A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) |
A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1,175: | Line 1,175: | ||
;Page: {{pagelinks|The Pirate Bay}} |
;Page: {{pagelinks|The Pirate Bay}} |
||
;User being reported: {{userlinks|108.41.173.242}} |
;User being reported: {{userlinks|108.41.173.242}} - source of later reverts |
||
;User being reported: {{userlinks|112.198.90.248}} - source of the original revert |
|||
;Previous version reverted to: |
;Previous version reverted to: |
||
(No specific article version, just a revert to a version of the infobox parameter which was more than a year old) |
|||
;Diffs of the user's reverts: |
;Diffs of the user's reverts: |
||
# {{diff2|588824532|07:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)}} "The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS." - 112.198.90.248 reversion of over a year old standing URL=HTTPS |
|||
# {{diff2|589461841|16:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 589188111 by [[Special:Contributions/Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) Personal opinions do not matter. Reverted to consensus." |
# {{diff2|589461841|16:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 589188111 by [[Special:Contributions/Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) Personal opinions do not matter. Reverted to consensus." |
||
# {{diff2|589462872|16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 589462076 by [[Special:Contributions/Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) This is just gainsaying on your part. There was no change in consensus and you ended the discussion." |
# {{diff2|589462872|16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 589462076 by [[Special:Contributions/Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) This is just gainsaying on your part. There was no change in consensus and you ended the discussion." |
||
Line 1,198: | Line 1,201: | ||
;<u>Comments:</u> |
;<u>Comments:</u> |
||
The IP editor reverted a long-standing (over a year) HTTPS link in the infobox with the edit summary ''(The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS.)'' I reverted that based on BRD and opened discussion on Talk, based on how consensus works and can change, even without discussion. The IP doggedly employs |
Although this isn't 3RR yet, it is about ongoing edit warring in the midst of a BRD discussion. The IP editor reverted a long-standing (over a year) HTTPS link in the infobox with the edit summary ''(The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS.)'' I reverted that[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pirate_Bay&diff=589188111&oldid=589107284] based on BRD and opened discussion on Talk, based on how consensus works and can change, even without discussion. The IP doggedly employs legalistic arguments not based in WP policy, guideline or essay, employs rhetorical questions, inverted logic and bold misinterpretation of the history of the article and discussion, [[WP:CONSENSUS]], and even [[WP:BRD]] to bolster the notion that HTTPS "shouldn't" be in the infobox. If I'm wrong here, so be it, but I'm certainly not seeing that at the moment. If this report is too screwed up, I'll retract it if requested. [[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 17:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
:The statement that I made a revert with the comment "The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS" is an utterly false accusation. One of several recently made by Lexein. I have no idea who made that edit. In fact, looking at the history of the actual editor, I am in complete disagreement with his motives. Consensus was reached on this subject after long discussion. It is Lexein that is attempting to make a change to the status quo, as he admitted in his first statement in the thread. He has declared that consensus has changed and that discussion is not mandatory. He has ignored all of my arguments, and resorted to declarations, characterizations, accusations, and now his attempt to ban me for a violation I did not make. In fact, he reverted three times and I reverted twice to bring text back to the status quo, and yet he puts an ew template on my talk page and this false accusation here. Please review all of the thread, not his excerpts alone. Regards, [[Special:Contributions/108.41.173.242|108.41.173.242]] ([[User talk:108.41.173.242|talk]]) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC) |
:The statement that I made a revert with the comment "The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS" is an utterly false accusation. One of several recently made by Lexein. I have no idea who made that edit. In fact, looking at the history of the actual editor, I am in complete disagreement with his motives. Consensus was reached on this subject after long discussion. It is Lexein that is attempting to make a change to the status quo, as he admitted in his first statement in the thread. He has declared that consensus has changed and that discussion is not mandatory. He has ignored all of my arguments, and resorted to declarations, characterizations, accusations, and now his attempt to ban me for a violation I did not make. In fact, he reverted three times and I reverted twice to bring text back to the status quo, and yet he puts an ew template on my talk page and this false accusation here. Please review all of the thread, not his excerpts alone. Regards, [[Special:Contributions/108.41.173.242|108.41.173.242]] ([[User talk:108.41.173.242|talk]]) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
::You made the edit as another IP, and defended it as if you made the edit, so it is completely logical to assume you made the edit. --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 18:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:20, 6 January 2014
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Tdadamemd reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Blocked)
Page: Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tdadamemd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Continued WP:GS/BO violation [1]
- Revert of removal [2]
- Revert of removal with edit summary describing removal as WP:VANDALISM https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama,_Sr.&diff=588593139&oldid=588592691
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warnings:
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
[7] and more (see history)
Comments:
- They're up to at least 4RR after a 3RR warning. I'll provide the diffs in a moment. Note that this editor's problems go beyond just edit warring; there is a separate report at AN/I - Wikidemon (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here it is
- 1. [8] claimed they were restoring a discussion that had been closed; in actuality, cut-and-pasted a duplicate unhatted version of hatted discussion from the talk page archives; also restored material that had been deleted as BLP vio
- 2. [9] undoes attempt to close discussion; also restores BLP violation (unsourced and apparently untrue fringe material regarding statutory rape involved in Obama's conception)
- 3. [10] reverts removal of archive duplication and BLP vios
- 4. [11] - reverts removal material that was deleted for WP:BLP / WP:TEND grounds; calls removal "vandalism" in edit summary.
- The last one was after a 3RR warning I left.[12] They're also at 3RR (but haven't exceeded it) at Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here it is
User:Ithinkicahn reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Gülen movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ithinkicahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "Additions and intro cleanup with sources"
- 20:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "I wouldn't consider linking to Turkey in the intro of this article to be overlinking, would you?..."
- 02:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 588581095 by Walter Görlitz (talk) This movement is based in Turkey, so linking a single more VITAL thing isn't going to kill WP:OVERLINK."
- 02:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "What is your problem? Don't get me to break 3RR because you consider linking to Turkey, the home nation and main focus of the movement, to be an overlink. Here, I removed a less vital link and kept Turkey. Happy?"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 02:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "STOP"
- 02:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Gülen movement. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- I tried to explain WP:OVERLINK but to no constructive end. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02
- 23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have responded on the talk page. In the middle of writing my (not too long) response, this user reported me within a few seconds. He seems to be overly eager in enforcing WP:3RR on an article that barely has any intro links as it stands, and in removing the home and most relevant country (Turkey) of a religious and political movement. I'd say there are more constructive uses of everyone's time rather than to enforce guidelines as hard law (as it stands, those guidelines on WP:OVERLINK do not even advise to not link to nations); I would say having a link to a nation on this page's intro would be akin to having a link to a home nation of a political party: necessary. Indeed, it appears this user seems to be fishing for an edit war; even one of the few links on his userpage discusses the 'unfairness' with which another one of his apparently overzealous reports to the admins of an alleged edit war resulted in the "perpetrator" not being sufficiently punished to his liking. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I reported when you reached four edits within 24 hours. Sorry if you feel that was too soon. WP:OVERLINK is clear and there is no reason to link to the nation. If it started in a specific city, linking to that would be acceptable, and that's what I wrote on your talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I responded on my talk page. WP:OVERLINK is in fact not "clear" and does not mention the word "nation" once; it says "*major* geographic features and locations". As I explained before, there is plenty of reason to link to the nation; have you read the article itself? It is not centered in any one part of nation, so I see no harm in having one link to Turkey. Like I said, political parties almost always have links to whatever country whose government they are involved in. I would think the same would go for civil society organizations and political movements that are so vitally and fundamentally attached to one country; in this case, the Gülen movement is fundamentally attached to the nation of Turkey in that it sprang from its political system, population, civil society, speakers of its sole national language, and citizens of its government. Perhaps I am doing this argument against this too much of a favor by attempting to prove a point that should be common sense to any passer-by, but I'm in disbelief that someone would be so litigious as to try to follow guidelines as natural law and choose the word of the law over the spirit of the law and common sense. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that a nation is not a major geographic location? I'd be happy to hear your explanation for what you think a nation is. Many take OVERLINK to exclude superfluous linking of common cities such as New York, Los Angeles, London and Paris.
- Besides, the issue is not OVERLINK, it's not discussing and simply changing content without discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would say that an article focused so heavily on one country (Turkey) should at least have a link to it in a lengthy intro. Turkey isn't the United States or the United Kingdom; it is not as identifiable to an English speaker. The point is, you seem to be extremely zealous in reporting people for "overlinking", 3RR, and edit wars for simply breaking technical rules. Like I said before, it is obvious that other admins noticed this behavior from you before, for example in this article, where you also reported a user for breaking the 3RR and then complained when the admins decided that his reversions of your edits were done with good intentions and that your reporting was obsessively overzealous. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing up an article where I tried to resolve an edit war and did not participate in it, and instead I tried to act as mediator, to show that I'm a problem. The issue is simple: don't link the nation of Turkey in tangentially related articles, and when someone shows you a guideline, discuss, don't edit war. 09:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would say that an article focused so heavily on one country (Turkey) should at least have a link to it in a lengthy intro. Turkey isn't the United States or the United Kingdom; it is not as identifiable to an English speaker. The point is, you seem to be extremely zealous in reporting people for "overlinking", 3RR, and edit wars for simply breaking technical rules. Like I said before, it is obvious that other admins noticed this behavior from you before, for example in this article, where you also reported a user for breaking the 3RR and then complained when the admins decided that his reversions of your edits were done with good intentions and that your reporting was obsessively overzealous. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I responded on my talk page. WP:OVERLINK is in fact not "clear" and does not mention the word "nation" once; it says "*major* geographic features and locations". As I explained before, there is plenty of reason to link to the nation; have you read the article itself? It is not centered in any one part of nation, so I see no harm in having one link to Turkey. Like I said, political parties almost always have links to whatever country whose government they are involved in. I would think the same would go for civil society organizations and political movements that are so vitally and fundamentally attached to one country; in this case, the Gülen movement is fundamentally attached to the nation of Turkey in that it sprang from its political system, population, civil society, speakers of its sole national language, and citizens of its government. Perhaps I am doing this argument against this too much of a favor by attempting to prove a point that should be common sense to any passer-by, but I'm in disbelief that someone would be so litigious as to try to follow guidelines as natural law and choose the word of the law over the spirit of the law and common sense. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Four edits, not four reverts, there's no violation here. Dark Sun (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Each of the edit modified the content of another editor therefore they are reverts.
- A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
- Not my words. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Warned. Ithinkicahn, Walter is correct that you breached WP:3RR. He is also correct that pursuant to WP:OVERLINK, Turkey should not be wikilinked. At the same time, this is not the kind of thing to edit war about, and that goes for Walter as well, who, although he did not breach 3RR, edit-warred. Ithinkicahn, consider this a warning that the next time you breach 3RR, even over something silly, the administrator evaluating the report may not be so lenient. Also, if you wanted to show good faith, you should self-revert your last change.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Zmflavius reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: No action )
Page: Yasukuni Shrine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zmflavius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [13]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:GameLegend (Result: Both blocked)
Page: Zwarte Piet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 588617007
- 588611342
- 588602153
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=588617923&oldid=588617610
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zwarte_Piet#2011_protesters
Comments:
After posting 3RR warning on his talk page, user removed the warning.
GameLegend (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted, but had good reason. Editor was removing a dead link saying that the material was unreferenced and that a primary source said it differently. Well of course the police report wouldn't report the reason of the protest! Reporting editor is also guilty of breaking 3RR:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588592668&oldid=588480888
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588601944&oldid=588601850
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588609465&oldid=588602153
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588615055&oldid=588611342
- WP:BOOMERANG! Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- And for the record, I just found a university journalism article that supports the material in the dead link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked. I blocked Walter for 48 hours because of his extensive history of edit warring. I blocked GameLegend for 24 hours as it was his first block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Paradoctor reported by User:Tweedledee2011 (Result: Submitter warned)
Page: Talk:Monty Hall problem (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paradoctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=588638556&oldid=588638517
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=588439193&oldid=588433803
Comments:
Most of my efforts to dialog with paradoctor and avoid edit warring took place in on his talk page here
- Result: Tweedledee2011 is warned. This article was the subject of an arbitration case and admins are given a big hammer to deal with any disruption. Please limit your talk contributions to proposing specific changes to the article. The talk page is WP:Not a forum for general discussion of the Monty Hall problem. Your own personal deductions about the problem are not notable unless they can be cited to a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me EdJohnston - but why are you warning me without sanctioning the violating party? I proved unequivocally that Paradoctor did 4 reverts. Also, if you bothered to read the talk page or my links, you would see that I HAVE NOT done anything but try to build consensus for the inclusion of an examination of sample space (an integral part of probability theory) into the article. Frankly, I am really surprised at the absurd result of my report. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- You were told quite clearly to NOT discuss the underlying theory where you were. You insisted on continuing. It was rightly removed, you then personally edit-warred to keep the improper discussion there - please feel fortunate that it's not YOU that are blocked. Let me repeat: your comment was RIGHTLY removed - never re-add when you've been told it was being done in the wrong spot ES&L 21:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The comment which was reverted 4 times, was the final post which brought a lengthy conversation to a conclusion. As such, it should have been left intact. Not only that, but a review of User talk:Tweedledee2011/martin shows that I am genuinely interested to reach consensus on something I am having trouble explaining. As such, this reinforces that my final post on the thread in question, should have been left intact. Not only that, but this [24] shows how, even when I was ultimately proved correct (same talk page, but on a different point)by another user, deletionist naysayers tried leaping into the fray and refused to honestly address the point I had raised. That type of aggression from other editors seems to be an issue on the Monty Hall Problem article. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- You've now had at least 3 people tell you otherwise - including 2 admins. Face it, unfortunately you're very wrong this time. This is not intended to demean you or to remove from the work you do - just you seem to have taken that discussion far too passionately so that you're unable to see how your commentary was not correct, and you're so inflamed against the other editor that you cannot see that they were doing the right thing. Time for you to logoff for a couple of hours and have a cup of WP:TEA ES&L 21:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words, but you miss the point. I wasn't trying to be "correct". Rather, I was trying to see if anyone else would open their minds and ponder the question I was raising, which is: Is the wiki article doing the readers a disservice by focusing only on the probability calculations and not the verbal logic of the controlling terminology? I think we are, and I think the zeal which has been used to kill off my thread shows the other editor is overinvested in thwarting a discussion which could make the article more accessible to verbal thinkers, such as myself. I do not dispute that 2/3 is correct. Rather, like the MIT professors I cited elsewhere on the talk page, I agree that precise adoption of the Vos Savant premise is required for the solution to work. And any deviance, deviance which might creep in from vernacular-related issues, derails the reasoning needed to see that. That said, once again, thank your for your kind words. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- You've now had at least 3 people tell you otherwise - including 2 admins. Face it, unfortunately you're very wrong this time. This is not intended to demean you or to remove from the work you do - just you seem to have taken that discussion far too passionately so that you're unable to see how your commentary was not correct, and you're so inflamed against the other editor that you cannot see that they were doing the right thing. Time for you to logoff for a couple of hours and have a cup of WP:TEA ES&L 21:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The comment which was reverted 4 times, was the final post which brought a lengthy conversation to a conclusion. As such, it should have been left intact. Not only that, but a review of User talk:Tweedledee2011/martin shows that I am genuinely interested to reach consensus on something I am having trouble explaining. As such, this reinforces that my final post on the thread in question, should have been left intact. Not only that, but this [24] shows how, even when I was ultimately proved correct (same talk page, but on a different point)by another user, deletionist naysayers tried leaping into the fray and refused to honestly address the point I had raised. That type of aggression from other editors seems to be an issue on the Monty Hall Problem article. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- You were told quite clearly to NOT discuss the underlying theory where you were. You insisted on continuing. It was rightly removed, you then personally edit-warred to keep the improper discussion there - please feel fortunate that it's not YOU that are blocked. Let me repeat: your comment was RIGHTLY removed - never re-add when you've been told it was being done in the wrong spot ES&L 21:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me EdJohnston - but why are you warning me without sanctioning the violating party? I proved unequivocally that Paradoctor did 4 reverts. Also, if you bothered to read the talk page or my links, you would see that I HAVE NOT done anything but try to build consensus for the inclusion of an examination of sample space (an integral part of probability theory) into the article. Frankly, I am really surprised at the absurd result of my report. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
User:92.238.171.3 reported by User:iadrian_yu (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Cluj-Napoca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.238.171.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [25]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user is trying to do something against consensus on wikipedia, he was informed of that on several occasions via history. [31], [32]
Comments:
This user is making strange edits (of the same type) on several articles: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], on many of them engaging in edit warring. Also I suspect that this Ip user User:195.89.201.254 is related to the reported user since they make same edits and sometimes even use the same comments (WP:DUCK). Adrian (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
User:210.6.89.94 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48 hours)
- Page
- Anesthesiologist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 210.6.89.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC) ""
- 15:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC) "The source is from the respected journal BMJ. How can the editor regard this as an unreliable source?"
- 06:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 588611640 by NeilN (talk)"
- 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "This is referenced and I don't understand why the editor decided to omit it."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 11:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. using TW"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 11:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Irrelevant trivia */ new section"
- Comments:
- Blocked – 48 hours. The IP is warring to insert some negative reflections on the intelligence of anesthesiologists from an article in the BMJ that seems to have been accepted as a humorous contribution. In my opinion the IP is getting close to a long-term block for disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Krutoi dezigner reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result:Already blocked)
- Page
- Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Krutoi dezigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- His own talk page and Talk:Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#Problems.2C_again
- Comments:
- This user Krutoi dezigner just recovered from a block, and right after the recovery, he started edit warring once again, despite the reverts by Darkness shines, and Lukeno52, this user is really adamant about imposing his own version of page. He has edit war previously as well, same page. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Guess this can be closed, because the user is banned already. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Already blocked the day before this report by User:Georgewilliamherbert ES&L 12:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Gulmammad reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Warned)
Page: Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gulmammad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [43] is the first edit of this series of edits
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]
Comments:
Gulmammad has for months come on to the article occasionally in order to push their preferred version of the lead in, despite the objections of every one else in the talk page discussion. They refused to list their issues with the former lead, and instead asked others to list their issues with their lead. My pointing out of the puffery elements of the lead eventually led to the conclusion that I "have nothing but hate towards the subject of this article", and the implication that I'm an Armenian (not that I'm offended by this, but it wasn't intended as a compliment). I didn't give them a talkpage warning as they're not a new user (DTTR), but I added one today due to the request for such in the instructions for filing this report. CMD (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Result: Gulmammad is warned that if he reverts the article to his own preference again, without getting consensus on talk, he may be blocked without further discussion. This appears to be a slow edit war in which he returns to the article at wide intervals to change it to his version. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. EdJohnston, I must confess that I am surprised to see you still active on here after so many years. I got bored very early and have been semi-retired since 2009. But once in a while I contribute an edit or two at my leisure. This time an e-mail notification dragged me here and let be known to anyone that I have no time or desire for fruitless tit for tat discussions with users like CDM. Some months ago when I read the lead of the subject article, I realized it was outdate and rewrote it. Furthermore, to eliminate any bias I even had several other professionals critique it. Then I proposed the final version in the talk page and asked for changes if anyone wished to make. On an article watched by over 300 users, only CMD and two other editors proposed changes and I immediately incorporated them into the lead and waited for a month. Only then I moved my version to the main article assuming they agreed by remaining silent. But mysteriously, CMD immediately appeared and reverted my edit and left yet another vague argument on the talk page. Perhaps this is what you call a slow edit war by me. The question is, Mr. EdJohnston, why you haven't treated this case impartially? Gulmammad | talk 05:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you and User:Chipmunkdavis can't agree on the article you can follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. One option is a WP:Request for comment. Since Azerbaijan is an important article, a listing of the article at RfC should be noticed and will bring in a variety of opinions. If instead of waiting for consensus on the talk page you just continue to revert, blocks of at least one party are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say there's consensus on the talkpage against the new lead, and it's disingenuous to portray this as Gulmammad vs Chipmunkdavis. Two other users have commented on the revised version on the talkpage (others commented on the similar previous one), and I quote from each, "the proposed lead is not only less concise...but has an unfortunate "advertising tone" that is not a good WP fit...Too much hyperbole", and "The current version still has some problems...I think we can resolve the issue by considering what should be added to the previous version, not by completely rewriting it." CMD (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you and User:Chipmunkdavis can't agree on the article you can follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. One option is a WP:Request for comment. Since Azerbaijan is an important article, a listing of the article at RfC should be noticed and will bring in a variety of opinions. If instead of waiting for consensus on the talk page you just continue to revert, blocks of at least one party are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. EdJohnston, I must confess that I am surprised to see you still active on here after so many years. I got bored very early and have been semi-retired since 2009. But once in a while I contribute an edit or two at my leisure. This time an e-mail notification dragged me here and let be known to anyone that I have no time or desire for fruitless tit for tat discussions with users like CDM. Some months ago when I read the lead of the subject article, I realized it was outdate and rewrote it. Furthermore, to eliminate any bias I even had several other professionals critique it. Then I proposed the final version in the talk page and asked for changes if anyone wished to make. On an article watched by over 300 users, only CMD and two other editors proposed changes and I immediately incorporated them into the lead and waited for a month. Only then I moved my version to the main article assuming they agreed by remaining silent. But mysteriously, CMD immediately appeared and reverted my edit and left yet another vague argument on the talk page. Perhaps this is what you call a slow edit war by me. The question is, Mr. EdJohnston, why you haven't treated this case impartially? Gulmammad | talk 05:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:ElKevbo reported by User:108.12.17.157 (Result: Reporter blocked )
Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=529_plan&action=history
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
I sent him an email because I couldnt figure out how to respond to him on wikipedia. He did not respond to my email.
Comments:
I am a new user who doesnt fully understand your editing and reporting system.
Anyway I made perhaps 2 external link submissions in compliance with wikipedia's guidelines. The external links where very specific links from a content page on wikipedia, in this case the 529 College Savings Plan, to a list of web resources for 529 college savings plans, on a site similar to DMOZ. The linked page is of higher quanitity and quality than the much outdated DMOZ, and has no pay for placement links whatsoever - all sites are listed at no charge or fee. This editor reverted the link repeatedly and repeatedly threatened to ban me, falsely claiming that I was spamming wikipedia. He did so on a second link on a second content page.
I recommend banning ElKevbo from participating in Wikipedia.
- Although incomplete, and certainly does not violate WP:3RR, I can heartily suggest that the cheapbooks website sure as hell should not be used as an external link from Wikipedia - period. When it was removed the first time, you were not permitted to re-add it without getting new WP:CONSENSUS through discussion o nthe article talkpage ES&L 19:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Werieth reported by User:Modernist (Result: )
Page: History of painting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Werieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [51]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [52] - removed image of - Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dalí, 1931
- [53] - reverted Freshacconci (talk · contribs)
- [54] - reverted Freshacconci (talk · contribs) - who commented You were restricted to one such edit, no more.
- [55] - reverted Modernist (talk · contribs)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] and here [57]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - There are many discussions concerning this editor deleting images from visual art pages. He was asked by his colleagues to only revert once...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
There are many discussions concerning this editor deleting images from visual art pages. He was asked by his colleagues to only revert once...Modernist (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Werieth closed the discussion at WP:NFCR here [58] as an "uninvolved editor" and since that discussion has weight of consensus, that decision should hold. If any other editor (well, besides those clearly involved) made the same closure, I would expect there wouldn't be any question about removal per the discussion consensus. But even though Werieth did not directly interact in that discussion, his past behavior brings into question whether he is "uninvolved". If it is considered that this was uninvolved, then Werieth has done nothing wrong. But I believe that it's hard to categorize this as such, Werieth having clear intent (even if it is intent I agree with). --MASEM (t) 23:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- So, Werieth closed the discussion (in favour of his preferred outcome), and rather early I might add, and then proceeded to remove the images himself. When an editor such as myself, that was not aware of that "decision", such as it is, reverted that edit, he then edit warred, despite being on a 1RR restriction on image-related edits. I find his "carrying out NFCR action" excuse to be somewhat laughable, given his hasty close and enforcement. This is an editor that contributes nothing other than removing images. I have no opinion on his removals of non-visual art images at this time, but I would like to see a topic ban on visual art topics, as he has no knowledge of the field and has no capacity to work with other editors or follow a 1RR decision. freshacconci talk to me 23:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'll just note that when Weieth closed the discussion, there had been no new comments for over two weeks. I'm not sure how to judge "uninvolved editor" here, but surely, having a lot of experience in image deletion discussions should not disqualify one from closing a discussion on NFCR. How should we judge "uninvolved" here? – Quadell (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum: I just saw that NFCR recommends 4 weeks or clear consensus. It appears to have been closed a bit early, despite not getting any comments in a long time. – Quadell (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is probably some history that anyone involved in recent discussions between AFD and visual arts can assert that Werieth has clearly been shown to be strong enforcement of NFC there, but I can't just point you to any specific page, but even as one that agrees with Werieth's point about NFC issues, I have to side on those saying this was a involved closure and should not have been closed by Werieth and acted on by him as well. If it was an uninvolved admin that did the closer and Werieth simply reverting it to enforce it, that's one thing, but this is judge, jury, and executioner behavior here, which is improper. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually NFCR is 7 days, given that there was only 1 user claiming that the file is acceptable and several others giving sound policy based arguments against the files (where Modernist is the only one making an argument for the file which amounted to ILIKEIT). Given that it was a fairly clear consensus that the files where unacceptable the close was correct, I did not take any personal postion in that discussion. It was a fairly clear case of minimal usage and UUI 6 Werieth (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days." So, no not "7 days", that would be 7 days minimum. And as it is clearly being established here, you do not have the ability to close properly, you do not work well with others, and you are involved because this is all you do, you delete images and talk about deleting images. Therefore, closing a discussion and then implementing that dubious decision is wholly inappropriate as you are intimately involved. freshacconci talk to me 01:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum: I just saw that NFCR recommends 4 weeks or clear consensus. It appears to have been closed a bit early, despite not getting any comments in a long time. – Quadell (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- If Modernist wants to have the NFCR close reviewed that is a different matter, revert warring, leaving no valid arguments for the reverts and ignoring process is not the way to do it. Werieth (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The only edit summary that provides any kind of rationale for reverting is Key painting in 20th century; discussed in article; has own article which has nothing to do with the outcome of a NFCR. Werieth (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- For the record - I said One of the most important Surrealist works of the 20th century - needed to be included... certainly not just ILIKEIT [59]. As to this scenario - Werieth reverted the image - and ignored Freshacconcci's clear admonition; and acted outrageously as in Masem's words - judge, jury, and executioner; - deleting one of the most important Surrealist works in the history of painting...Modernist (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- That would make an argument for Surrealism not History of painting, which is what this report is about. The jury is the users who participated in the discussion, not me. If you want to dispute the NFCR blindly re-adding the file is not the way to do that. Given that per the NFCR closure the usage is a violation of NFCC, WP:3RRNO §5 would apply in this case. Werieth (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm - are you suggesting that we add the Dali to the Surrealism article?, good suggestion...Modernist (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I said that would be an argument for it, not that the argument is strong enough to do so. Werieth (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- What justification can you make to edit war to display the file twice on 20th-century Western painting? Werieth (talk)
- You were equally guilty of edit warring there - making 4 reverts at that article as well - perhaps we should lodge a second complaint about you. Considering the Dali painting was discussed and referenced in both articles including 20th-century Western painting and History of painting and frankly belongs in both articles your objection amounts to IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You have shown a complete failure to understand WP:NFCC policy, just because a work is discussed doesnt mean that we need to display it, often works are referenced and discussed across many many articles, and normally a link to the article on the work is sufficient. See WP:NFC#UUI §6 Werieth (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- No justification for your 4 reverts in both articles. Read this The three-revert rule...Modernist (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Werieth, the point is, given your current stance on NFC and past issues of enforcing NFC, you are technically uninvolved by realistically involved deeply that you shouldn't have closed the discussion and edit warred the removal. Even if I were uninvolved in that discussion (I was, but lets assume hypothetical), I would avoid closure of that with a ten-foot pole because of my own current rhetoric on NFC and visual arts, much less maintaining the removal via edit warring. There was no rush to close it early, and then when an uninvolved admin closed it as remove, you'd be perfectly free to revert removal justified by a third-party's decision. I'm totally on your side about the NFC issues with the image, but there's no way I can justify your behavior to get that. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- If the NFCR close had been challenged it would be a different story, that has yet to happen, So far it has been Modernist screaming about how unfair and how we must have the file plastered everywhere, without basing it on any policy based arguments. If Modernist wants to request a review of the closure they are free to do so. That has yet to happen. Modernist however cannot bypass NFCR and just edit war the file back into articles. Werieth (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see 8 reverts from Werieth in 2 articles in a short period of time with no discussion. Looks like edit warring violations of WP:3RR to me and a lot of other editors...Modernist (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR established that the files were in violation of WP:NFCC. Thus the removals are exempt from 3RR, please stop trying to cherry pick policies to get the files re-added to articles. Werieth (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I didn't scream - I initially added one comment; and made one edit per article regarding your edit warring. As to your interpretation of WP:NFCR policy - note - I've been discussing these matters for 7 years; understand the policy and guidelines quite well and I do not agree with your and some of your colleagues misinterpretation of the foundations intentions regarding contemporary and modern art imagery...Modernist (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Werieth, will you agree not to revert to re-remove images from articles if you were the one to close the discussion? To simply bring it up to another admin, preferably an uninvolved one, and let him/her decide what is the best course of action to take? – Quadell (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Modernist, will you agree not to revert to re-include images in article that have been closed at NFCR, even if you disagree with the ruling? (And if you think the ruling invalid, do you agree to instead have the NFCR close reviewed, rather than reverting against the decision of the closed discussion?) – Quadell (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I will agree provided the Dali images are returned to the articles and the discussion is re-opened...Modernist (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense to say "I agree not to revert to reinstate the image, provided the image is reinstated." If you reopen the discussion, then consensus will determine whether it should be reinstated or not. We all have to abide by policy and consensus. If policy was not followed, if consensus was misinterpreted, if the discussion close was out of line, then we can reopen it and determine collaboratively how to apply policy here. But what you can't do is continue to re-add images into articles in contravention of the results at NFCR, FFD, etc. So I'll ask again: do you agree to abide by the results of NFCR and FFD discussions, even if you disagree with them, and appeal the results through appropriate channels (instead of edit warring) if you think the close was inappropriate? – Quadell (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Quadell I generally always abide by those rulings - in this case - after Werieth's edit warring via somewhat outrageous judge, jury, executioner actions; and after Werieth had made 3 reverts to each article I defended the image with one revert to each article - then Werieth proceeded to four reverts to each article - doesn't the rules apply to him? Seemed like a blatant violation of WP:3RR to me...Modernist (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually that is calling anyone who closed an NFCR, FfD, or AfD a judge, jury, executioner. However the case is I just closed the review per the consensus that was already there. Werieth (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, Modernist. – Quadell (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Quadell I generally always abide by those rulings - in this case - after Werieth's edit warring via somewhat outrageous judge, jury, executioner actions; and after Werieth had made 3 reverts to each article I defended the image with one revert to each article - then Werieth proceeded to four reverts to each article - doesn't the rules apply to him? Seemed like a blatant violation of WP:3RR to me...Modernist (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense to say "I agree not to revert to reinstate the image, provided the image is reinstated." If you reopen the discussion, then consensus will determine whether it should be reinstated or not. We all have to abide by policy and consensus. If policy was not followed, if consensus was misinterpreted, if the discussion close was out of line, then we can reopen it and determine collaboratively how to apply policy here. But what you can't do is continue to re-add images into articles in contravention of the results at NFCR, FFD, etc. So I'll ask again: do you agree to abide by the results of NFCR and FFD discussions, even if you disagree with them, and appeal the results through appropriate channels (instead of edit warring) if you think the close was inappropriate? – Quadell (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I will agree provided the Dali images are returned to the articles and the discussion is re-opened...Modernist (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think Werieth ought to refrain from closing any of these discussions. He is involved whether he comments on a particular discussion or not, given his strong views. Someone closing a discussion has to be able to judge all positions, and policy, fairly. There is always going to be a perception that Werieth won't do that (whether it's an accurate perception or not). Also, Werieth did agree last month not to remove an image from an article more than once, where (in his words) "the removal is questionable or subjective." See my discussion with him here, for example. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- My views are fairly balanced, given the discussion the consensus was that these uses where inappropriate, according to that the removals where neither subjective nor questionable. Regardless of how a discussion is closed you will rarely have 100% agreement, someone is almost always on the other side of how a discussion is closed. If you want to discuss my position (which did not come into play here, I was just running through and closing those discussions that where fairly clear to help with the backlog) with regards to non-free media I will gladly discuss them. Ill also note that I do remove files, but I have also uploaded ~250 myself. Werieth (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I consider myself much more reasonable on these discussions, but I dare not close any (save those that are clearly obvious or simple bookkeeping) given that most know my stance on NFC, as to simply avoid the controversy of the decision; I would reasonably expect the same of anyone else on that page, particularly when the consensus wasn't straight forward. I know that as written our policies allow for me to close such discussions if I didn't make a mention, but because of how some feel there's an NFC cabel going on with just a few editors, I avoid doing anything that upsets that, and I'd recommend the same rationale here. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Werieth, the thing is that perception matters as much as reality when it comes to being uninvolved enough to close contentious discussions (and it seems that these image closures are always contentious when it comes to art). Also, you had been involved in disputes over art images, disputes with Modernist in particular, and over History of painting specifically, so those factors alone made you too involved to close this one. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Let's not be too hasty to judge Werieth as an outright deletionist. After all, here he is twice restoring a non-free image to an article as soon as it's removed, despite his agreed 1RR restriction and despite consensus at NFCR that it fails WP:NFCC#8.
- What's the difference? Oh yes, Werieth uploaded this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Admin comment: This is a particularly tricky 3RR case. It's clear that Werieth reverted more than normally warranted. On the other hand, he was enforcing a NFCR ruling, which is usually immune to 3RR. (He certainly believed it was.) But on the first hand again, he made that close himself in a manner that just about every uninvolved commenter has deemed suspect or at least unwise. I would normally give this a pass, but he has failed to acknowledge that there was anything at all wrong with his behavior, and has completely ignored constructive suggestions on how to resolve the conflict. I'm not at all sure the best way to handle this, so I'm not closing it myself. We don't want people in general to refrain from enforcing NFCR decisions, even if they themselves made those rulings, so I don't want to create a chilling effect... but I'm also aware that giving sanction to Werieth's actions would be bad for Wikipedia. (If nothing else, it would cause a lot of editors to lose faith in the fairness of the NFCR process.) Hopefully an admin with more 3RR experience than myself will be willing to make the call. – Quadell (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment. The fact is, that it's not been established that Werieth has done anything wrong. Some have suggested, after the event, that Werieth was too involved to have closed this particular NFCR; the correctness of this suggestion can only be determined, by having the NFCR reopened, then reclosed by a different editor and yeilding a different result. Whilst Werieth has not commented on Quadell's suggestion, I personally don't think it desirable to impose bespoke behavioural rules; much better to improve/clarify the general rules. One possible change to the process is to impose a cooling period (of say seven days) after NFCR closures before acting on them. Aquegg (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Albertdaniel222 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: No action)
Page: Ethan Zohn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Albertdaniel222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [60]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
There are much edits with the conflicts of this user, especially the edit-war article of Jenna Morasca, which is already protected. ApprenticeFan work 00:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60PcnIB6S check time 38:59. Voila! Albertdaniel222 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good job, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yP7mU-Fx7A at 00:30 to 00:31. ApprenticeFan work 08:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note. I'm not sure I understand what anyone is talking about, but it appears that everyone is happy, a rare thing on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:JustBeCool reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result:)
- Page
- India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- JustBeCool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Highly obsessed with imposing his own edits, even though they were rejected by other users months ago, which can be seen [73], but he brought this issue again, while no one still agreed, he started edit warring again. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:JHunterJ (Result: Protected)
Page: Great Jones Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79], among others
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]
Comments: Beyond My Ken will not permit maintenance tags to be placed on the article so that other editors might address the problems.
Response by Beyond M Ken: The placement of a maintenance tag shows that a single editor believes there is a problem with the article. When another editor disagrees, the tag should be discussed on the article talk page, and should not be restored until there is a consensus to do so. Examination of the histories of the article and the article's talk page will indicate that it took several times of my requesting discussion from JHunterH before he went to the talk page:
- [81] JHunterJ places an "In popular culture" tag on the article
- [82] Because I disagree that any of the four items in the "In popular culture section" are "trvial", I removed the tag
- [83] JHunterJ restores the tag, thus violating the third part of WP:BRD, which applies as much to the placement of tags as to anything else.
- [84] I revert, with a specific request for JHunterJ to follow WP:BRD
- [85] JHunterJ restores the tag, without starting a discussion on the talk page outlining his concerns
- [86] I revert, with another even more specific request for discussion.
Finally, after two requests from me, JHunterJ starts a discussion on the talk page -- however, he rather snidely digs at me, saying that I "implied that he asked for discussion when he hadn't", which, of course, isn't accurate, since the reference to WP:BRD had preceded the more specific request for discussion.
There's some discussion between the two of us, but nothing is decided. No other editors contribute, and JHunterJ does not ask for a third opinion, no no consensus is established concerning the use of the tag. Despite this he again restores the tag (for the third time) with the edit summary "See Talk page". This, of course, is disingenuous, since there is no consensus on the talk page to "see", only a non-conclusive discussion between two editors of different views. Because there is no consensus, I restore the status quo ante, as specifically called for by WP:BRD:
Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion.
JHunterJ then reverts me, I restore the status quo ante and we're off to the races.
It appears to me that JHunterJ believes that behavior required of other editors is not required of him because he is an admin. He appears to think that as an admin he is a "supereditor" who does not have to discuss edits when asked to discuss them, who can ignore one of the most-followed behavioral precepts around this place, BRD, and who can do what he wants to, when he wants to. For my part, should other editors arrive and make arguments in favor of JHunterJ's position, I would obviously respond, but if the consensus went against me, I would never think of restoring an edit -- any edit, whether the addition of a fact or the placement of a maintenance tag -- against consensus, nor would I continue to insist on my own way while the determination of consensus is underway.
I do not ask that any sanction of any sort be placed against JHunterJ for his uncollegial and un-admin-like behavior, only that he be told not to restore the tag to the article until there is a talk page consensus to do so, and that he not do this kind of thing again in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your beliefs about my beliefs notwithstanding, I have made no claims about my adminship, nor used the admin bit in this discussion, but it is typical for editors to pretend that admins they disagree with are simply unworthy of being admins. The reference to WP:BRD[87] is indeed where you implied that you asked for discussion when you hadn't. Epicgenius (talk · contribs) and I are in agreement about the tag for questionable citation (from Urban Dictionary), and at least tacitly about the in popular culture tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- It may be "typical" of other users, but it is not typical of me, and I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between an incident of improper behavior and general unworthiness to be an admin. I would never call for an admin's head over one edit-warring incident, and I have not done so here. It is true that your behavior in this instance has been unworthy of an editor who is an admin, not only because we expect better behavior from our sysops, and it would be totally unwarranted for me to make broad generalizations about your editing history based on a single incident. I have simply characterized your high-handed behavior in this instance as it appears to me as being that of an editor who believes that being an admin gives you leeway not provided to other editors.
As for your other claims - as is explicitly clear in the diffs I presented, my second restoration was accompanied by a request to follow WP:BRD. Surely you must be awate that the "D" in "BRD" stands for "Discussion". So when you started a discussion after my next very specific request for discussion, you had no reason to say then (or now) that I had not previously asked for you to discuss your edits.
Finally, there is no way to know what Epicgenius thought or whether he agreed with you, because he did not participate in the talk page discussion, and simply slapped a "sources" tag on the entire article, which I removed. A near-stub article with 5 references - the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, Moscow's Street Book, two NY Times articles and the Urban Dictionary is not a candidate for a "sources" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You said I didn't ask for a third opinion when I explained that tagging the article with {{in popular culture}} serves that purpose. You claimed that I believe that behavior required of other editors is not required of me because I am an admin. Please provide a diff for this claim. Or don't. The point here is that you violated 3RR, and none of your hand-waving here addresses that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you made a request for 3O and I missed it, then I'm wrong about that - please provide the diff where you posted at WP:3O and I'll certainly apologize for that. As for the other, I made it explicitly clear (you are reading what I wrote, yes?) that the characterization of your behavior was just that, my opinion of what your actions look like to me. I am a sentient, perceptive human entirely capable of summarizing the behavior of another human based on what I see. If you're asking me to provide a diff where you said to me "I don't have to do that, I'm an admin", then, no, I won't be able to comply with that request. But I can say how the things you did appear to me based on my 8 1/2 years of editing here, and my innumerable interactions with other editors. Just like when I asked you on your talk page to do the right thing, and act in a manner befitting an admin, and wait for a consensus before restoring the tag, and instead you filed this 3RR report, when you were the other participant (!!) and the party violating WP:BRD by their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I realize you're only feigning ignorance for rhetorical purposes, but here's the diff where I explained that tagging the article with {{in popular culture}} serves that purpose (you are reading what I wrote, yes?):[88] Since you can't comply with the request, please stop assuming bad faith. And stop violating 3RR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am "feigning" nothing, so your "realization" is in error.
The dispute between myself and JHunterJ was over whether the tag should be in the article. A third opinion would have settled whether or not there was a consensus to use the tag. Unilaterally putting the tag back on the article didn't fulfill that need - since editors rarely see a maintenance tag and then go to the talk page and say "Gee, that tag is a good idea!". Re-tagging the article merely marked the "In popular culture" section as having trivial contents - which is JHunterJ's opinion in the first place, so how he can see that as asking for a third opinion is beyond me. So, restoring the tag was not the equivalent of asking for a third opinion to settle the dispute, which was about whether the tag should be used in the first place.
JHunterJ, please tell me that you do see the difference, yes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am "feigning" nothing, so your "realization" is in error.
- I realize you're only feigning ignorance for rhetorical purposes, but here's the diff where I explained that tagging the article with {{in popular culture}} serves that purpose (you are reading what I wrote, yes?):[88] Since you can't comply with the request, please stop assuming bad faith. And stop violating 3RR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you made a request for 3O and I missed it, then I'm wrong about that - please provide the diff where you posted at WP:3O and I'll certainly apologize for that. As for the other, I made it explicitly clear (you are reading what I wrote, yes?) that the characterization of your behavior was just that, my opinion of what your actions look like to me. I am a sentient, perceptive human entirely capable of summarizing the behavior of another human based on what I see. If you're asking me to provide a diff where you said to me "I don't have to do that, I'm an admin", then, no, I won't be able to comply with that request. But I can say how the things you did appear to me based on my 8 1/2 years of editing here, and my innumerable interactions with other editors. Just like when I asked you on your talk page to do the right thing, and act in a manner befitting an admin, and wait for a consensus before restoring the tag, and instead you filed this 3RR report, when you were the other participant (!!) and the party violating WP:BRD by their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You know, JHunterJ was right in putting the {{popular culture}} tag in the article.
- Additionally, Urban Dictionary is not a dependable source, as most of UD's entries are written by readers, and anyone can just put an entry on the site whenever and wherever they want. Regardless of whether the entry is true or not, it gets accepted most of the time. I don't doubt the reliability of the other sources on the page, however.
- Finally, JHunterJ did not use his admin tools in this argument, so I don't know why this is being brought up here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I never claimed he used his tools, please be more careful in your reading. The remainder of your comment should have gone to Talk:Great Jones Street - but since you posted it here, has there been a determination at WP:RSN that Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source? If so, a diff would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You said I didn't ask for a third opinion when I explained that tagging the article with {{in popular culture}} serves that purpose. You claimed that I believe that behavior required of other editors is not required of me because I am an admin. Please provide a diff for this claim. Or don't. The point here is that you violated 3RR, and none of your hand-waving here addresses that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- It may be "typical" of other users, but it is not typical of me, and I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between an incident of improper behavior and general unworthiness to be an admin. I would never call for an admin's head over one edit-warring incident, and I have not done so here. It is true that your behavior in this instance has been unworthy of an editor who is an admin, not only because we expect better behavior from our sysops, and it would be totally unwarranted for me to make broad generalizations about your editing history based on a single incident. I have simply characterized your high-handed behavior in this instance as it appears to me as being that of an editor who believes that being an admin gives you leeway not provided to other editors.
In an attempt to cut the Gordian knot, despite my belief that nothing additional was required (see my comments on Talk:Great Jones Street), I have now extensively referenced the "In popular culture" section of the article in question with sources such as the NY Times, Salon, the Hartford Courant, the New York Daily News, and so on. Perhaps this will appease JHunterJ, and he will move on to more productive pursuits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Result: Article protected one week. It is hard to see optimal behavior on either side. Consider WP:DR. Both BMK and JHunterJ surely know how to open an WP:RFC. If this is part of a long-running dispute about popular culture sections, find an appropriate venue. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:J intela reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Blocked)
Page: Israeli-occupied territories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: J intela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]
Comments:
The article is under 1RR as is posted on both the talk page and editing page. The user edits the lead to remove that Gaza is occupied - very well sourced in the body. I revert this as the lead contradicts the body, J reverts me, an admin reverts J, J then reverts plus cuts out a massive amount of sourced text. On the talk page he rants about his view which he thinks is more important than the view of nations, the UN, courts, or NGOs. Sepsis II (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Szekszter reported by User:MezzoMezzo (Result: Blocked)
Page: Somali people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Szekszter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 11:36, 1 January 2014
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:22, 2 January 2014
- 15:25, 2 January 2014
- 15:42, 2 January 2014
- 03:46, 3 January 2014
- 06:49, 3 January 2014
- 08:22, 3 January 2014
- 10:45, 3 January 2014
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:13, 3 January 2014
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a (was requested of the user by one of the three others with whom he is edit warring, he has so far refused to take the issue to the talk page MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC))
Comments:
Special:Contributions/199.68.218.110 reveals only a single edit at 20:06, 2 January 2014. Seems suspect though I'm not sure if it's enough for a sockpuppet investigation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi everyone. Didn't want to end up in a revert war, at all. My goal was simple. To highlight the diversity of the Somali community and ad diversity to the page(individuals of different views, gender, profession).
I do admit my mistake though. In one instance i was made aware that the hatnote only allows specific information to the group, so I cleared my mistake that until i get better, more specific links and information. But at the same time I realized, even information added that was specific for the page was reverted, without any other reason than the people involved had a personal, maybe politically, or religious issue with the adage. The page is being reverted by individuals that want to make it into a 'one ethnicity one culture one religion' type page. Of which I am not for at all. Regards Szekszter (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Amitabho reported by User:Kmzayeem (Result: protected)
- Page
- Bengali people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Amitabho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 588981482 by Kmzayeem (talk) Do not revert if you do not have a valid objection."
- 14:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 588976479 by Bazaan (talk) You are launching incoherent attacks on my character to substantiate your baseless nationalist sentiment. What race am I being racist against?"
- 13:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 588968587 by Bazaan (talk) I've been reported for this before, and the admin has thanked me for fixing my collage. Please don't accuse me of racism if you don't know what the word means."
- 12:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "I agree that there are too many Bangladeshis, but I would suggest you WP:BEBOLD and distribute the spots fairly. I'm afraid I may have contributed to the merit imbalance by adding another Bangladeshi, but I trust you will resolve that excellently."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Tried to solve the matter in the article talk page in this thread, also warned the user for edit warring. Zayeem (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Response by Amitabho: The 'consensus' User:Kmzayeem wishes me to appeal to is a transparently biased nationalist cabal of Bangladeshi editors which has apparently decided that:
- A person whose parents are not both Bengali aren't Bengali,
- A person whose parents are both Bengali aren't Bengali,
- and that the infobox must have a 'proportionate' distribution of nationalities, regardless of merit. This is particularly ridiculous, considering that the article is about the Bengali people as a whole regardless of nationality.
I have been accused three times of being a racist (against my own race?), two times of this racism being 'naked' (it's thankfully not appeared in any magazines yet), and once of being an 'imperialist'. I have been threatened with blocks and reports several times, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate me; I have been reported once before. These users have made no attempt to debate constructively and instead have elected first and foremost to resort to personal insults, reverting and pouncing on petty copyright issues without any attempt to fix them themselves. The users which User:Kmzayeem wishes me to reach a consensus with have failed to suggest suitable Bangladeshi personalities when asked. These users furthermore have no grounding in any of the topics which would allow them to come to a reasonable consensus on notability and especially refuse to debate the notability of their national heroes, who are in fact included in the collage regardless. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- In short, these users have failed to contribute constructively in spite of my best attempts to compromise. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Msloewengart reported by User:Vegaswikian (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Msloewengart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Las Vegas#Airport (link to discussion)
Comments:
Suggestions to move the discussion to the talk page were made in edit comments which by the nature of later ones were read. Also false edit comments were used to add the same content. Reverts of the content were done by 3 different editors including one by a support of the content for the false edit comment.
Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. User:Msloewengart has been mass-adding airports to infoboxes, and has violated 3RR here at Las Vegas. A general discussion about airports in infoboxes has been opened and I recommend that all parties wait for its outcome before reverting the airport entries in any other infoboxes. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Liberalufp (Result: Malformed report )
- Page
- Page-multi error: no page detected.
- User being reported
- TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
this guy has engaged in at least 4 edit wars and is current engaging with me on an edit war he is distruptive and wreckless. i suggest u block him for 2 or 3 days to teach him a lesson Liberalufp (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You mean this fine piece of work that you have for some reason been edit-warring, even though the article should not likely have ever been created in the first place? ES&L 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- i dont like your rudeness he is been conducting edit wars on multiple occations and he is marking it unotable when it clearly is and has been deleting text in the article that says why it is. i am trying to make it better but he is obstructing my efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalufp (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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. only (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:StringBandDivisionThesis reported by User:Leaky caldron (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Aqua String Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- StringBandDivisionThesis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- 22:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "a consensus within the Wiki community in regards to my reliable source article still was not presented to this author. Therefore, I will need to revert the page."
- 19:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverting because it is a reliably published source."
- 19:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
- 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
- 15:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
- 13:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
- 04:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 03:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) to 03:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
despite discussions on talk page and WP:RS/N Wikipedia:RS/N#www.stringbandrecord.com the editor is insisting on adding a self-published source Leaky Caldron 22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not the editor of the website, so this should make the discussion moot. I am merely publishing a reliable source, which itself, is based on over 110 years of Philadelphia Newspapers. I have been told that newspapers are an allowed resource to verify authenticity. The reliable source at hand, "The Philadelphia Mummers' String Band Record", which is assessed at http://www.StringBandRecord.com is based on these newspapers. Not hearsay, not opinion (and again, I am not the author of the work in question). The original Wiki "poster" stated that historical newspapers ARE INDEED allowable under Wiki rules. The source I am quoting from does NOT list the Aqua String Band (a Philadelphia Mummers' String Band) s having performed in the Philadelphia Mummers' Parade during 1927, 1928 and 1929. This information came from up to seventeen different Philadelphia newspapers. If Wikipedia DOES NOT allow historical newspapers as published sources, I (and the rest of the ENTIRE Wiki community) will need to know this.StringBandDivisionThesis (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Ohconfucius reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Page protected)
- Page
- Lufsig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589079632 by ViperSnake151 you want profanity? well, Fuck You!"
- 03:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589078032 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
- 2:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Symbolism */ per source"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 03:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Censorship of material. (TW)"
- 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* January 2014 */"
- Comments:
Reverts the inclusion of uncensored translations in Lufsig, asserting that it is "per sources", uses an inappropriate edit summary on the third revert. Has a history of similar edits on this article. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why is there an obsession to include profanity when it's dealt with [not totally] circumspectly by the sources? Just how's this censorship? -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, we present facts, as attributed to reliable sources. Different sources have their own editorial policies on the use of profanities in the context of news; but our policy is that we do not generally remove or censor offensive materials when they are "relevant to the content" and legal under relevant laws. In fact, we have an entire article on Chinese profanities. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment-when the source uses "mom's c***," how does WP:NOTCENSOR apply when it's a direct quote?
- On Wikipedia, we present facts, as attributed to reliable sources. Different sources have their own editorial policies on the use of profanities in the context of news; but our policy is that we do not generally remove or censor offensive materials when they are "relevant to the content" and legal under relevant laws. In fact, we have an entire article on Chinese profanities. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. only (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
User:ViperSnake151 reported by User:Ohconfucius (Result: Page protected)
- Page
- Lufsig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- "rewrite"
- "WP:NOTCENSORED"
- "WP:NOTCENSORED"
- "rv; sources of questionable reliability, removal of pertinent content"
- "Okay; I actually missed that the first time I looked at the Time source, but yeah."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Comments:
- It's clear from the last two reverts cited above that some knee jerk or blind reverting is taking place, and legitimate or otherwise good content has been summarily erased to the detriment of article building and the reader. I'm not going to edit the article for a while or until it cools off, whichever is the sooner. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. only (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oh shit, it seems to be stuck on the wrong version. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
User:AngieWattsFan reported by User:Josh3580 (Result: 1 week)
- Page
- List of soap opera villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- AngieWattsFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589083560 by Josh3580 (talk)"
- 03:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "There is a very good reason, please read the Talk page before reverting what I have written. I cannot entertain this because these are untruths written on Wikipedia."
- 03:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "I did when I realised the nonsense on the article. Utter nonsense and I won't entertain it a second longer. Have you watched the show?"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 03:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Message re. List of soap opera villains (HG)"
- 04:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. List of soap opera villains (HG)"
- 04:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "tb, 3rr"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 04:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* EastEnders villains. */ Responded"
- 05:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Replied"
- Comments:
User has previously been blocked for edit warring. 4th revert has not occurred, but the User does not appear to be interested in WP:Consensus, considering the prior history. User is continuing to edit war, and is personally attacking myself on my page, as well as another user in this diff. I have encouraged discussion, but the user is not interested, and only wishes to war and name call. Josh3580talk/hist 05:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- This user is annoyed. They were blocked for their edit wars previously. Now they are gaming the system and belittle anyone who opposes. Plus they acted against consensus on a well discussed list in which a sizable amount of opinions are heard. This individual has displaced neglect and displace for anyone else's view, a direct violation of a collaborative project. Besides their snide use of personal attacks. They speak for themselves. Baiting everyone. As they always do. Drama bomb classic case etc etc.Rain the 1 05:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Zanzibar606 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Urantia Book (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Zanzibar606 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC) "I undid revision, I don't understand your statement dougweller. If you look up dark islands, it is obvious they are talking about black holes when you read 15:6.6, It was not known the black holes are commonplace, and now it well known, very significant."
- 17:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) "Under the "original research" guideline... it says no such thing about the necessity of citing a peer-reviewed science paper. Anybody can clearly see the "dark islands" are black holes. The criticism of science section is cited to Gardner, a nonscientist."
- 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC) "Warn me? Show me where in the O.R. guideline it states that I have to cite a scientific paper? This is a very benign entry, anyone who has read the UB knows that dark islands clearly describe black holes. It is UNREASONABLE to have to cite a sci. paper."
- 21:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC) "This makes no sense. Are you guys telling me that just because something has a different name but describes the same phenomenon, I have to find a sci. paper to affirm it?"
- 22:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "I removed all sci. criticisms citing Gardner & Sprunger...both were not scientists and they do not cite any scientific papers in their criticism. How does Gardner know the UB is consistent with the planetesimal theory? There is no sci. paper citation."
- 22:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "If you allow Gardner criticisms which are not from scientific papers... then you must allow some of the numerous non-scientific paper sources that confirm science in the UB. To do otherwise would be disingenuous."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Urantia Book. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Although slightly outside the 24 hours, editor is clearly edit-warring - reverted by 3 other editors, and not using the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- 24 hour block. No other choice, really. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
User:79.182.111.44, User:79.182.49.102 being reported by User:DendroNaja (Result: Semi)
- Page
- Snakebite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 79.182.111.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), User talk:79.182.49.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
This user is not just engaging in an edit war, but he is now harassing me by following any page I edit to start trouble. He is angry because I discovered numerous WP violations in his editing of the Inland taipan page. The thing is, the diff up there of what the article originally contained was done by User:Jmh649, who is a physician and an administrator here on Wikipedia. But this IP user is taking his anger out on me. My mission when I sign on WP was to expand and improve any venomous species article I can and eventually upgrade them to GA status, so I started with the Black mamba, which after a rigorous review attained GA status. I have given this IP user numerous warnings on all the different IP's he uses to no avail. An admin protectted the Inland taipan page, so now he is angry with me and is on a mission to harass me. I hold two degrees on the subject matter and he seems to be a silly amateur who has the attitude of "my snake is deadlier than yours" as you can see in his edit summaries. I finished with the black mamba article, so now I have nominated the Many-banded krait page for GA status, but it needs a lot of work. I have over 140 technical books and field guides on venomous snake species and access to full texts in online journals. Something has to be done with this user who keeps using different IP's and is now harassing me only because I discovered his policy violations. Here is a short list of copyright vios I discovered on the Inland taipan page (there are many more):
He, in my humble opinion, has zero value on Wikipedia. He clearly doesn't care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he's interested in his own POV and will not agree to consensus. This has been a long standing issue with him over the numerous IP's he uses. He is engaging in an edit war (I am not going to do anything about his latest revert) even though I have rollback option. I am going to leave it to you guys. His other IP's, which have all received warnings are: User talk:79.177.163.151, User talk:79.182.111.44, User talk:79.182.49.102, User talk:79.180.177.93, User talk:79.179.166.212. --DendroNaja (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really want to send this off somewhere else, but in terms of recent edit warring there is nothing actionable. Have a look through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and see if there is anything there which will help. Otherwise this might need to go to ANI, probably ending with either the user starting to talk or getting blocked. But from an AN3 point of view there is No violation. Though I'd appreciate it if other admins could take a look as well in case I've missed something. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- With the permission of User:Callanecc, and per a discussion on his talk page, I'm semiprotecting Snakebite for three months. In this case the copyright violations by the 79.* IP-hopper lose him any credibility as a good-faith contributor. Edit warring from a fluctuating IP also violates WP:SOCK. There has also been an ANI report which led to an admin removing the copyright violations from Inland taipan. EdJohnston (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
User:86.13.182.103 reported by User:Begoon (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Alma mater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 86.13.182.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "this wouldn't be necessary if you weren't on another personal little powertrip."
- 15:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589148723 by Mr. Arrogant. Do please block the IP address you predictable little man."
- Consecutive edits made from 15:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC) to 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- 15:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "TransNeptune - a software company, mental_floss - an American magazine, both TV Tropes and Neatorama are well known, but as you're so pedantic I will remove it, 2 valid sources are sufficient. Nothing personal, you're an a*****e."
- 15:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ""
- 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "I find it astonishing that you are all so readily prepared to remove an entire section for the sake of half a sentence that you don't agree with."
- 14:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589137940 by Begoon (talk) Nothing personal though, right? PMSL"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "advice"
- 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Alma mater. (TW)"
- 15:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* January 2014 */ +"
- Comments:
This is obviously Wicks Steve
see my user talk page history and the ip talk page/history for history
Also reverted at article by Michael Bednarek, Pigsonthewing, and user seems now to just be in a "revert because I iz bein abused and suppressed" loop. Getting boring. Begoon talk 16:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
User:A.raxhid reported by User:MrScorch6200 (Result: Both warned)
- Page
- Arianna Bergamaschi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- A.raxhid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ""
- 23:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ""
- 22:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ""
- 22:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removing {{blp prod}} templates on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
- 23:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
- 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
- 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removing {{blpprod}} templates on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
I have not checked, but it is possible that I also violated the 3RR. Seeing as this article is new and not highly notable, I believe the boundaries of the 3RR can be pushed a little. Also, I believe most of the content addition I reverted was unsourced and/or poorly sourced (see exemption 7 of the 3RR if you are not familiar with it). --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- User:A.raxhid and user User:MrScorch6200 are warned for edit warring. The subject's website is a reliable source so they are able to remove the BLPPROD tag. If you wish feel free to take it to AfD. However any revert from either of you will result in a block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:Taylor Trescott (Result: User:Rusted AutoParts blocked 6 months )
- Page
- 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 02:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "And who makes that decision? Walker's death was one of the most talked about this year."
- 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "Boldly reverting. This isn't a matter of consensus, it's a matter of news. Walker's death was one of the years most talked about. This seems more like a personal preference. If you'd like, go to the talk page, but Walker definitely qualifies to be here"
- 02:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Deaths */ removing photos are it's clear they are nepotistically selected. Consensus on these before added back. And Derby, I advise you read WP:OWN"
- 03:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "Seems you do too. I can't replace images without consensus, you can't readd images without consensus. Fairs fair."
- 03:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "Cut it out, these are under discussion at the talk page. It's very weird what names are representing the year."
- 05:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Deaths */ hiding pictures until consensus reached. Since you refuse to do as asked, I have to find alternatives. Their integrity is compromised, so they're gone for now. Any further reverting is just plain ridiculous"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Note was left at user's talk; continues reverting. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 05:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The definition of edit warring strictly lies in the reversal of the same edit three times. I reverted his change of Walker's photo twice. His reversal of me removing the pics twice. Your reversal once. Then I hid them as he wouldn't comply with my request to keep them off until a consensus was reached. It's what we did with The Wolf of Wall Street when the genre was compromised. May I point out he has yet to respond to my talk page post? I did go to the talk page and begin the discussion, these two have yet to. I'd like to know why is that because right now their conduct screamed "my way or the highway". Rusted AutoParts 05:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Look, I know. I'm way too headstrong when it comes to arguing. I get hotheaded and lose sight of the issue. But I'm telling you, the goal for me wasn't to fight over it. When I look at it, it's really minor. But at the same time, it gets under my skin when someone defies a request, like taking their issue to the talk page where I started a discussion, and continue to reverse back to the way they want it when they know of the discussion and simply choose not to engage in a conversation about it. It always seems there's a double standard in that way where content that is disputed gets removed, and somehow content stays when it is disputed. I don't understand why that happens, but it sets me off. It's hard to talk when your opponent won't talk. And it sucks more that they have to be an opponent. I'm just trying to edit in a way where future readers can either understand it without having to scroll through Shakespearian type writing style, or in this case, high lit the highlights of a year. If reversal of several different edits is 3RR, I apologize. I truthfully didnt know that applied. I thought it only applied to reverting the same edit three times, I swear to god. Again, it's not my goal, objective, mission, whatever to war about content, it's a simple matter of getting upset, something I am desperately trying to work on. I don't want to be blocked because it would deprive me of my opportunity to maturely debate the issue. Maturely understand why they are against it, understand their stance and part ways as collaborators, not rivals. What I do wish is for Derby and Taylor to take to 2013's talk page and reply to my post. Rusted AutoParts 06:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- User:Rusted AutoParts blocked once again, for 6 months this time. Perhaps 6 months maturation will improve his ability to "maturely debate the issue".—Kww(talk) 06:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
User:MarianoRivero reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked and semi protected)
- Page
- 2013 Metro Manila Film Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- MarianoRivero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 09:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 09:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 09:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 09:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 08:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 08:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- Consecutive edits made from 08:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) to 08:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- 08:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 08:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 08:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 08:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 08:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 07:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 07:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 07:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 07:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- Consecutive edits made from 06:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC) to 06:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- 06:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 06:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 06:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 05:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 05:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 05:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 05:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 05:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 04:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 02:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- Consecutive edits made from 02:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC) to 02:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- 02:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 02:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 02:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 21:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 20:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 20:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 20:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 19:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 19:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 19:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 19:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 19:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 18:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 18:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 18:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 18:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 18:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 18:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 18:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 17:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 16:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 15:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 15:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 15:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 15:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 14:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 14:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 14:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 13:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 12:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 07:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Box office grosses */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 10:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2013 Metro Manila Film Festival. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
In excess of 60 edits, including one after 3RR warning. Have also given User:112.207.248.114 a warning for exceeding 3RR Flat Out let's discuss it 10:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected by Shirt58 and Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Shervinsky reported by User:Andrux (Result: Blocked)
Page: Little Russian identity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shervinsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [97]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]
Comments: After being blocked for 1 week, User Shervinsky comes back to Wiki and continue edit warring and his POV-pushing in the article Little Russian identity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The reported user did not provide any explanation concerning his edits at talk page.
- Blocked – for a period of 1 month and subject to 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
User:192.69.217.195 reported by User:Vzaak (Result: Semi)
Page: Terence McKenna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 192.69.217.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [103]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109] [110]
Comments:
[For context only] 192.69.217.195 is restoring unsourced crazy stuff added by this banned user, who has vandalized other articles with the same unsourced craziness, e.g. [111]. vzaak 16:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected one year. The problem of socks making unsourced changes and edit warring at Terence McKenna has been going on for more than a year. See this 3RR report from September 2012. For more background see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
User: Anthony Weights reported by User:Oxford24 (Result: Warned)
Page: The Time of the Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anthony Weights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [112]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]
Comments:
Anthony Weights, 176.27.228.253, and whatever other new user accounts he’s using (same language, same additions every time) is trolling Broadcast and Reception on this article repeatedly and ignoring the talk page. Several new puppet accounts have been used solely to add the same negative fan reviews and make the reaction “mixed”. As discussed in the talk section and edit comments, it’s not appropriate to include any source one chooses in the Reception section. It should be limited to professional writers at established entertainment/news websites and magazines, under the reliable sources guidelines. If we include every fan who posted an opinion, the Review/Reception section would be 80 paragraphs long and every movie and episode of anything would have a “mixed reaction” It is implied this is reaction from professional critics. Man of Steel, with a 55% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, has a mixed reaction. Several users have talked about this in edit comments and talk. Anthony Weights, and has been warned already about edit warring on this page on January 4, but continues to make the same edits again and again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony_Weights
Nearly all professional, legitimate feedback has been positive, if you do an internet search. He is including fan sites where anyone can post (quoting Hypable is equivalent to quoting youtube comments), a student newspaper writer (with only one other article, in fact), an opinion blog from The Telegraph after the official review has been quoted, repeatedly saying the reviews were mixed, trying to single out criticism in reviews that are 90% positive. He even moved the 86% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, which are only professional reviewers, from the beginning where it usually goes to the bottom of a random paragraph. This person has a personal hatred for the episode and contrary to all discussion will not stop tainting the article that way. As soon as semi-protection expired a new user, 176.27.228.253, made the same edits he’s been making over and over. The 274 word opinion post from James Delingpole trashing the show, that he repeatedly tries to include (see edit history), is listed under http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk, where there are dozens of bloggers; whereas the official review from The Telegraph by Tim Martin is listed under Culture/TV and Radio -- as it is in any major news source such as The Guardian. He has shortened, moved or edited mine and other editors’ text to reflect a negative reaction. If you look at the talk page and edit history, this behavior has been going on for a while, with the general feeling from users that the negative reviews are from questionable sources. Note: other users than myself have tried to fight his edits, in the history. Oxford24 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – Warned. While Anthony Weights repeatedly adds a negative slant to the article, he never participates on talk. If he continues to revert without waiting for consensus he may be blocked. Another admin has restored semiprotection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
User:IndianBio reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Stale)
- Page
- Artpop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- IndianBio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 11:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "Readd sales for UK which is certified gold, an url behind a subscription wall does not mean that the indicated sales are untrue, a Google search shows this"
- 10:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "You are really getting on everyone's nerves you know, even after Homeostatis explained you countless times"
- 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by STATicVapor (talk): Stop the edit warring, dont stir shit for unnecessary reasons. (TW)"
- 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by STATicVapor (talk): Use your eyes, there is no certification listed, just the sales. (TW)"
- 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 589153932 by IndianBio (talk): ???? (TW)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Artpop. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Has effectively violated WP:3rr in two similar conflicts related to the certification table in the Artpop article. Refuses to abide by WP:BRD when multiple editors disagree with their edits. STATic message me! 19:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Stale User hasn't reverted since being reminded about 3RR on their talk page. If they do it again feel free to report them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- StaticVapor thanks for bringing this up, I admit this has been against my better judgement and apologies to the community for my rash behavior. Will be extremely careful from now on and it won't happen again. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Check the diffs, last two reverts occurred after the 3RR warning that was immediately removed upon receiving and the second warning that was given by User: C.Fred. STATic message me! 07:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- True didn't see that, given their comment above doesn't look like a block will prevent anything now. IndianBio you should also be apologising to STATicVapor for your edit summary comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
User:68.201.99.145 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Stale)
Page: Mexican American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.201.99.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- The editor is talking but could care less about edit-waring as seen here and insulting people as see with the edit summary ... Stop your racist actions by deleting notable Mexicans. To me this is racist and unacceptable
Comments:
Note User:184.9.91.82 has also reverted lots. Need these people to talk over editing at all -- Moxy (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Stale Neither has edited since the warning for edit warring, if they continue please feel free to re-report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure what to do at this point the editor in-question is no longer talking and is . Not sure at this point we will have the capability to work things out. I am mainly concerned with the guess work on who is Mexican American... we sure that people like Chris Weitz, Linda Ronstadt and Lynda Carter are Mexican Americans. -- Moxy (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Page: The Californias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Looks like we have an edit war to blank/rd the article because there are evidently some historical inaccuracies in it. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Since 3RR does not apply to vandalism, and this appears to be vandalism, I'm going to continue to restore the article, but someone please protect. I don't want to get caught out because it turned out to be an idiot rather than a vandal. — kwami (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Page: Lap dance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Could this page be locked, please? In hopes that discussion could be undertaken without the continual warring? Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
User:108.41.173.242 reported by User:Lexein (Result: )
- Page
- The Pirate Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 108.41.173.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - source of later reverts
- User being reported
- 112.198.90.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - source of the original revert
- Previous version reverted to
(No specific article version, just a revert to a version of the infobox parameter which was more than a year old)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS." - 112.198.90.248 reversion of over a year old standing URL=HTTPS
- 16:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589188111 by Lexein (talk) Personal opinions do not matter. Reverted to consensus."
- 16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 589462076 by Lexein (talk) This is just gainsaying on your part. There was no change in consensus and you ended the discussion."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC) "Edit warring. See WP:BRD."
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 20:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ new section"
- 21:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC) "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ ce, link. It's been https: at least a year, now"
- 03:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ consensus can change"
- 13:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ r"
- 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC) "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ r"
- 12:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ r"
- 16:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC) "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ r to nothing"
- 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC) "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ r"
- Comments:
Although this isn't 3RR yet, it is about ongoing edit warring in the midst of a BRD discussion. The IP editor reverted a long-standing (over a year) HTTPS link in the infobox with the edit summary (The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS.) I reverted that[127] based on BRD and opened discussion on Talk, based on how consensus works and can change, even without discussion. The IP doggedly employs legalistic arguments not based in WP policy, guideline or essay, employs rhetorical questions, inverted logic and bold misinterpretation of the history of the article and discussion, WP:CONSENSUS, and even WP:BRD to bolster the notion that HTTPS "shouldn't" be in the infobox. If I'm wrong here, so be it, but I'm certainly not seeing that at the moment. If this report is too screwed up, I'll retract it if requested. Lexein (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The statement that I made a revert with the comment "The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS" is an utterly false accusation. One of several recently made by Lexein. I have no idea who made that edit. In fact, looking at the history of the actual editor, I am in complete disagreement with his motives. Consensus was reached on this subject after long discussion. It is Lexein that is attempting to make a change to the status quo, as he admitted in his first statement in the thread. He has declared that consensus has changed and that discussion is not mandatory. He has ignored all of my arguments, and resorted to declarations, characterizations, accusations, and now his attempt to ban me for a violation I did not make. In fact, he reverted three times and I reverted twice to bring text back to the status quo, and yet he puts an ew template on my talk page and this false accusation here. Please review all of the thread, not his excerpts alone. Regards, 108.41.173.242 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)