Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive386

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:MattanJohnson11 reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Pacific War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MattanJohnson11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Stable version of the article (especially the infobox): [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: This new account has been re-inserting extraneous material into the infobox added by other accounts and adding other extraneous material despite a discussion of this on the talk page, and is edit warring against multiple editors. Please see the article history and the below diffs (note that most of the diffs are the combination of a series of edits):

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]
  7. [8] (since this report was lodged)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Has been warned four times, and twice been asked to join the talk page discussion [9] [10], [11], [12] The edit warring has continued since the fourth warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Thread at Talk:Pacific War#Infobox (March 2019). MattanJohnson11 has ignored this, and instead posted a new thread trying to justify their edit warring where they state that they are being disruptive: [13]

Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Since this report was lodged, the editor has posted this and this in which they state they will try to evade any block and continue edit warring as "I love edit warring", and continued edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely – The user has stated 'I love edit warring' which does raise the possibility that they might be a sock. (Is this a case of 'please block me'?). EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:141.8.119.87 reported by User:Izno (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page
NationStates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
141.8.119.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 15:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The consensus position includes the category in question. A discussion has started on the talk page but the editor has not yet engaged. Izno (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Casperti reported by User:Shashank5988 (Result: Full protection)[edit]

Page: Pashtuns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Casperti (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. 2 February 2019
  2. 2 Feburuary
  3. 5 February
  4. 20 February
  5. 9 March
  6. 10 March
  7. 10 March

Removing same content all the time.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14][15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Pashtuns#Disputed:Hindu Pashtuns

Comments:

Just a disruptive WP:SPA who himself admits that he "don't want to edit other page" than Pashtuns.[16] He is here only for engaging in edit warring and WP:BATTLE. All he does is spew his ethnicity based stories by spewing what he believes in and accuse all other editors of socking,[17][18][19][ while he engages in canvassing to recruit editors for supporting his ethnic POV.[20][21][22] I recommend a WP:NOTHERE block. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This is just threatening a newbie on Wikipedia. I was Directed by User:Dough Weller to make a talk page, and ask for third party opnion. Which is in my right. You can read what I wrote to those Pashtun wiki project experts. see: WP:ACCUSE and WP:SEEKHELP.The talk page Where we should discuss the 1 source given on Wikipedia for the Pashtun Hindus. As anyone can read, I did not give a point of view but dozen sources that explain the fact. I debunked on 9 March the 1 source and you guys are stilling reverting me without showing me why. I even saw 2 VPN that was used for this, I do not claim it was you but it makes the situation more untrustable. Everyone can see I did not give any opinion. Only sources I gave. It is in Wikipedia's interest to discuss. We shouldn't blindly accept something that was edited on 23 march 2018 and no-one is in the right to change that. Every admin can read the talkpage and see that I am not throwing an opinion but real scientific sources and documentaries/books of the Hindus themselves. Shashank5988 please stop Threatening me. I even said if I don't find a proper source it can stand. But I showed you everything and you are still not giving any source to debunk me. Just join the discussion. The only thing you did was attacking me and showing that 1 source of that Filmmaker over and over again. I have always requested help for an admin for this matter. Please admins, help us to find third parties who know a lot about the Pashtuns. (btw dont accuse things like ethnic POV, like I said i'm a Persian speaking Tajik). You just want to censor me. Admin there is really many third parties needed that chose no sides (so non-Hindu/Indians or Afghan, Pashtun expert). Or if there is an Afghan-Hindu editor that would be the best. That would be the best scennarios. So admin help is indeed needed Casperti (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Another admin has fully-protected the article, so I don't think any further action is needed at this time. Casperti is free to continue to discuss the matter on the talk page and work toward building a consensus among editors for their changes. Only after new consensus is reached should the page be changed, not before. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this is what we needed. Now, we have to discuss what we can agree upon (consensus) without edit reverting without reason.Casperti (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry User:Casperti, but given the multiple voices who have chimed in the discussion, we already have consensus to retain the information. Continuing to state that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't helpful, but rather, disregards others who all feel that the information should be retained. You've been asked not to change the article until a new consensus is reached and you should respect that. As you were nearly blocked for edit warring (I requested that the article be protected so that it would not come down to this), my personal recommendation is that you WP:DROPTHESTICK and edit other articles. Remember that the threshold for including items on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We have multiple references that support the information in the article and will thus keep it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ted hamiltun reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: Origin of the name Khuzestan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ted hamiltun (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. [23]
  2. [24]
  3. [25]
  4. [26]
  5. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28] [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:
User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He has already in his short time spammed various talk pages with his rants and aggressive behaviour. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with HistoryofIran. I have had no interaction with "Ted hamiltun" yet their rantings of "Persian users Community"[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38], can be seen throughout their editing. Clearly this editor, who has edited sporadically since Dec. 2017, is here to Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I will also agree with the above points, and bring to attention another aspect of his behavior too.
If you check the log of the Agal article here [39], you can see that a few days ago, he started swapping between multiple different IP addresses (with the same commenting style) to change the same article. Not sure if that's disallowed or not, but it seems suspect to me, especially since it's seemed to result in temporary protection of said article [40]. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The reported user is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND case. His edit history shows non-stop edit warring, ignoring other editors' messages and edit summaries, IP-hopping, and nationalistic rants. He even deleted and manipulated this report.[41] So I support indefinite block for him. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation on Origin of the name Khuzestan. If disruption continues after the block please refer to WP:ANI for possible indefinite block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:206.45.24.97 reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Baked Alaska (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
206.45.24.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887216828 by PeterTheFourth (talk)"
  2. 08:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887207009 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
  3. 06:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887203302 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
  4. 06:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887201521 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
  5. 05:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887201166 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Warned on user talk twice. wumbolo ^^^ 09:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • You're about an hour late the war has moved to another page. 206.45.24.97 (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In other words, you've moved onto childish edit-warring over bogus warning templates -- basically, vandalism. Just block the IP and be done with it. --Calton | Talk 09:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Let me know if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Imzadi1979 reported by User:46.208.152.52 (Result: nothing)[edit]

Page: Ambassador Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [43] - 19:05, 10 March 2019
  2. [44] - 20:21, 10 March 2019
  3. [45] - 20:26, 10 March 2019
  4. [46] - 20:33, 10 March 2019
    1. and see also four other reverts on two other articles at the same time: [47], [48], [49], [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:
A user has reverted my edits four times in 1h28m. My edits included removing an image gallery (Wikipedia's image use policy says that image galleries are appropriate if the images, as a collection, illustrate some aspect of the topic. Simple arbitrary collections of images are what the Wikimedia Commons is for) and creating stubs to replace redirects. 46.208.152.52 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not see four reverts. Unless the IP is implying that they have (also) broken WP:3RR and should be sanctioned? —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I listed the four reverts, together with their times, under the heading "diffs of the user's reverts".
[ec] Well, the most recent version seems to be a median between the two y'all were fighting over. Happy now? And you, IP, are just as guilty of edit warring as Imzadi. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I edited in accordance with policy, and did not break the 3RR. The user I am reporting did not edit in accordance with policy, and they did break the 3RR. The sourced content which I added, and they deleted, is still deleted. But apparently I'm as guilty as they are, and should feel happy right now? No and no. 46.208.152.52 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You have not demonstrated that they made four reverts to that article within a 24-hour period. There is no violation to act on here. Please continue to work toward a consensus or median version of the page, and make sure to use the talk page rather than edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I listed the four reverts. They made them within a 90 minute period. Why are you pretending that this did not happen? 46.208.152.52 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The fourth edit you listed is not a revert. It changed the formatting. The third edit—I hesitate to brand it a revert, since it was really a matter of fixing formatting. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
If an edit undoes, in whole or in part, a change that someone else had just made, then it is a revert. The user made four reverts in 90 minutes. I would have thought an administrator would know the rules, and would attempt to explain themselves clearly when claiming that they had not been violated instead of playing a Nelson-style "I see no violation" game. What is the point of this supposed "bright-line" rule if it is going to be arbitrarily ignored? 46.208.152.52 (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at context, it seems clear that Imzadi1979 thought "oh shit, about to violate 3RR, best stop and do something else" - which is kind of what the policy is designed to do. Endorse no action. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's very weird that three people, all apparently administrators, are bending over backwards to ignore or downplay this violation, and to interpret the user's actions positively. They had already reverted four times when you decided it was clear to you what they were thinking; they reverted a fifth time not long after. 82.132.222.62 (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:9W 3937 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Gugudan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
9W 3937 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */Get lost, please discuss instead of only reverting"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 03:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC) to 03:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    1. 03:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */Consensus reached sucessfully"
    2. 03:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887023659 by 9W 3937 (talk)"
  3. 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887002031 by Alexanderlee (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 23:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC) to 23:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    1. 23:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886932654 by Abdotorg (talk)"
    2. 23:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ""
  5. 13:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ""
  6. Consecutive edits made from 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC) to 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    1. 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"
    2. 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2019: 9 person performance version of "Not That Type" */"
  7. 23:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gugudan. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Relentless edit-warring against multiple editors. PAs on edit-summaries. Use of socks, article had to be semi-protected, but despite that, these confirmed new accounts are still edit-warring adding cruft into the article. Regular editors had to ask Drmies for help; that's where I came in to try to help them. Dr. K. 10:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

3GFRIENDSNSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly a sock of 9W 3937, not only it posted the identical message at my talk page (sock dif, 3GFRIENDSNSD dif), it also re-inserted the same fancruft and "article is outdated" maintenance template at Gugudan, same as 9W 3937 did. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I just CU-blocked User talk:3GFRIENDSNSD, User talk:MTR 553890, User talk:9W 3937. Pretty revolting how the one account claimed to be neutral. In addition, there is a huge amount of IP editing going on--some of it possibly just logged-out editing, but not all of it. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You know, there is so much of it, on a variety of IPs--I suggest someone start an SPI, and ask a CU (who knows ranges well) to see if any ranges need closer scrutiny, or maybe a block. And it may be there's some older accounts we can call a master. Right now, at lunchtime, this is more than I can handle without a notepad and some food. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitelyUser:9W 3937 and two other accounts by User:Drmies for socking. Another admin has semiprotected Gugudan for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR reported by User:VwM.Mwv (Result: No action for now)[edit]

Page
Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MehrdadFR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56]
  5. [57]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. On article edit summary: [58]
  2. On user talk page: [59]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

The user has ignored (they keep editing) all of my messages, both on the article's edit summary, the article's talk page, and their own talk page. I have refrained from reverting yet again. M . M 12:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reported. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: Kingerikthesecond reverted to the version before this edit war, [61] and MehrdadFR reverted them, too, describing it as "Zionist hate propaganda". [62] This occurred an hour after I gave them the notices about edit warring. M . M 13:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note 2: MehrdadFR's sockpuppet investigation request against me was declined by an administrator and SPI clerk. [63] M . M 14:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I am VwM.Mwv's mentor. I would like to note that opening 2 SPI cases - Plot Spolier, AndresHerutJaim 8-18 minutes after this report being opened, as well as using the edit summary: "WP:LEAD is plagued by Zionist hate propaganda" diff by MehrdadFR - is not acceptable editing or a response to an AN/EW report. Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: User "MehrdadFR" has been blocked on no less than 6 occassions for edit-warring on sensitive Iran/West Asia-related topics. Curiously; all six blocks were the result of violating WP:3RR. He was also subjected to a topic ban in the recent past for being WP:TENDENTIOUS in the very same topic area.[64] Most of MehrdadFR's edits involve promoting the narrative of the current Iranian regime and downplaying everything else. Looking at the compelling evidence, in combination with the stuff he writes here on this talk page ("Your edits are pure WP:FRINGE garbage"), I'm wondering whether this user is actually here to build this encyclopedia. He has been given a lot of "second chances" over the past few years, to no avail it seems.(copy-pasted my comment from Talk:Iran) - LouisAragon (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note The article is already protected the user is participating in the discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Ted hamiltun (Result: No violation demonstrated)[edit]

Page: Origin of the name Khuzestan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

This users keep removing the request of Refrence for phrases that dose not exist in given sources, watch the page and the talk section please


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

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

This user even reverted the information on naming of the Gulf,which was a Middle Persian sasanian text with reliable sources wich Names the Gulf, Arabian Gulf

User:HistoryofIran removed this Information

How ever one of the oldest documented refrence to Gulf may be the one mentioned in Middle Persian text on geography "Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr" (literally "The Provincial Capitals of Iran"), which is a source of historical records concerning names of the Sasanian kings as the builder of the various cities, It is in this Persian document that sasanias make the unique reference to gulf as "Daryay Taziyan" (In Persian : دریای تازیان) which literally means "Arabian Gulf or The Gulf of The Arabs"[1][2]

Now what was wrong with this information with reliable source that user User:HistoryofIran removed it from Persian Gulf article, This is clear act of abusing of Wikipedia meant to Boycott other opinions and POV pushes

Ted hamiltun (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Security in the Persian Gulf: Origins, Obstacles, and the Search for Consensus, By G. Sick, L. Potter, Palgrave Macmillan US, 2002, Page 81: http://uupload.ir/files/a71t_negar_11032019_012004.png
  2. ^ Sahrestaniha I Eransahr: A Middle Persian Text on Late Antique Geography, Epic, and History, By Touraj Daryaee
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ted hamiltun: Be advised that will we be looking at all edits to the article as part of HistoryofIran's report above—and it is very bad practice to remove another user's report from the noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Georg Wurst reported by User:Mean as custard (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Page: Tom Bower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Georg Wurst (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. [65]
  2. [66]
  3. [67]
  4. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

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

Comments:

Multiple removal of factual content, while accusing several editors of antisemitism. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:97.65.122.30 reported by User:Jim7049 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Portal:Current events/2019 March 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.65.122.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [71]
  2. [72]
  3. [73]
  4. [74]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

IP adding repetitive unimportant event to current events section. Reverting after being reverted. Reverts more than 4 times in past 24 hours. Does not discuss at talk page. Jim7049 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC):

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 24 hours by User:Oshwah. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:3TTT5 reported by User:Lubbad85 (Result:No violation)[edit]

Original title: Bengal Cat article Photo edit warring with infobox photo over a ten year period

I have notified each user on their talk page and posted to the edit warring page. Looking for help and or guidance: 3TTT5 has been posting the same photo into the infobox on the Bengal cat going back 10 years. In the history of the page, every time the photo is updated this user replaces it with the photo 3TTT5 desires. I have messaged the users on his/her talk page, and reverted 3TTT5's photo 2-3 times. I do not want to be in an edit war. After I reverted the last attempt by 3TTT5, another user reverted the edit using the same photo and language that 3TTT5 prefers: I suspect that user: 108.189.2.131 is the same person since he/she has used the same language about this photo. Thank you

Lubbad85 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the article talk page, I don't see where there has ever been any discussion about which image should be used on the article. You should start a discussion there and find a consensus on which image should be used. If necessary having an WP:RFC. ~ GB fan 20:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


Understood. I think this is a unique edit war. One decade long...

Diffs of the user's reverts: from user 3TTT5 only editing the infobox photo and caption every time

  1. [76]
  2. [77]
  3. [78]
  4. [79]
  5. [80]
  6. [81]
  7. [82]
  8. [83]


and same edit and language from 108.189.2.131 appears to be the same user with a different user account

  1. [84]

Lubbad85 (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • There is no edit war here. There is a long standing disagreement about what picture should be used on the article. No one has ever tried to discuss what picture should be used. This needs to go the article talk page and have a discussion about what picture should be the main picture on the article. ~ GB fan 10:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JamesOredan reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Indeffed)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:31, 10 March
  2. 11:02, 11 March
  3. 12:08, 11 March
  4. 12:52, 11 March
  5. 13:45, 11 March
  6. 14:17, 11 March
  7. 15:20, 11 March


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:
I fear WP might not be the right place for JamesOredan. Several recent blocks for both edit warring and sockpuppetry, this massive edit war against several other users does not look good. This is not even the only article on which he is edit warring today [Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor]. Given both recent behavior and behavior today, I recommend a very long break. Jeppiz (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: FYI, the diff for the 3RR warning points to the article? ——SerialNumber54129 17:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: In the interests of fairness, why have you not blocked LiliCharlie (talk · contribs) who has also violated 3RR on this article? [88], [89], [90], [91] and why have you not told JamesOrdean how to appeal a block? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I blocked JamesOredan with a standard block notice plus a comment. He removed both. You're welcome to block anyone you believe deserves to be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not really a question of who deserves to be blocked, but rather who must be blocked; I would have probably done 2 weeks (escalating from previous blocks) and referred the situation to ANI. Still, if he's not interested in getting unblocked, then I guess we're done here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
In terms of what is "fair and just", we should really look at the long-term picture. LiliCharlie made a total of only five reversions during the dispute, whereas (starting on 25th December) JamesOredan made 21 - which included four on 12th February and eight on 10th/11th March. So there is absolutely no comparison between those two users. (The task of correcting JamesOredan's reversions was shared between five editors). --DLMcN (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DePiep‎ reported by User:R8R (Result:No violation)[edit]

Page: Charles Martin Hall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DePiep‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [92] 11:05, 23 February 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [93] 11:25, 23 February 2019
  2. [94] 22:01, 8 March 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95] (I will note I had never participated in conflicts such as this one before and did not know what the appropriate reaction would be. I have, however, mentioned three times that not following a consensus will incur consequences, even if I did not at that moment know which those would be.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments: According to WP:Edit warring, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so," and it appears to me this refers to cases such as this one. Events unfolded as follows:

One day, DePiep comes over the said article and changes all spellings of "aluminum" to "aluminium," arguing that this would be in compliance with WP:ALUM. I undid that revert, explaining on the talk page why I thought WP:ALUM was not applicable for that particular article. Twenty minutes after, I was accused of not applying the rule instead of arguing for its inapplicability in this case (which was the opposite of what I had said), and fifteen minutes later, without giving me a chance to respond, they revert my revert. I reiterated my point that WP:ALUM was not applicable for that article and instead of succumbing to an edit war myself, called for the relevant WikiProjects to provide more opinions. All these opinions were in favor of inapplicability of WP:ALUM for the target article (there were four of them, and three of these four were beyond mere yeas). Over the course of discussion, DePiep has made a couple more accusations that were denied and did not return any sympathy at all. In the end, there was a clear consensus: WP:ALUM is not applicable here. I have a few times suggested that if DePiep were unhappy with this outcome, they may ask for some external judgment (at the time, I thought it would be the Arbitration Committee, but now it seems it should have been Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard).

I decided to take advice from one of the editors who had participated in the discussion, expanding the part on how Hall shaped how the name of the metal is spelled in the United States (essentially, adding more content). Yet I was undone with the comment "per talk: let's not overdo that "alumnium" WP:ALUM thing" (which is funny because none of this is true: a) nobody, including DePiep, had argued that such expansion was undesirable and thus there would be nothing relevant on the talk page, b) WP:ALUM was found to be inapplicable, and c) even if it were applicable, it has nothing with what content should or should not be in an article; it merely regulates how one word (or, if you count the other elements as well, three) should be spelled in certain articles). What I see is that DePiep is failing to recognize the outcome of the discussion (which revolves around the statement that WP:ALUM is not applicable) and keeps making edits despite the said outcome, even if it takes them to remove content without any actual explanation other than a reference to an argument that was never made and a clearly irrelevant rule. I was unfortunately unable to find a rule that would specifically say that not following a consensus was in its scope, and I presumed the situation would be regarded as edit warring (that's the impression I got from the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Edit warring#What to do if you see edit-warring behavior), even if the other party does not succumb to excessive reverting to match opponent's ambitions.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what should be done as a result. A 24-hour block wouldn't do anything given the pace of the dispute; a two-week block would seem excessive. (Then again, I'm not a huge fan of blocks in general and you may judge otherwise.) I would normally prefer to resolve this via discussion, but I'm afraid discussion won't get us anywhere as there is not a possibility DePiep might suppose they could possibly be wrong or at least accept they're in severe minority. I see one of the previous discussions on this page ended with a warning; I'd be happy with that outcome.--R8R (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. I'll have to read the guidelines and so to make a complete, well crafted comment, having all the dots and commas right, so maybe later more. Anyway: NO, the "3rd R" reported here is not to be judged as such. It followed the talkpage discussion (es even referred to it), it did not reinstate a previous version I have promoted, it did not contradict the consensus (as concluded by R8R themselves btw [to clarify: that is, R8R concluded the 'consensus' themselves in the discussion R8R had opened. To that, I have not complained nor did I revert any pre-state in any way (I left it to be "aluminum"). This does not state that the concluding process was correct]), etcetera. -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2019 a(UTC)
As for the timeline: original BRD started 2019-02-23 [97] (talk opened by R8R, good). It was concluded by R8R on 2019-03-01 [98], nine days ago. So I did not revert to previous, non-consensus (my preferred) version, and not in a "24h" or time-stressed order. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Even worse: the first two edits brought in here are from Feb 23, the "3rd offence" is from Mar 8. That is thirteen days between. -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Quick notice: I'm very busy at the moment but I will respond in 12 hours. If I don't, then consider that I have fallen powerless after what promises to be a very hard day as soon as I got home and be sure to see me respond tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm only asking not to take a word that DePiep says (or, for that matter, that I say) about the consensus that I pointed out. Check the discussion and observe it for yourselves; feel free to reprimand me if you don't find one.--R8R (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind waiting extra time. I'd prefer quality. So a hurry is not needed IMO. -DePiep (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Let me reply to the original post R8R made here (the long one). The opening statements try to reproduce the discussion but with a specific negative tone towards my contributions in the discussion (opening: "One day, DePiep comes over ..."). I note that, after initially being pinged by me, R8R opened the discussion and concluded it, with some unfair judgements & approaches wrt me. The conclusion (=stating the consensus) has serious flaws then, about which I didn't find any need or usefullness to complain at the moment. (One: "Nobody said that the rule itself [=guideline WP:ALUM] was bad", while I had pointed out such statement by an other editor, a statement incidentallly followed by accusation that it "is really not for you to decide, [DePiep]". Two: an other editor first accused me that I had "misinterpreted WP:ALUM", while then misquoting from that same link—twice). I also did not protest then the conclusion part to add a separate section no less about this very spelling issue that was just thrown out: an unsollicited and undiscussed deviation, and counter to the gist of the conclusion (that is: not the topic and not relevant). IOW, this was smuggled in. Anyway, protests should be at "Arbitration Committee" was noted.
I do not object the handling in general of the discussion by R8R, a detailed and elaborate enterprise it was. I do object being painted there and here as an obstinate or whatever while I was and I am loyal to the overall outcome of the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Having read & said this, and as not to abuse good editor's energy, I will leave the content discussion and so leave the article to others re this issue. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • An initial edit and two reverts of different material over the course of two weeks with active discussion on the talk page is not edit warring. ~ GB fan 10:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Omar hoftun reported by User:Zefr (Result: Both editors blocked )[edit]

Page
Phyllanthus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Omar hoftun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 14:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 14:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 13:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Phyllanthus. (TW)"
  2. 14:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Sambucus. (TW)"
  3. 14:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Phyllanthus. (TW)"
  4. 14:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "/* March 2019 */ comment; edit warring - no consensus-seeking"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has been admonished to engage in discussion and seek consensus on the respective talk pages. User is trying to add a primary research, non-English source to numerous articles. Zefr (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Yerevantsi reported by User:Jahmalm (Result: Malformed)[edit]

Page: Ezdiki
User being reported: Yerevantsi
Comments: Edit-war and ethno-pov changes in Ezdiki article.—Jahmalm (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Dimsar01 and user:Robster1983 reported by User:Robster1983 (Result: Agreement to discuss)[edit]

Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dimsar01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Robster1983 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
I don’t know how this works, but me and Dimsar01 are in an edit war. Instead of going in, I just would like a non biased person to have a look at the page. It involves the high ticket prices of this year’s contest. I reckon it should be mentioned, others, however, don’t want it in the article. Is there anyone who could give us some guidance? 「Robster1983」 Life's short, talk fast 11:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well. And I want to ask for the protection of the page to be changed back to Extended Confimed as all of the users who edit the page are not administrators. —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 11:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

There’s at least something we agree on. I hope this works out for all of us. 🙂 「Robster1983」 Life's short, talk fast 11:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be resolved. Many thanks to everyone who has helped, and also thanks to User:Dimsar01 for being constructive. 「Robster1983」 Life's short, talk fast 23:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Endowe reported by User:Brocicle (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page: RuPaul's Drag Race Holi-slay Spectacular (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Endowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [100]
  2. [101]
  3. [102]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments: User had a 48 hour block for the same behaviour and as soon as the block is lifted returned to do the same thing they were initially blocked for as you can see by the timing of their edits and block notice of their talk page. Editors have warned User Endowe yet again in edit summaries about edit warring and going against consensus but actions show they fail to care.
Brocicle (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Brocicle, Thanks for reporting. This editor is definitely behaving inappropriately. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Mz7 (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:MusicHead24 reported by User:Spinningspark (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Reed-Custer High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MusicHead24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 6 March 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 8 March 2019
  2. 9 March 2019
  3. 9 March 2019
  4. 13 March 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 9 March 2019‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 9 March 2019

Comments:

The user has not strictly broken 3RR, but it is quite clear that they intend to continue edit warring to insert this material no matter what. They have clearly broken WP:V by reinserting uncited challenged material. They have been informed of this requirement here and another user supported that position here. SpinningSpark 12:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked indefinitely. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:78.54.190.20 reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Page protected )[edit]

Page
User talk:Zackmann08 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
78.54.190.20 (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 18:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC) to 18:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    1. 18:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887441211 by 7 qz (talk)"
    2. 18:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ RfC: When are you planning to fix your edits? (Messed up replacement of template:Infobox Russian governorate, putting the type labelled as "Political status" in the field for higher level subdivision)"
  2. 18:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887441042 by Zackmann08 (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 18:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC) to 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    1. 18:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ new section"
    2. 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Vandalism and buggy substitutions related to Infobox settlement */ Now on ANI"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Has repeatedly posted the same spam on my talk page despite multiple warnings to stop. CLEAR violation of WP:NOBAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't SPAM. 78.54.190.20 (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You're not helping your case. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User also is edit warring over at ANI removing an editors close. Kb03 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

21 edits from this IP, Over half have been reverts. Remember that this user IP hops so blocking just 78.54.190.20 won't help. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
78.28.54.83 is another IP that appears related. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
If making a comment in an ANI thread makes someone "related" (*shivers*) then there are a few registered users that perhaps also should be listed, wouldn't you say? Hopefully not because it's nonsense. 78.28.54.83 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Talk page semi-protected. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ritchie333: can you help me understand your decision? I'm usually not one to question an admin, but IMHO this was such an overt violation of WP:3RR that protecting the page seems like an odd resolution. To me this seems like a clear case for a block. Just would like to hear your thoughts if you are willing to share? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't semi-protect your page, Widr did. Since it's within the bounds of administrator discretion, I closed the report as that being an appropriate action. I think he also blocked the IP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: fastest response EVER! Lol. My talk page wasn't actually what I was referring to. The Clear case IMHO was 78.54.190.20's actions on the WP:ANI page. My talk page was protected because of another IP vandal. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that'll be because I thought the notification was going to say "Your edit on [blah] has been reverted by [x]" ... anyway, the IP has stopped commenting at ANI, and because your talk page is semi-protected, I don't think anything else is going to happen. It's possible the IP has been recycled, or that the user behind it has lost interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: sounds good. Thanks for the info! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:AdusNow reported by User:Shoy (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
MNC Vision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AdusNow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887576511 by Mean as custard (talk)"
  2. 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887576051 by Shoy (talk) MNC Group di MNC Vision"
  3. 14:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887575189 by Mean as custard (talk)"
  4. 14:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 866426921 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [104] (My talk page)
Comments:

Edit warring. It appears that English is not this user's first language. Also edit warred on Info but stopped short of 3RR. shoy (reactions) 16:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Spoonkymonkey reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Spoonkymonkey (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 17:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC) to 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    1. 17:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "revert to accepted version, remove birth date (privacy issues, as they are used as identifiers in some countries)"
    2. 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ remove BLP material. In light of #metoo, this is not suitable for hashing out on Wikipedia"
  2. 16:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Revert to earlier version that does not violate BLP, arbcomm decision, #ibelievewomen #metoo"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
  2. 17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Editing while logged out. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "Moving & replying"
  2. 17:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Help Request */ Replying to RhinosF1 (reply-link)"
Comments:

Has also edited while logged out. Suggest Semi/EC protect the page at least and block the user as they obviously know what they're doing. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I am glad this has been reported. See the talk page for the Arbcomm decision on Marsden, which is being ignored by this admin. There has been a concerted effort to denigrate this woman's report of sexual assault. People could get away with that 10 years ago, but in the age of #metoo and #Ibelievewomen, when Wikipedia has taken so much heat over its hostility to women, it might be time for a cold, hard look at how Marsden has been treated over the years. Is it because she is Wales' ex-girlfriend? I do believe women. We have seen so many cases of sexual assault that fit the Simon Fraser University pattern, and that were papered over. I haven't edit warred. I have followed the Arcomm decision to the letter. Three revert rule does not a[[ly to edits meant to reduce the over-abundance of negative and scurrilous info posted on the page. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Spoonkymonkey, I'm not an admin which is why it's here. If I was, Id have protected it first. You've failed to discuss something where editors obviously disagree with you. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I had already dealt with it in a talk page post two or three weeks ago. I brought up the targetting of this woman, the long history of attacks on her and the change of attitude in recent years to women's claims of sexual assault. Today, I also asked people to read the Arbcomm decision linked on the talk page, which says the 3 revert rule does not apply to removal of disproportionate negative material about this person (or BLP issues in general). Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Spoonkymonkey, Your post did not show consensus for it and despite being reverted you continued to make the change while both logged in and while logged out. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I had removed the derogatory material on Feb. 26 and posted on the talk page the same day. Almost three weeks later, the material, with violates both BLP and the arbcomm decision was returned by someone who did not engage on the talk page and did not ask for consensus, and now the page is locked with these BLP violations. Today, a series of socks attacked my edits and targeted my talk page. At least one has already been blocked.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)