Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:03, 10 September 2014

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

User:Drmies reported by User:Viriditas (Result: Viriditas blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:25, 8 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624619637 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the phrase "The...was the direct impetus for the raids organized by the Germans" previously found in revision 624619408)

2. 00:04, 8 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624600103 by 50.184.178.162 (Drmies restored the word "direct" previously found in revision 624569523)

3. 03:06, 7 September 2014‎

   Drmies undid revision 624493355 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the term "German camps" previously found in revision 624492613)

4. 02:55, 7 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624491979 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the term "combined with his apparently non-Jewish appearance" previously found in revision 624488041)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:08, 7 September 2014

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

Comments:

• Note, edits by 50.184.178.162 (talk · contribs) were made in response to comments/recommendations I made about the content on ANI and on the article talk page. Drmies' reversion of the IP is particularly actionable considering that I had previously warned him about edit warring at 03:08, 7 September (see link above) and he chose to continue. Please note that Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for a week for simply reverting an IP. For the record, I have not engaged in any reverts or any edit warring on this page. Although there have been subsequent reverts by Drmies, they were part of the post-03:25 revert spree, so I have not included them as they count as a single revert. Additionally, there is a related ANI. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is already an AN/I discussion about this - and it appears to be a big'un - then this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Let'em deal with it there. Volunteer Marek  04:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's also up at WP:RSN, Marek. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• The RSN is discussing problematic sources, and the ANI discussion is discussing problematic editing concerning NPOV, not the edit warring in particular. Further, the most recent edit warring listed in this report occurred a day after the ANI report was filed, so this is an ongoing case independent of the ANI concerns and focuses on continuing edit warring. The ANI case is focusing on other behavior issues. In other words, there is no forum shopping here. And to quote administrator PhilKnight (talk · contribs) in regards to the Görlitz case listed above, "the same rules apply to me as everyone else." It doesn't matter if you're an admin or an IP, the same rules apply. As far as I can tell, Drmies believes that he is free to edit war against anyone, whether they are an IP or an editor. I filed this report in response. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You really should just drop it, as this tenacious pursuit of yours does not reflect well on you. Sooner or later someone will get annoyed enough to slap a block on. WP:DEADHORSE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:BATTLEGROUND... all them things. Volunteer Marek  05:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. And this grudge you've been harboring against me from 2009 due to my participation in the WP:EEML case against you, and the resulting arbcom decision against you, makes you look very petty and stalkerish. Perhaps you should stop following me around? This has been going on for years now. Stop it. I testified against you in the EEML case and you were appropriately sanctioned. You did your time, and now it's time for you to get over it. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ay ay ay. The fact that you bring up some long forgotten nonsense from five+ years ago (and have the chutzpah to accuse *me* of being petty!) just illustrates the level of your vindictive tenacity. I guess if you haven't been able to drop five year old stuff, you're unlikely to drop five day old stuff. Volunteer Marek  05:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? You've been stalking me everywhere since 2009, trying to take your revenge on every noticeboard where I show up. I haven't followed you anywhere, and I barely notice your existence. You need to check yourself, my friend. It's pretty obvious what you're doing. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been stalking me everywhere since 2009 - diffs or you're full of shit. Volunteer Marek  05:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to hijack this thread. I do not want to have anything to do with you. Yet, since 2009, you've been following me around, trying to get my attention. Enough already. All the diffs you need are in the arbcom case. It's already been established that you target users and stalk them. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you're full of shit. Or to be more precise, you think it's okay for you to make false and insulting accusations with no evidence to back them up, and when you get called on the fact that you're behaving dishonestly and abhorrently you whine about "don't hijack the thread, I get to slander you, you don't get to to defend yourself". Par for the course. Why are you not indefinitely blocked?

(and FFS, how can diffs from a 2009 arbcom case prove that I've been supposedly stalking you *since* that case. You're not even trying to make your lies coherent)  Volunteer Marek  06:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since I was mentioned, I am responding. I was initially blocked for two days for the edit warring and the block was extended for a month with conflicting explanations. I don't support edit warring, but I don't want to misrepresent my block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You were edit warring against an IP just like Drmies. However, let's see if the same rules apply when it's an admin who is the subject of the report. It is my experience that admins are officially exempt from all rules. Hopefully this report will show otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see what Walter's case has to do with anything. I'm not edit warring against an IP--my last revert was a correction of an obvious misreading of the source, at the very least (explained on talk page). Besides, Viriditas is not an IP: Viriditas is someone who has devoted all but two of their last 82 edits on me--one might consider that hounding, on my talk page, on the article talk page, on ANI, on RSN, and now here. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Walter was recently blocked for edit warring against an IP. You recently edit warred against an IP. Your denial of this fact is troubling, and your reasoning is questionable. It doesn't matter if you think the IP or anyone else misread the source (they didn't, IMO). What matter is that you were given a warning about edit warring before you decided to revert the IP. And you continued to revert again after that. Do you think you are exempt from our policy on edit warring because you are an admin? Admin PhilKnight recently addressed this in Walter's case: "the same rules apply to me as everyone else." Admins are not exempt from edit warring. Please note, I made a sincere effort to communicate with you on the aritcle talk page and on your user talk page, and instead of communicating with me, you threatened me and made accusations. Please also note, that I specifically addressed the contributions and stayed away from addressing contributors. But that wasn't good enough for you, and you continued to revert me without any discussion. Meanwhile, I did not revert, and I did not edit war. What should be done? My one demand is that the rules should be applied fairly and equitably. I maintain that they are not; because you are an admin, you believe you are above the rules, which are intended for the "little people". If it is true that the rules don't apply to admins like yourself, then we should change the policies to say that. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Since when is reverting one single IP edit "edit warring"? The IP was wrong: it wasn't the "claimed impetus", it was the impetus. The IP seems to have thought that "impetus" means "valid and fully justified reason" or something like that. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• What happened to good old BRD here: Drmies put down a text, Viriditas started a discussion and Boldly changed the text. That got Reverted. Now we should be at that Discussion about the perceived problems on the talkpage of the page. Not an edit-war pushing the edit without getting to a consensus first (and if that fails, escalate it through the normal processes). Also, there is no urgency, we are not talking a BLP here. Maybe it is time for some cool-down block for those who fail to discuss before the change is implemented (or even chose to escalate before that discussion has come to consensus). --Dirk Beetstra 05:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

* No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. John (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• • John is deeply involved in the related WP:ANI thread where he is defending Drmies and calling for my sanctions, so this is a bad closure. I request that this report be re-opened and re-evaluated by an uninvolved admin. As such an uninvolved admin would know, according to the policy, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". That is what this report is about. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• 8I have blocked Viriditas for 72 hours for disruption. The final straw was the striking of John's post. Spartaz 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Spartaz's block. Thanks for (hopefully) putting this to bed. OhNoitsJamie 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not to pile on here, as I don't think Dmries deserved this, but Viridatias makes a fair point. Above John states that there must be at least four reverts to cross 3RR. Every time I've seen someone elaborate on 3RR they mention a "bright line", but 4 reverts isn't required. Surely John knows this. It does speak to Viridatias argument that admins get different treatment than non admins.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• I protest this block and agree with the last post that this speaks to Viriditas' argument that admins get different treatment than non admins. V. should not have been blocked - or Drmies should have been blocked as well. Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• I may be considered an "enemy" of Viriditas, but "John"s "involvement" consists seems to consist only of administrative actions (not restricted to actions which require the mop). I think the strike would be grounds for a block, even if John were "involved". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dark Liberty reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result:No action right now)

He's breaching WP:Consensus and edit-warring at the article Scientific Development Concept. He's removing useful content and replacing it with WP:FRINGE content. Also, he's pressing on the view that the CPC is non-ideological, a view which is not in the majority. What China is, and is not, ideologically is still debated (for instance, around the Mao's birth anniversary people wrote about Mao's influence on Xi Jinping, and on the anniversary of Deng's birth, writers wrote about Deng's influence on Xi). At last, there are some who claim the party is non-ideological, pragmatist or simply capitalists. These views should all be allowed in the article, properly sourced. For some reason for supporting such a position Dark Liberty claims I have a conflict of interest in the article, which I don't understand. My point is; he is edit-warring and adding (and removing) information which is deemed controversial, which is in breach of consensus. While I don't want him blocked, he should at least get a warning. --TIAYN (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Scientific Development Theory is non-ideological? What are you talking about? Dark Liberty (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment What are you talking about? You seem to have given a wrong article link here. Please provide diffs if you want us to act on any edit warring issue. Else, this report will be closed soon. Thanks. Wifione 17:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Declined. I understand the article that you're referring to is Scientific Outlook on Development. I also see that you both have just about started to discuss the issues on the talk page. Please continue the talk page discussions. Invite Dark Liberty congenially to come to the article's talk page to discuss. I notice that you're getting too uptight about the editor's comments. Try not to do that. You both are accusing each other of CoI; try not to do that. Like I said, continue discussion calmly on the talk page. If the situation doesn't improve, try dispute resolution. Come back if the edit warring worsens. Thanks. Wifione 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:50.53.37.13 reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Taylor DuPriest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.53.37.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Just look at the history, they reverted many times. I just did it again. They replace content with something totally unrelated to the article. Just a vandalism only account, they having no other edits. Two people posted warnings on their talk page, but they still keep edit warring.

Warnings on talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:50.53.37.13

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Already blocked by Alexf. Wifione 17:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Sabazius01 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Zoroaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sabazius01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624648155 by Dougweller (talk) Reverting possible vandalism by (talk) This section is historically relevant"
2. 09:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624648009 by Dougweller (talk) according to the published citation Plutarch asserted that Zoroaster lived prior to 6000 BCE"
3. 01:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624604601 by PhilKnight (talk) Improper use of source material: does not correlate with the discourse that precedes the citation."
4. 12:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624532361 by PhilKnight (talk) Reverting possible vandalism by PhilKnight"
5. 12:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624531069 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
6. 12:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624530471 by JaconaFrere (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned at 12:35, 7 September 2014‎. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

POV SPA, and some of the changes contradict the sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And yet another revert.. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Vsmith (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Scotthoughauthor reported by User:Dusti (Result: No action right now)

Page

Kirkland Lake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Scotthoughauthor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624673824 by Dusti (talk) Feel that Nadine Atoniazzi is indeed noteworthy, due her untimely death and its relation to the shares of her husband's company Opawica Explorations."
2. 12:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624624162 by Magnolia677 (talk) I disagree. I feel she is the most notable person in Kirkland Lake in the past ten years."
3. 02:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable people */ I am attempting to add this entry using reliable sources. Have done so. Three independent sources included, unreliable source removed. Apologies, it is not my intent to self-promote."
4. 00:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable people */ Added entry Nadine Antoniazzi with references."
5. 22:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Nadine Antoniazzi died of a reported suicide in 2008. Some feel her death is suspicious and may be connected to the IPO of her husband's company, Opawica Expl., shortly after her death. The shares have lost more than 95% of their value since the IPO."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]. (TW)"
2. 15:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kirkland Lake. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Granted some of the communication was taking place in edit summaries - he was warned by @Magnolia677: and myself - and continued to try and push the individual in. I gave a soft warning on his talk page, and he's continued to try push the content in. I'm not going any further than my two reverts to avoid hitting 3RR like he has Dusti 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw this report. The user has responded to my talk page and I think with a little more effort I can help him understand a little more about our policies. I've never seen a case withdrawn here before, so I don't know if I can do so, hence this comment. Dusti 16:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked per Dusti's request. Wifione 17:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Eyewitness44 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked )

Page

Talk:Muhammad (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Eyewitness44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 14:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 15:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624679244 by DeCausa (talk)"
4. 15:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624680057 by NeilN (talk)"
5. 15:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "/* The article is generally biased against Muslims and to a large extent unreliable. */ new section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings: NeilN 15:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User has been reverted by four editors, asked repeatedly to discuss issues instead of editors. Almost nothing useful contributed to the site, the initial attack and edit warring to restore the attack make up half their edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That plus the "Do not disturb" sign put on the talk page immediately on creation of the account suggests a trolling/disruption-only account and WP:NOTHERE. Probably shouldn't be here. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Eyewitness44 (talk · contribs) 60 hours for the combination of disruptive editing and edit warring. Ks0stm 16:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:81.47.192.242, User:81.47.192.236, User:81.47.192.235, reported by User:Amqui (Result: Semi)

Page: Marc Ouellet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.47.192.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 81.47.192.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 81.47.192.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
IP user claiming he will continue to revert "as long as ha leisure time" :

It dates back from March 2013 (assuming both IP users are the same):

Amqui (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months due to an IP-hopping revert warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks, Amqui (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DevonSprings reported by User:S806 (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DevonSprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User DevonSprings was not able to reach a consensus on the talk page. Despite that, he kept removing the poll he wanted to. User then wanted to add a new poll. Talk users appeared to agree. After that, user removed old poll he couldn't get consensus of. User was blocked from editing for this same subject for 24 hours a while ago.

User also reverted my edits on the talk page. S806 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You've left him a note about this report. He's not edited after that. Let's see what he has to say, if he chooses to comment here. No fear of disruption as of right now. So I'm letting this float right now, but not closing it. Wifione 17:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(I) DevonSprings accidentally reverted his comments on the talk page

A few users including S806 keeps putting it back even though several other users disagreed with the facts. No consensus has been reached but the front page how has 4 different survey items on it all conflicting. The section I removed again, doesn't match the topic. The whole subject area is written as if "people that believe this are many and wrong" (different problem)

A few users who know how to game the Misplaced Pages system keep putting back the wrong data. They reported me for 3RR before I even knew there was a 3RR.

The issue now is there are 4 surveys being quoted as to the different results and numbers. Two of the survey's have nothing to do with the issue at all. S806 for example said he would not "enter no further in the debate" and instead just keeps reverting back wrong data. As S806 -- "This will be my last post on this subject." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

First, you bit about users putting it back, wrong data, different surveys, aren't relevant here. What is relevant is reverts, not reasons. Secondly, I'm confused as to why you say you were reported for 3RR before you knew there was a 3RR. You've already had one 3RR block on the 1st. You don't seem to have learned from that. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean, are you an admin ruling on this. I have about 1 1/2 weeks of editing experience any contentious article on wikipedia. There is an error in the article I fixed it, and I put it back. I am not currently being reported for 3RR. The previous 3RR rule (on the first was the one I am talking about) I was reported before I even knew it was a rule. A bunch of wikipedia bullies started saying things like WP:<fill in the blank> and I had no clue on what it means or meant. Something about some kind of bold rule, don't know how to do it. Looked for some kind of meaningful guide couldn't find it. Then I decided, lets just find better data. Did that, people keep putting the old worse data back.

Have no idea how to fix an obviously errant article, as people don't enter the discussion they just say, You're wrong, and put it back.

Then this other guy S806 said I removed his talk comments when we both editing the same talk page. Just hit save -- didn't intentionally touch his comments on the talk page.

And he keeps putting back the WRONG DATA. So I have no idea about what any of this is about at all. Or why it all goes on, or how to rectify the fact that the page is now awful.

After being bullied by the people of Misplaced Pages my thought is, "experience admins" get their way, and run roughshod over the newbies. Its wrong, the page is wrong and I don't care enough to try and fix it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You attempted to get consensus on the talk page for removing a poll after you were blocked the first time for removing the poll. After you failed to get consensus for removing the poll, you kept removing the poll. Misplaced Pages works on consensus. If you think something is wrong, you convince editors of your position. If you have a consensus to change something, it gets changed. If you fail to get consensus, it doesn't get changed. S806 (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said one of the Wikibullies along to make a comment on the process I didn't understand. He S806 was one of the people just ignoring anything and reverting pages as S806 made this report 3 minutes after even notifying me of a change. Wow that 3 minutes to respond. And S806 has that famous line... "I am done discussing this" that is a monty python argument.

My only goal is to fix an obviously errant page but hey all the Wiki Bullies have beaten that goal out of me... and so you win, as that was your result to be RIGHT instead of being Accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DevonSprings, to your credit, you've stopped the reverts. To your credit, you were discussing issues on the talk page. To your discredit, you're confusing consensus with bullying. Please read consensus if you've not done that already. There's a reason we use BRD, and that's to make editing a collaborative experience. Do not presuppose that anyone who reverts you or opposes your edits is out to entrap you. Continue your discussions on the talk page of the article in a civil manner. In case you feel you've been slighted, discuss the same with the editor in question without working yourself up. Read dispute resolution for procedures to follow in case of editing disputes. I'm sure you'll understand how consensus works. I'm closing this thread now hoping you understand the issue. Wifione 14:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked Wifione 14:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Frmorrison reported by User:Bryancyriel (Result: No action)

Page: Angry Birds Seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frmorrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Edit warring of the article was confused or tired by the user. The article has damaged through repairing sections. Bryancyriel (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to impersonate (, last section) other users, supposedly to make your report seem more credible. It is clear from this diff () that you were the one who reported User:Frmorrison, not User:Drmies. I've changed the title above to properly show who the reporter was. Thanks. Darylgolden 13:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above report was apparently not made by User:Drmies, nor has the reported user been blocked for 72 hours, so in both respects the section heading of this report was incorrect. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Guys, you forgot the "result" of 72 hours that Bryancyriel wrote in together with their initial report. I've removed it. Assuming good faith, the user must be really confused. Bishonen | talk 13:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC).

While we're at it, the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" given in the report is not. The OP has made 3 reverts while having reported the other user for 2, so a reading of WP:Boomerang may be in order. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. You're right, David. The report has no merit. If I wasn't extending a lot of newbie toleration here I'd block Bryancyriel. But as for trying to impersonate an admin to look more credible, I don't think they were doing that. Probably copied an extant report and changed the specifics (I always do that, it tends to be simpler than trying to follow the "instructions"). Except they left several unfortunate specifics in… Bishonen | talk 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC).

The reporting user has a history of pushing his edits by edit-warring, and then creating spurious "warnings" and noticeboard reports to attempt to have his "opponents" "punished". See his talk page history for further details. I was inclined towards AGF at first, but the behaviour continues, despite requests to stop and attempts to help. There was a final warning from Drmies here. Begoon  14:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, Bishonen has already taken an administrative action in adjudging this as no violation. I'll go with Bishonen's decision on this. If this behaviour of misrepresenting reoccurs even once more, the editor would be blocked for sure. Wifione 16:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wifione. I wasn't advocating a block, I'm still not sure if what this user does is due to language difficulties, WP:CIR, or...? It's sure annoying though, to those of us subjected to the bogus warnings and noticeboard reports. I was just filling in some context, and I neglected to notice that the section was kinda closed - my error. Bishonen's action is perfectly correct, I hope she didn't mind my comment after her "close". Thanks for your response. Begoon  16:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep a watch on the user. Thanks. Wifione 16:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, Begoon. As for language, note that the user is per the babelbox on their userpage a native English speaker. But there are competence concerns, certainly. I wrote a definitely final warning on his page, reinforcing Drmies's "final warning of sorts". I suppose we're both soft; I do understand how irritating it must be to be subject to Bryancyriel's spurious warnings and reports. Several admins are watching now, though (thank you, Wifione). Bishonen | talk 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Floating IP user asking for review of User:Synthwave.94

(Just to get it out of the way I don't have a fixed IP and I wont be getting a logged in account.) Maybe I should have asked for review elsewhere and maybe I'm the one in violation of 3RR but I've been trying to change the article in a way that seems entirely reasonable to me but changes have been reverted in a way that makes it seem necessary to get someone else to review.

My most recent change/restore to article primarily changes Charts table for the article on the song Whatever by Oasis modifying a table to use more specific dates when the sources allowed it. The change also included minor spacing and indentation changes. Versions of this change have been repeatedly removed with minmal explanation. I have added a note on the talk page of the article.

The most recent revert had only the single word explanation useless. I think I'm being reasonable, and my changes to the article are an improvement but any more reverting would make me the bad guy so I'm asking for review. -- 109.79.167.107 (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is not the place to request for reviews of edits. Please read dispute resolution to understand how to resolve editing disputes. You've only just an hour back started discussing changes on the talk page of the article. Continue that and come back only after you've tried out dispute resolution or there is edit warring. If you've read this, I'll remove this report. Wifione 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been several reverts. If the situation continues where is the appropriate place to report? -- 109.79.167.107 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Forget it. The facts of the edit had finally been accepted. I don't know why I even try to edit anymore, when properly sourced information gets reverted or deleted, with barely an explanation, over what seems to have been a formatting objection. -- 109.79.167.107 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything "properly sourced" in this edit by the IP editor contributing from Ireland. Instead, I'm seeing the restoration of a challenged statement, with a "citation needed" template placed on it. The various versions of the published media are not referenced at all. These appear to be the main point of the edit. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Gjirokastra15 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:Not blocked )

Page

Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gjirokastra15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624851382 by Dr.K. (talk)WP:NINJA matter already forwarded to wiki noticeboard , for wpRemoval , and wpNinja ."
2. 19:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624848034 by Alexikoua (talk) You like it or not , you think it is a poor statement or not it is MULTI sourced WP:REMOVAL ."
3. 19:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624845445 by Alexikoua (talk) That is a sourced sentence and in fact it happens to be true ."
4. 19:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Demographics */ Cia does not claim that, so that source was removed"
5. 18:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624811964 by Dr.K. (talk) Instead of removing the citation needed tag ,why dont you cite the sources ?WP:IDONTLIKEIT"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Albania. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Poorly explained revert */ comment"

Comments:

Edit-warring without appropriate explanations on talk. Δρ.Κ.  20:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

They are 5 reverts . 3 of them for the same matter which constitute a 3RR , but the other 2 for completely irrelevant matter . I just added a citation needed tag for a different part of the paragraph .

So we are left with 3 reverts which yes they are a 3RR , but the 3rd revert was after i had opened a wiki noticeboard case for ninca tactics and WPremoval ( and bullying) here

If i am at fault please give me the deserved punishment . However do not let them remove multi sourced essential content because of WPidontlikeit and WPremoval , by using WPninja tactics and bullying . Thank you

P.S Explanation was given on the talk page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjirokastra15 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverts are measured per the article, not per the item/topic within the article. So, you have reverted the article five times today.

Blocks are not punitive; they are preventative. The block doesn't relate so much to how many reverts you've already done as to make sure that you won't commit any further reverts. If you're willing to discuss the text in a civil manner, then there's no need for a block. If there are further reverts or uncivil remarks, then a block is necessary. Please make sure to assume good faith in your fellow editors; I suggest against using terms like "bullying", which you did at AN/I. —C.Fred (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand , no further edit will be made regarding that article in order to respect the 3RR rule . Thank you for letting me know Fred , and thank you for not blocking me . Regards , Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: Since you understand now, perhaps you can self-revert to show that you understand fully that you went over the limit. Let's see if you will self-revert. Δρ.Κ.  21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr.K that does not mean that i agree . Because it is a multi sourced sentence , which i did not write but i fully support , being true . We have the right to disagree in wikipedia and thats how objective , and useful content is being written , and thats why millions of people trust wiki . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: By refusing to self-revert you show that you expect your edit-warring to bring the article to the "correct" version. That does not show me that you understand that doing five reverts on the article is bad, against policy and disruptive. I think you should be blocked because you do not understand this simple fact. Unless of course you self-revert. Δρ.Κ.  21:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I will again provide User:Gjirokastra15 a chance to self-revert. Their obviously tremendously bad understanding of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:3RR and WP:EW led to their actions, and their poorly-planned ANI filing. At this point, not only a self-revert, but a promise to not attempt to return the article to their "preferred} state unless they gain consensus on the article talkpage are key to avoiding an immediate block the panda ₯’ 21:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr.K am i reading correctly ? Are you saying that me not agreeing with you removing a sourced sentence should have me blocked ? Wow , talk about democracy here ... The correct version up until today was the one i WAS trying to restore . Many people might have the same thing in front of their eyes but will make totally different conclusions about it , thats why not removing sourced sentences is usually a good thing . Let me know exactly , what is the problem with that sentence ? Is it not sourced ? Is it incorrect ? Or are the sources not working ? Which one of these 3 is it , i am really trying to understand here , i swear i do try . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The panda , i agree with you . Excuse my behavior , i do truly try to understand , and i will self reflect . I promise however not to ever break the 3RR rule again and to always go after consensus ( and to avoid editing or reverting sensitive subjects such as demographics or minority issues , that can explode quickly lol ) . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: DangerousPanda didn't tell you to "self-reflect". He told you to self-revert. Δρ.Κ.  21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well if Dangerous Panda said so , i will do so . I thought i could get away with it lol . And yes i will NOT try to change again that particular sentence.Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gjirokastra. This matter is resolved then. I don't think a block is necessary any longer. My thanks also go to C.Fred and Dangerous Panda for their advice. Δρ.Κ.  22:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that i can also remove all those ugly warning messages on my talk page ? lol (joke) . Thank you too Dr.K for being patient with me, be sure that next time if a matter of such nature arrives ( which i doubt that will ) i will be a lot more collaborating and understanding than this time . And many thanks to C.Fred and Dangerous Panda as well for being patient and lenient with me , i really appreciate that . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked This has been a learning experience, and will hopefully be the only such lesson the panda ₯’ 08:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AH999 reported by User:HelenOnline (Result:31hr )

Page: Robin Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AH999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Robin Williams#3RR and edit warring

Comments:
User has ignored multiple warnings and doesn't provide any explanation for their edits. (Note it is my bedtime now so I will be going offline shortly.) HelenOnline 21:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours the panda ₯’ 21:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:SLBedit reported by User:213.133.205.35 (Result: )

Page:' S.L. Benfica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SLBedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: - don't know what this means

Diffs of the user's reverts:- This list includes other users that User:SLBedit has harassed.

He is trying to control the S.L. Benfica page, he is undoing all my edits, he acts like he owns the page, It doesn't seem fair how he can do this. He claims that most of my edits were useless which isn't the case because edits are clear improvements based on other higher-rated football club pages, the Benfica page needed alot of work to get it to a higher standard of quality. I have put alot of work into the page. I only reverted edits when he undid mine without a just reason. I have not done that to a user before.

He has previous edits warning from other incidents so I'm not the only one with an issue with him. Look at this talk page he has alot of other warning, he even deleted mine. ]

I have also reported this user on the page hoping for someone to do something about it. 213.133.205.35 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:213.133.205.35 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Article semiprotected, submitter warned)

Page: S.L. Benfica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.133.205.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The article has been a target for IP vandals many times and because of it the article has been locked 9 times. It's not the first time that similar IPs to 213.133.205.35 and others started edit wars.

I have put a lot of work into the article, more than most users, certainly more than IP 213.133.205.35. Comments:

I have reported the IP and requested a block. I have requested page protection (for the second or third time). IP is trying to get me blocked so it can later edit the article with new IP. SLBedit (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how getting you block would editing my ability to edit an article using a different IP..... that doesn't make sense. At any rate I haven't been changing my IP, I wouldn't even know how to do that. we just seem to have a disagreement as to what counts a contribution. At any rate I have not a vandal or anything like that, I'm a Benfica fan just like you who wants to contribute to the improvement of this page. Lets end this stupid back-and-forth accusations which don't lead to anything. Like i said, neither one of us are vandals, just a disarrangement that could clearly out of hand. Later I will make an account so I won't edit using my IP if that helps. Lets end this? :) 213.133.205.35 (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Several of these IPs are most likely the same person, which makes this a case of edit warring as an IP-hopper. That violates WP:SOCK. User:SLBedit is warned that if they continue to break 3RR on this article they may be blocked. Enough is enough. The person operating the IPs should try to get consensus on the talk page or follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:195.171.2.47 reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked )

Page

Scottish independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

195.171.2.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624805265 by NebY (talk)"
2. 14:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624807576 by 50.73.22.177 (talk)"
3. 14:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624808684 by NebY (talk)"
4. 13:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624849343 by NebY (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Scottish independence. (TW)"
2. 14:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Scottish independence. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also warned for unconstructive and unsourced editing. IP 82.9.88.143 may be connected. Article is getting busier as the independence referendum is next Thursday. NebY (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and Page protected to prevent further vandalism during the referendum period. Ks0stm 13:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring