, despite reverting another editor with the edit summary "See Discussion". That you mentioned it on your user talk page is not relevant in this context - the editor you pinged may or may not have seen it, but other editors who are interested in the discussion certainly won't. Secondly, repeatedly changing directly quoted text in a featured article is completely inappropriate (it seems that you have issues with the way the sources write, but that does not matter - when text is quoted, the original text must be kept even if there should be grammar errors or stylistic infelicities there.) When this was pointed out to you, you never acknowledged it, instead talking about the phrasing and orthography as if your way was obviously the only right one, and if anybody disagreed it was only because they had misunderstood you. That's a third problem, right there. --bonadea contributions talk 11:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Fails to meet the burden of four reverts in 24 hours (first revert is March 2, fourth revert is March 5). A note to L'honorable, the username policy states: "usernames should not be shared between more than one individual," so I'm glad to learn you have your own account now. Please do not share an account in the future. El_C 13:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Lorraine Maplewood reported by User:Karst (Result: No violation—page protected)[edit]

Page
Barry Manilow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lorraine Maplewood (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 15:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC) to 15:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 15:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "/* In media */ I'm sorry, but if this article continues to be reverted to distort truth, the problem will need to be presented at a higher level. Suzanne Somers CONFIRMS this in the video clip!!!"
    2. 15:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "/* In media */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 14:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC) to 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 14:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768741633 by Karst (talk) This has been talked to death. No offense. There are literally hundreds of sources that support the assertion."
    2. 15:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "/* In media */ If more sources need to be presented, then they will be."
    3. 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "/* In media */"
  3. 14:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "/* In media */ This edit has been removed previously. Manilow's marriage to Garry Kief is a matter of record and should not be deleted by anyone, whether or not they think doing so "protects" his image. Wikipedia shares truth, not convenient truth."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Barry Manilow. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Explained the issues on the Talk page and on my own page. Editor appeared to be a single-issue account created today. Karst (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


Comments:

Entrenched behaviour, unwilling to reach consensus on the Talk page. Karst (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. But page protected for a week. Only three reverts listed—you need four to breach 3RR. Indeed, the account seems to have been created for this purpose. Being relatively new, she should keep in mind policies and guidelines on citing reliable sources, and on living people. El_C 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Natsecobserver reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Michael S. Smith II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Natsecobserver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "Providing information based on more reliable sources (ie reputable news organizations) than obscure blogs. Also providing more current information about subject's work than information about a report prepared in 2011."
  2. 23:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Previous edit does not provide current career and other info; providing current information based on past Google searches for news reports containing information about subject"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Michael S. Smith II. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User is committed to pushing this heavy-handed unencyclopedic tone and promotional version of an article he or she seems to have an unambiguous clear association with. Note, the user also wrote a since deleted page on Kronos Advisory, the company founded by the subject of the article.

Seems to have made it clear they will revert every time regardless of details. I left an explanation on their Talk page (not a TW warning) and they suddenly wrote essentially the same thing on my User Talk saying I was adding an "obscure blog" the only ref added when I updated the page was to Newsweek magazine -- no blog has been added.

Despite not being able to select three reverts here, they've made them and probably still will as User is not engaging with the substance of the complaints by other editors, namely that it is promotional, and a career roundup with a grossly overwritten newspaper style, to say nothing of the almost certain COI/NPOV issue. JesseRafe (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts in order to to breach 3RR—you only list two. In regards to issues of COI, please file a listing at COIN; for NPOV, see NPOVN. El_C 03:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

I'm BOLDly closing this discussion here because the discussion has spiraled out of control and no longer is about the specific edit-warring problem in this article but now evolved to encompass the behavior of multiple edits, including allegations that there is a systematic problem with Drmargi. This is not the correct venue for such discussions though and is even more problematic since Drmargi cannot defend herself against such allegations. Please use WP:ANI / WP:AN, other WP:DR mechanisms or ArbCom to discuss specific problems with the conduct of one or more users in general. ANEW is not the place to address problematic user conduct outside edit-warring. I do recommend that all involved parties take a step back for a few hours and concentrate on something else for a while. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: The (closed) ANI post is here. El_C 02:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Note's note: Said ANI discussion happened before this report was filed and was just about this edit war though, thus there is no problem reporting this user to ANI for the perceived pattern of such editing if necessary. Regards SoWhy 10:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


Previous version reverted to: [7]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [8] (Revision as of 05:21, March 1, 2017)
  2. [9] (Revision as of 08:52, March 1, 2017)
  3. [10] (Revision as of 12:45, March 1, 2017)
  4. [11] (Revision as of 13:20, March 3, 2017)
  5. [12] (Revision as of 17:37, March 3, 2017)
  6. [13] (Revision as of 04:04, March 4, 2017)
  7. [14] (Revision as of 18:16, March 4, 2017)
  8. [15] (Revision as of 18:20, March 4, 2017)
  9. [16] (Latest revision as of 18:28, March 4, 2017)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Crown (TV series)#Kennedy description

Comments:


The editor, while a respected member of the Television WikiProject, refuses to allow the version of consensus to stand, and has therefore long-term edit-warred over the past several days, violating 3RR in the process. A discussion was started, upon which the editor decided that consensus stood after a day, which it did not, and continues to force her edits upon the page, reverting even the clearest of consensus' to not include character descriptions at all. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:, @Softlavender: Rusted AutoParts 08:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It's been an aggravating experience. The recent three reverts come off as out of spite more than trying to force her view. She's shown no interest in productively discussing the issue as after only a day unilaterally declared the discussion over. I first noticed the issue after Favre and Alex undid her edit, citing since the season will cover a period of time before Kennedy's presidency, there was a possibility they could appear during that time. Drmargi outright refused this and thus the war started. She is more than likely in the right, but once three editors dispute an edit, it should be discussed, NOT forced back in. I had my problems with not discussing in my past, but with the new year I resolved to be more level headed as it wields a more productive dialogue. And Drmargi, being an editor here for 11 years should know this. Rusted AutoParts 08:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 10:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, El C, and Drmargi: I'm going to post this here, so that no-one can revert my contributions. 1) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's accusation of WP:GRAVEDANCING is entirely inaccurate and exceptionally uncivil. "A history of disputes with the blockee.": Incorrect, I've had massive respect for DM as a contributing member of the Television WikiProject; "An established pattern of deliberate wikistalking of the blockee." Never wikistalked her; "A repeated stated desire to see the user in question blocked, beyond the normal course of voting in a block/ban discussion." I made this report out of necessary to stop her disruptive editing, not because I wanted to. Now that you've read some sense, you will hopefully revert your accusations. 2) Nine reverts is unacceptable, and cannot just be "accepted" because the page is protected. This is where editors get the idea that their edit-warring and personal attacks towards other editors is acceptable, when they're just let off, and they know that they can do it again. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It did seem to me like you were beating her while she was down.[18] El_C 11:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: I'm not one who sinks that low. I wanted her to realize her actions and why they were unacceptable, and not to beat her down as a "victory". I did have respect for her as a fellow WPTV member. But she shows no remorse for her actions, and, given the situation propose on her talk page, will more than likely know that she can do it again without repercussions. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. But I hope you can see how it can be construed otherwise. As for remorse (and being cognizant of repercussions), I am still hopeful. El_C 11:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
We'll see. Nice to be able to post without being reverted, though. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: This post was not grave dancing, as you incorrectly assumed here, but attempting to bring to light the issue to you, so that you understood that it was not just an arbitrary ban on the editor, but it was put in place due to the unacceptable actions. While I understand that editors such as yourself like to take sides and display favouritism when your favourite editors are blocked, do read the rest of this discussion, while you're here. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I had already read this thread. Nothing to do with "taking sides" – simply showing support. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  12:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Support for what? Nine reverts, grossly breaking the edit-warring policy? Do you too support edit-warring? This is a textbook example of taking sides and making false accusations. Read the discussion properly, and you might find that you'll be needing to revert your false accusation. Cheers. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
"accusations" Where? What? Please expand. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Read the first post of mine that initially pinged you, accusing me of grave dancing. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
That post was made by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi.Not by me. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I said pinging you, not them. So, this, commented "and here!", wasn't you? Alex|The|Whovian? 13:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
That is an addendum added by me and which is clearly shown in Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's [19]. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. An addendum to add that one particular example to the accusation of grave dancing. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
No, no, no. To desist from posting here. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  13:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
So, you mean to say that listed my edit as an addition to the accusation of grave-dancing, so that I might stop posting on your talk page? Alex|The|Whovian? 13:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • El_C, I'm bothered by the possibility of DM being unblocked early considering she has a history of this type of behavior coupled with blatant personal attacks. Since I first encountered her a couple of years ago, I've seen her play the edit warring game more than once, however, it's that coupled with a complete WP:IDLI/WP:WIN/WP:POINT attitude and behavior, name-calling/personal attacks, and strong-arm bulling tactics as an attempt to wear editors she sees as opponents down that has characterized this whole dramatic ordeal (did you look at her edit summaries, article talk page comments, and how many days she's been playing this edit warring game at a slow pace?). What she was blocked for here ... It's not the first time she's done it. This goes beyond simple edit warring, there's a pattern and behavior that goes hand-in-hand here. Lift the block sooner than the original 72 hours and there will be a message sent that really can't be taken back: treat other editors and their opinions like crap, never really discuss, act like as much of a bully as you like, call others names and personally attack, say you'll stop edit warring, and your block will be lifted early anyway. That kind of message says: please continue at a later time, after you're no longer being watched for going over "1RR or 2RR". This is a long-standing problem with her. It's not going to go away if she thinks she can pull one over on admins because she says "Oops!" and has a fan club supporting her on her talk page and assist in her edit warring efforts. -- WV 13:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
If you ever refer to other editors as a 'fan club,' you'll be at AN/I before your feet touch. FYI. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:129.21.159.59 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Rochester Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 129.21.159.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [20]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25] (Scroll down a bit)


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yep. I went to the talk page because I'm going to try to reason with an IP editor who, despite geolocating to the Rochester Institute of Technology, is accusing others of conflicts of interest.

Comments:

CityOfSilver 02:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 03:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Speedy135 reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page
Yolanda Hadid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Bella Hadid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Speedy135 (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 18:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC) to 18:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 18:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768948239 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk) stop reverting this fucking page. U are basically reverting it back to let everyone know where they live. USE UR FUCKING BRAIN"
    2. 18:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768948239 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk) stop reverting this fucking page. U are reverting it back to let everyone know where they live. USE UR FUCKING BRAIN if you have one."
  2. 18:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768938398 by Edwardx (talk)"
  3. 16:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768899773 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk) You know why I removed it. use brain if you have one"
  4. 18:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768938569 by Edwardx (talk) REMOVED"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Yolanda Hadid‎. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks and breaching 3RR. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

User:75.164.192.44 reported by User:WNYY98 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page
Clam chowder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
75.164.192.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC) "Stop adding that! I want to rip your goddamn hair out!"
  2. 01:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC) "Stop including the law now! (screams like Goofy)"
  3. 01:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC) "PLEASE DON'T MENTION THAT!"
  4. 01:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) "Forget that!"
  5. 01:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC) "89898787i"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:Samoa Rusev reported by User:LM2000 (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page: Bill Goldberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Samoa Rusev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [26]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [27]
  2. [28]
  3. [29]
  4. [30]
  5. [31]
  6. [32]
  7. [33]
  8. [34]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]


Comments: Very likely some sockpuppetry going on here too given similar history by sockpuppet Trepcost.LM2000 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TheBD2000 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheBD2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [36]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [37]
  2. [38]
  3. [39]
  4. [40]
  5. [41]
  6. [42]
  7. [43]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44] (note the response: "Deal with it")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45] (there's a couple discussion on talk. TheBD2000 has not participated in any of them)

Comments:

The user has made seven reverts in the recent past, at least five of these within the last 24 hrs. Note that the fifth revert was made *after* an edit warring warning was made. Judging by their response - "Deal with it" - they appear to have no intention of stopping. This is an edit war against multiple editors (at least three - myself, User:Frederickmsp and User:HelgaStick) Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment I've reviewed this report; the content in dispute is the statement that "... [the subject of the article has been criticized] as being similar to lists of 'Jewish' crimes publicized in Nazi Germany." The statement is sourced to this article. The source is an "analysis" piece from the Washington Post "WorldViews" section—an editorial. It's a professional article written by a staff writer for a credible journalistic institution and the facts presented needn't necessarily be questioned, but I don't see anything within the article to support the actual claim that is in dispute. It's the author herself who is drawing the parallel and even she does not draw the comparison unequivocally. Since this is dangerous BLP territory, I'm declining to action and will be involving myself on the talk page instead. Per WP:INVOLVED I cannot rule on this report but it is my opinion that the content in question is dubiously sourced and solidly under the purview of WP:BLP and thus the reverts are exempt. Will expand on the talk page. Swarm 21:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
First, that isn't the only source. Second, if you're gonna involve yourself then don't close this request as "declined". Third, how is this "BLP"? This is about a freakin' law.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that at no point did TheBD2000 invoke "BLP" (which frankly would've been - and still is - silly, since this is not about a person). And seven reverts is seven reverts, even if one thinks they're right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What you call reverts were actually attempts to compromise notations of reductio ad hitlerum content given that I never saw it to be necessary. I did not edit war because I hardly reverted any edits and only amended them, barely removing any content. If you would like to continue with this issue, I will not agree to stop editing the article entirely, but whatever it is you want me to do, I might do it. TheBD2000 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There's seven diffs up there. They're all reverts. You were warned after the fourth one. You kept going. You were warned again. You said "Deal with it!". This is dealing with it. You've edit warred, you knew you were edit warring, you kept on edit warring despite warnings, and you implicitly promised to continue edit warring. Oh, and you failed to participate in the discussion until the last minute.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not make more than three reverts, Volunteer Marek. Calm the fuck down and keep this civil, please. You're the only one causing people problems. TheBD2000 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There's seven diffs right up there, each one of them a revert. And you don't really "calm" anything by telling people to "calm the fuck down", nor are you "keeping things civil". This just throws in WP:BATTLEGROUND along with the edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned TheBD2000, I came close to blocking you when this report was opened for your misuse of warning templates and the "notes" you tried to add to the article. Please note that discretionary sanctions covers standards of behavior. NeilN talk to me 05:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Anioni reported by User:TechnicianGB (Result: Protected for one week)[edit]

Page: List of European countries by average wage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Anioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[46]] check at how he recalls me on vandalism while he deleted the official EUROSTAT source. ?¿

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [47]
  2. [48]
  3. [49]
  4. [50]
  5. [51]
  6. [52]
  7. [53]
  8. [54]
  9. [55]
  10. [56]
  11. [57]

and much more editions, which can be seen in his page, he just changes with redundant sources or even without sources and with fake data, for example he used a website which talks about the politicians wages in 2013, and he changed as he wanted the wage on Italy using that source? I warned him on his talk page and he fastly deleted that [58]

He also changed the economic data of the page of Italy with fake numbers even referencing the official IMF source which doesn't say and support the numbers he gave. I changed those numbers he edited to the ones from the official IMF source and he reverted here my change [59] although another user has reverted his change and from that day he didn't edit that page further.

Anioni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. This user is suspected to be the same user as Sad9721, a user which was banned from Wikipedia doing the same redundant editions on the same topics/articles. This time is List of European countries by average wage. He accuses me for being "anti-italian" because I revert his non consensual changes with redundant sources (one source he used was referencing this wikipedia article of the list of european countries as the main source, Wikipedia can't be a valid source for a Wikipedia article!) then changed it to a source which talks about the politicians wages (nothing related to the article) and then putting fake numbers which can't be found even in his sources and he also said that it's data from 2013. I reverted his changes by putting the official EUROSTAT (european statistic agency, official EU organism) numbers from 2015 on it and he keeps deleting those numbers and changing the aspect of the page.

Also threatens me on the talk page of that article that he will delete any of my changes because "I make them without consensus" (while he started changing the aspect of the page in 28th of February without any kind of consensus and putting redundant sources) and because I just use the official data he calls me that i'm "anti-italian" and "aggresive" and doesn't change his mood, again today he not only changed the data of Spain and Italy in that page, he also deleted their official data from EUROSTAT and also deleted the source! Here are the proves. [[60]] this is when all started, after this edition he maded 19 editions in a row in the page List of European countries by average wage which every one of it was an redundant edition without trustworthy sources. Then I changed his editions to the official sources and all started.

In his profile can be seen that he just edits the same topics, I warned him on his talk page and he directly deleted it and keeping in the same mood. He went to warn EdJohnston about "my vandalism" and EdJohnston said the same to him, that I tried to change his mood in his talk page and he deleted it. He also maded editions on the page of Italy by faking the official IMF economic numbers of Italy and changing the numbers while the numbers are referenced with the official IMF source, he changed them even if that's not what the page of IMF says and then when I reverted his edition with fake numbers he reverted mine again! [[61]] and here is the proof when today deleted the numbers of Spain and Italy in the article mentioned before just because he wanted, deleting the official numbers from the official source. [[62]] --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of one week. Clearly, there's edit warring. But to violate 3RR there needs to be four reverts in 24 hours. El_C 16:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:DrKay and User:Dawnseeker2000 reported by User:128.40.9.164 (Result: 24 hours—Boomerang)[edit]

Page: Harry Glicken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DrKay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [63]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [64]
  2. [65]
  3. [66]
  4. [67]
  5. [68]
  6. [69]
  7. [70]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71], [72]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:

I noticed a rather controversial statement in the article above, stating that the subject of the article was eccentric, disorganised, and had "behavioral oddities". I could not verify this information because it did not have an inline citation, so I added tags to indicate that a citation was needed. My expectation was that someone who knew where the material had come from would simply add a citation tag to the end of the appropriate sentences. I am pretty disgusted by what in fact happened, which was that two people have edit warred to simply remove the tags. It defies explanation, and I believe these two users most likely simply feel a sense of ownership of the article and resent my attempt to improve it. I do not think anyone has violated the 3RR but their disruptive behaviour really needs to be stopped. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. IP, that is, Boomerang-blocked. The other two users did not breach 3RR, though they are cautioned for edit warring. Maybe just give the ip the source they're asking for in order to resolve this once and for all. El_C 20:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We did: [74][75]. This same IP has been warned for edit-warring twice in the last three months[76][77]. Note to IP: the diffs of 3RR warnings provided above do not meet minimum standards. The warnings should come before the 3RR report not at the same time. Reports should only be filed after a warning has been given and ignored. DrKay (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. I would suggest maybe quote the relevant passage from those pages to the IP. And maybe add a ref to that spot with those specific page nos. El_C 21:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Cupcake92166 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
PAW Patrol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Cupcake92166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769177259 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"
  2. 00:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769176870 by Amir Hamzah 2008 (talk)"
  3. 00:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Cupcake92166 moved page PAW Patrol to Template:PAW Patrol over redirect"
  4. 00:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Cupcake92166 moved page PAW Patrol to Template:PAW Patrol over redirect"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 00:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC) to 00:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Cupcake92166 moved page PAW Patrol to Template:PAW Patrol"
    2. 00:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769172092 by EricEnfermero (talk)"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 21:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) to 21:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 21:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Page moves against naming conventions or consensus. (TW)"
  2. 00:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "/* March 2017 */"
  3. 00:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Template talk:PAW Patrol. (TW)"
  4. 00:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Template:PAW Patrol. (TW)"
  5. 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
  6. 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "/* March 2017 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Move warring and edit warring over unsourced content. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked 24 hours, which is the standard first offense block... I'm going to leave it to someone else to decide if they want to close this, or discuss whether a longer block is justified, as this was pretty bad, and even resulted in move warring. I have no objection if another admin wants to go with a longer duration. Monty845 00:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Monty845, I was looking at this too and reinforced your block with a clear warning about the length of the next block. NeilN talk to me 00:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:190:4200:df2e::f162 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Gender differences in suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:190:4200:df2e::f162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  • diff; their initial edit at 22:16, 1 March 2017‎ , which was reverted
  1. diff at 13:29, 4 March 2017‎
  2. diff 00:26, 7 March 2017 same change and more extensive removal on same issue
  3. diff 14:09, 7 March 2017
  4. diff 23:07, 7 March 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff


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

Comments:

Piles of sources in the article and re-presented and summarized at Talk. IP editor is making OR arguments about why content and refs are wrong, and failing to provide sources to support their changes, and edit warring all the while. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of one week. Clearly, some edit warring, but no 3RR violation. Use talk page to remind user that verifiability depends on citing reliable sources. El_C 03:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jimthing reported by User:NinjaRobotPirate (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
IMDb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jimthing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 03:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 00:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769180448 by NinjaRobotPirate (talk) See talk."
  4. 00:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on IMDb. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Talk:IMDb#TMDB mentions
Comments:

Jimthing has been edit warring against consensus to include poorly-sourced material. Three editors have attempted to remove it and explained why on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but each editor there has given differing reasons for removing ALL the data I added; under a I don't like it syndrome, rather than proper WP policy, each using differing excuses for removal. Even if they disagree with parts, then they should edit the parts they feel are not sourced or break WP policy, not simply remove ALL the text I added for the parts with valid sources, that make it perfectly acceptable under WP rules. Thanks you. Jimthing (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN talk to me 04:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Unknownassassin reported by User:Galatz (Result: No violation—Page protected 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Prison Break: Sequel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unknownassassin (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. [78]
  2. [79]
  3. [80]
  4. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

Comments:
I attempted to bring this discussion to the WP:RFP page first, to lock the page down however the user has chose to go way beyond what that page is for, and potentially beyond here as well. He appears to be using an IP address as a WP:SOCK to do additional reverts and changes, as you can tell by comparing their contributions [83] and [84]. In addition he has tried moving the page in addition to his other random moves through copy and pasting [85] and after it was undone the IP user redid it [86]. Therefore I would say on top of edit warring there are plenty of other violations as well. - GalatzTalk 18:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. I'm not sure that fourth diff is a revert, it it seems like just an edit. So, unless you can prove to me that it is a revert, I'm ruling this as no breach of 3RR. But Unknownassassin is still admonished, and is cautioned, about edit warring. I have also protected the page for a week. El_C 18:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Thanks. He moved the page originally here which was moved back, he then moved it again here and it was moved back, and then again moved it here. Meaning 2RR relating to the move, and then the first 2 make 4. If we look into the IP sock account he also had [87] making 5.
Also since you locked it from moving can you also move back to the original page Prison Break (season 5) so a proper move request can be made and addressed? - GalatzTalk 18:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C:Also it appears only Admins can edit the page now, did you mean to do that? - GalatzTalk 19:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Page unprotected. El_C 19:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Thanks so much for your help! Sorry to be a pain but can you move the page back to the original page Prison Break (season 5), due to the way he went about moving everything only an admin can move it now. - GalatzTalk 19:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done. El_C 19:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:DanG1141 reported by User:SirGents (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

Page
Dundee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
DanG1141 (talk · contribs