Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
You must notify any user you report.

You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so.


Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • 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.
  • A 3RR report helper tool is available, which can assist in diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than 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.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
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 the 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.

User:Mercy11 reported by User:Rococo1700 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Oscar López Rivera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mercy11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:


Editor Mercy11 keeps reverting my assertion that Oscar Lopez Rivera has US nationality, and instead assigns him Puerto Rican citizenship. The latter is a highly controversial entity in itself, but regardless of that, the fact that OLR was convicted and remains jailed as a US citizen is without dispute. Mercy11 has staked ownership in these non-neutral positions throughout this article, as can be seen from the talk section, this is something observed by others. To redefine his citizenship would allow OLR to argue that he is somehow a prisoner of war or a foreigner jailed in the US, when he moved freely for years in the continental US as a Puerto Rican, with his birth citizenship, that is, US citizenship. There is no documentation that OLR is not a US citizen. Mercy11 has a tendentious alphabet soup wiki reply to a confrontation with facts. There is no This non-neutral behavior should force editors from Wikipedia to intervene in his editing of this entry. I am no the first to observe this behavior. He distracts from the central issue: does OLR have Puerto Rican citizenship as opposed to US citizenship, by asking me to argue the latter. Arguing PR citizenship is of no interest to me. What I can state, unequivocably, is that there is no legal documentation that OLR is a Puerto Rican citizen.

I would refer the authors to 7 FAM 1297 ATTEMPTS TO RENOUNCE OR RELINQUISH WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES (CT:CON-407; 06-29-2012) by U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs Which states that:

a. CA frequently receives letters from individuals in the United States attempting to notify the U.S. Government that they do not consider themselves subject to the United States or the U.S. State of residence. We also receive letters from persons serving prison sentences in the United States who mistakenly believe that if they renounce or otherwise relinquish U.S. citizenship, they will be released from prison in the United States.

That is the non-neutral goal of Mercy11 in this dispute, to substantiate a change in OLR citizenship. All I am saying is that this is not factual. OLRs change of citizenship has not been accepted by any US consular official. It is only in Mercy11's wishes.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Mercy11 is on thin ice because there is no reference provided that Oscar López Rivera is even *claiming* PR citizenship, much less that he is recognized by anyone as a Puerto Rican citizen. Even so this case will probably close with no action because Mercy11 only reverted twice on 15 April. You need to show either four reverts in 24 hours, or a long term pattern of reverting without discussion. If there are more problems with their edits, please document them. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this falls within what we think as a 3RR/EW, but more of a WP:DISPUTE. However, I will respond here for the sake of finding a resolution, but can move elsewhere is the admin so desires.

My comment: The reporting editor, Rococo, changed an infobox field without providing a source. In addition, he also failed to provide any supporting info or sources in the article: per WP:IBX, the infobox is a "summarize [of] key facts that appear in the article." The information that was there previous to his edit (that is, this: "Nationality=Puerto Rican") was correct because the subject, Oscar López Rivera, was born in Puerto Rico which is sourced in this article, and undisputed. Another article, Puerto Rican citizenship also states (also with sources) that Puerto Rican citizenship is had by mere birth in Puerto Rico. Upon his first edit, I started a dialogue in the Talk Page HERE, but Rococo reverted me, arguing that Puerto Rican citizenship is controversial. He is incorrect in this because the courts have upheld it but, even if his claim was true (which it was not), that would had amounted to WP:SYN. In addition, he provided no supporting sources for his claims on his second revert, instead mudding the matter with an argument about ethnicity HERE. I continued that dialogued but he continued to revert the article to his preferred (unsourced) version. In all he reverted the sourced edits HERE, HERE,HERE, without providing any sources. He is also quite politically belligerent in his dialogue. Unexpectedly, he opened this WP:EW, when the article should remain as it was until he gets sources or he reaches WP:CONSENSUS or he seekes a WP:3O or is favorably decided upon at a WP:DR/N - none of which he did. No quarrel with that; simply stating he didn't follow the protocol for these cases generally followed among Wikipedians.

In any event, I also add that Rococo is currenly also involved in another unfounded change to this same article. He also wanted to inject into the article that OLR had committed a "violent crime" and (as he did here) unpredictably opened a WP:DR/N which is still open HERE. I think that perhaps Rococo is well-intentioned but not entirely familiar with Wikipedia policies. Per Wp:BURDEN, until Rococo can source that OLR has a different nationality, the entry in the infobox should remain as it was because it is substatiated as a consequence of having been born in Puerto Rico versus his claim to being an American national which has no sourcing at all. Mercy11 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Some emphasis, anyone born in Puerto Rico is a Puerto Rican citizen. On teh other hand, Rococo fails to source that OLR's nationality is other than Puerto Rican. Mercy11 (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Warned Mercy11 that they may be blocked if they restore again the claim about Puerto Rican citizenship, unless they get consensus on the talk page. The WP:BLP rules apply to this article, which forbid unsourced claims: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." We do not know whether Rivera claims to be a citizen of Puerto Rico. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am Ok with the result. I do not want to argue the existence of Puerto Rican citizenship; I will leave that for others, and that debate is ongoing as the entry itself states. My point is that OLR was born an American citizen, as entailed by being born in Puerto Rico. He was arrested as a US citizen in the United States, and convicted as a US citizen. You cannot unilaterally renounce citizenship if you are a prisoner. OLR is a prisoner. Mercy11 is obfuscating the facts when he says that he placed in the infobox: Nationality = Puerto Rican, he did not. He placed Nationality = Puerto Rican Citizenship | Puerto Rican with brackets around that. I do not oppose OLR's Puerto Rican ethnicity, but to call him a Puerto Rican citizenship alters the facts under which he was convicted. A foreign citizen by definition should not be able to cause sedition against a country not his own. OLR was convicted of sedition. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:78.143.141.2 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: )[edit]

Page
Nick Jr. 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
78.143.141.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604579721 by Loriendrew (talk)"
  2. 10:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604303386 by Loriendrew (talk) You don't stand a chance. I said, keep the Peppa until it rebrands back"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Nick Jr. Peppa. (TW)"
  2. 11:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nick Jr. 2. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User shows no citation/proof of rebranding of channel name. Website shows channel as Nick Jr. 2, no news reports about rebranding. User copy/pasted article to another redirect. ☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, see edits to Nick Jr. Peppa--☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Leventebest reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Anca Heltne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Leventebest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 17:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 16:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 17:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Anca Heltne. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

See Talk:Anca Heltne and Wikipedia:BLPN#Anca_Heltne NeilN talk to me 17:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:37.192.250.101 reported by User:Prosfilaes (Result: 1 month)[edit]

Page: Translations of The Lord of the Rings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.192.250.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. ... going back months
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Strongly_verifiable_claims_about_Esperanto_translations and almost everything below that.

Comments:
This has been going on a long time; there's a number of editors reverting him, and someone from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard left an opinion against him. As far as I can tell, no other editors support his case and certainly no non-IPs.Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Blocked one month. This editor has removed the section about an Esperanto translation 14 times in the last six months. An IP who could well be the same person was 178.49.18.203 (talk · contribs), but he has not been active since September 2013. If this were a registered account an indefinite block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:67.242.113.32 reported by User:331dot (Result: 1 month)[edit]

Page
Talk:The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss: Cool Sounds All Around! (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported
67.242.113.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC) "Created page with '==Characters== ===Main Characters=== * Eliza Jane (performed by Kathryn Mullen) - the main protagonist * The Cat in the Hat - (performed by...'"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on Talk:The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss: Cool Sounds All Around!. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 19:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC) "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW)"
Comments:

This user continually creates what I assume are meant to be articles, but does so in the talk namespace only, and not in the main namespace. They have done so with several pages; Talk:Carmen (film) is another example. The pages in question have been deleted several times, and a prior block did not alter their behavior. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I reported this once before (resulting in the prior block). 331dot (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – One month for disruptive editing. Misuse of article talk space in the effort to create articles of his own design. Admins will have to keep doing G8 speedy deletions if the user can't get with the program. Is it possible they are just confused? Unlikely. This user has received plenty of advice at User talk:67.242.113.32 since 15 March, but they have never responded. This block can be lifted by any admin if the editor will agree to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 reported by User:206.162.160.197 (Result: Page semied)[edit]

Page: Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [8]
  2. [9]
  3. [10]
  4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12] (→‎Anti-semitic policy: Toddy1 please do not reverse again WP:3RR)

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

Comments: I do not have multiple accounts. I do not even have an account. What I wrote in that article is valid and with valid sources I think. If you disagree, there is the talk page. 206.162.160.197 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cmoibenlepro, if you are going to report people here, you should learn how to do diffs. Not a single one of your links are diffs. They are links to different versions of the page.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Case in point, cmoibenlepro also didn't know what diffs were. [14] --Львівське (говорити) 21:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:24.165.101.206 reported by User:Prcc27 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.165.101.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps reverting without consensus and without going to the talk.
  1. [15]
  2. [16]
  3. [17]

--Prcc27 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I have seen no communication between the Ip and Prcc regarding the disputed edits other than one edit summary exchange that does not mention the talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Response @Knowledgekid87: Actually, I did mention the talk page in the summary. I said "see talk." Also, they did go on the talk [18] but I undid their edit because they reverted my edit by deleting the section below "Older polls are consistently being added" --Prcc27 (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg No violation. This is a content dispute. The IP has reverted only three times and not even within 24 hours. The worst thing they did was to remove comments from the article talk page. You need to work this out and obtain a consensus for which poll to use. Also, you are required to notify a user you report here; I did it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 reported by User:Geogene (Result: Locked)[edit]

Page: Corexit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Petrarchan will not tolerate mention that a paper on increased toxicity applies specifically to plankton. See the thread at the bottom of the Corexit talk page where we tried to talk it over. Also, she undid my addition to cited information that some researchers she added to the article were in the employ of a law firm that was suing BP at the time. She undid that too, for no apparent reason.

Geogene (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No 3RR violation. Petra did not remove your bit about plankton. It was simply moved down lower in this edit, which is your third diff. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added my reasons as "edit summaries". Should I re-add them here? I "won't tolerate mention of plankton" - indeed I not only mentioned but elaborated on the plankton information in the body, which is better for hosting more technical information. I have, since late Febrauary, been raked over the coals by Geogene for a statement that has numerous sources.1 2 3 4 5 Geogene has been trying to change the wording regarding this particular study, and generally make the Corexit information prettier, for about 3 months, contrary to all these sources. She has taken me to 3 or 4 noticeboards over it, and apparently plans to continue.
I removed Geogene's editorializing from the Lede, which was an OR caveat she added to some research that supports this same conclusion (that the addition of Corexit solvent made the BP oil spill more toxic than if it hadn't been added). If this sort of edit is appropriate, that would be news to me. petrarchan47tc 00:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
She changed back the meaning of the statement when she changed "52 times more toxic to plankton" to "52 times more toxic, and..." That's a reversion. Geogene (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected (full) for five days. Although Petrarchan47 violated WP:3RR, both Petrarchan and Geogene have engaged in a fairly long-term edit war. I'm not going to delve into the history of noticeboards, etc. If someone thinks there's misconduct beyond edit warring, other venues are more suitable for such complaints.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Knisfo reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Template:Same-sex unions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knisfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]
  5. [30]
  6. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32], [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34], [35], [36]

Comments:

May well be a reasonable edit, but it involves interpretation of a law that differs from what 2ary sources report. We should at least come to consensus on the talk page that an amateur reading of the law is acceptable in this case. — kwami (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not the first time, see Talk:Same-sex union legislation#Wallis and Futuna - flag, where if the edits by 46.114.56.53 (talk) and 46.114.8.119 (talk) are included, 3RR was breached as follows: (1st revert) (2nd revert) (3rd revert) (4th revert). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Der Golem reported by User:Liongrande (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: diff Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments: Persistent POV pushing, he was asked multiple times to provide sources and multiple users told him he's wrong, but keeps reverting.--Liongrande (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Article protected one month. Please use this time to reach consensus on the talk page. Protection can be lifted if agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:CouchTomato reported by User:Strfornawuks (Result: Strfornawuks blocked)[edit]

Page
International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
CouchTomato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
[37]

[38] [39]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Please block User:CouchTomato (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for his disruptive edits in the International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis page. He began his disruptive edits by reverte moving Israel to the "partially recognized states" category. I reverted his edit, stating that Israel did not belong in that category" recognized states" category. He promptly counter-reverted my edit, and then put a warning on my talk page to block me. Another user reverted his edit, and he did the same thing to that user. Once again, I undid CouchTomato revision, again stated why it was wrong and put a warning on his talk page (which he has since removed). Given that his edits are politically motivated and diverge from the common standards in Wikipedia, that he has made these revisions against multiple users without proper dialogue, and that he subsequently threatened them with blocks, this amounts to vandalism that should at least result in a block. Strfornawuks (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

See also an April 17th report of the same dispute at WP:ANI#Please block Strfornawuks for disruptive edits. This article has sections both for states and for partially recognized states. Strfornawuks wants Israel to be grouped with partially recognized states in this article. The dispute has been going on since March 27 but so far neither party has used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This guy pretty much just took my comment from WP:ANI#Please block Strfornawuks for disruptive edits and changed the wording around. Note that I kept my justifications within the revision comments and not the talk page because arguing over groupings is not discussion about the article itself, nor has any relevance to it. He states "common standards in Wikipedia," but everywhere else, Israel is listed in states. "Partially recognized states" always includes states that are recognized by very few, often 0-2 countries and are not UN members. This was pointed to WP:ARBEURO, but frankly, over something so small like this, it's not even a matter of debate; there is no gray zone, as Israel has always been listed with other countries in all of Wikipedia. How can he be calling my reverts "vandalism" when all I'm doing is keeping the article in line with the rest of Wikipedia? Please note that I have absolutely no political agenda here. I do not care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all and just made the edits because I stumbled upon and thought it was silly and wrong for it to be like that. CouchTomato (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked User:Strfornawuks for 48 hours for disruptive editing, POV-pushing and edit warring. CouchTomato should have started a thread on the issue at the article talk page, but they did try to address it at ANI, and the edits by and attitude of Strfornawuks are disruptive. The status quo was with Israel in the recognized states list, and moving it to partially recognized makes no sense. The only reason there was a break in the edit war was because there was a break in Strfornawuks's contribution history. Strfornawuks has also removed two chunks of material from the article, one already mentioned at ANI, and another concerning Nicaragua. No one has reverted those changes, but the article has relatively few watchers. As for whether these edits fall under WP:ARBPIA, my view is no because it concerns Israel alone. Perhaps I'm missing something there. In any event, my block is not an ArbCom enforcement block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:83.237.233.255 reported by User:Petr Matas (Result: )[edit]

Page: Crimean status referendum, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.237.233.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/604725726

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/604753374
  2. Special:Diff/604762896
  3. Special:Diff/604766696
  4. Special:Diff/604776152

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/604772191

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit summary of Special:Diff/604758235

Comments:


User:Fredin323 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
California State University, Fresno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Fredin323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604663666 by Contributor321 (talk)"
  2. 14:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "incomplete data, does not differentiate between grad, undergrad, postgrad populations, 9.7% "Unknown" is not a race, race-conscious and therefore racist. it will not stay on this page."
  3. 22:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "does not differentiate between grad, undergrad, and postgrad populations, the vast majority of Wikipedia university pages DO NOT include race-based statistics"
  4. 22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "Bahooka, please stop the edit warring, you are in violation of Wikipedia regulations and could have your editing privileges revoked. If you have a problem with the fact that most pages do not include race-based statistics, then change that. Not this."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Ongoing edit warring against consensus on talk page. Has been warned many times for awhile yet continues. Now has crossed 3RR bright line. Bahooka (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1, Relisted (Result: Declined; stale)[edit]

Page
2015 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "read the sources - ALL of them"
  2. 01:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "and the other source literally states that they have been accepted - and it comes from the man who controls the agreement the team would need to sign to compete"
  3. 00:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "but they *have* been confirmed by Ecclestone, who controls the Concorde, and thus would be in a pisition to comment - hence the footnote"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Forza Rossa - the new Sirotkin */ reply"
Comments:

Another in an ever increasing list of edit wars by this user. Although this one is not a direct violation of WP:3RR, it is still an edit war. The user reverted twice before going to the article's talk page and a third time later on despite having been explained by two users at that point that the reversions were unjustified.

A list of the edit wars the user has been involved in during the last twelve months: -June 2013 -August 2013 -5 January 2014 -12 January 2014 -13 January 2014 -30 March 2014

I would like to suggest that at the very least this user is subjected to 1RR in a bid to stop the repetitive behavior. Tvx1 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything Tvx1 has said about me could reasonably be said about him. He frequently edit-wars, operating under the mistaken belief that if he thinks he is right, then he is permitted to do so. He regularly posts 3RR warning templates on the talk pages of editors he is warring against, and eventually refers them here, which I believe is little more than an attempt to try and intimidate others into backing down and accepting his preferred version of edits. If he had taken the time to check the article in question, he would have seen that it has since stabilised, and that it stabilised once someone made an actual argument in favour of the changes he was pushing for. Furthermore, there is an open case at DRN which he started, and in which he clearly misrepresents the situation. Considering this, I believe that it is quite clear that Tvx1 has developed the alarming habit of calling the administrators down on anyone he disagrees with in an attempt to force though his preferred version of an article, as he is frequently in the minority when it comes to a consensus. As evidenced here, he edit-warred, even after being shown evidence that he should have considered; then came here at the first opportunity - even after the issue was resolved. If I am guilty of 3RR, then so too is he, and I implore any administrator reviewing this case to consider Tvx1's history of calling on admins to try and bully his preferred edits into an article. He is, for want of a better word, compromised by this behaviour and his own role in the disputes he brings to the attention of admins. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an unfounded personal attack and violation of WP:AGF. If it is necessary for the reviewing administrator to check my editing history. Be my guest. You'll find no such proof of frequent edit warring. In fact I strongly doubt you will find any violation of WP:3RR at all. I am not operating under the mistaken belief that if I think I'm right, then I'm permitted to edit-war by any means. I bloody well know that edit-warring is prohibited by policy even if one thinks one is right. I never make more than two reversions after which I will solely concentrate my efforts on the talk page of the article in question and if that fails I'll search for other solutions to resolve the matter like fore instance Dispute Resolution. If i report anyone here I do that under the belief that the user in question has broken one of the policies this noticeboard governs and administrator action is warranted. Regarding this particular article, I made one reversion, ONE, after Prisonermonkeys reverted my original edit. I don't know why I'm even remotely accused of having broken WP:3RR here. Tvx1 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It is very, very difficult for me to assume good faith when I see a pattern to your behaviour. Given your tactics in other discussions - like the way you misrepresented the situation at DRN, like the way you have ignored a clear consensus in the past, like the way you stall at every opportunity - I am left wondering at this one. If it is your only intent to resolve issues diplomatically, why am I left feeling as if you are trying to force through your preferred edits every single time you do it? You take a minority position - in this case, you were in the majority, but only once someone did your job for you and made an actual argument - and edit-war just enough to keep your nose clean, and then threaten administrator action against any other party. And lo and behold, you get your way; the article is written the way you think it should be written, regardless of what a consensus might say. So I find it very difficult to assume good faith when you stand to gain so much from it. You know perfectly well that the DRN is coming up for review, and you know perfectly well that we argue opposing points of view in it. If any sort of admin action was taken against me, it would limit my ability to take part in that DRN, and the side opposed to you loses one of its biggest supporters. And here you are, twelve hours after an unrelated situation has been resolved - and you had to know it was resolved to get those edit differences - lobbying for admin action against me.
Like I said, if your only intention is to resolve a situation diplomatically, why am I left feeling like you are trying to force through the resolution you prefer? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Changing one of the diffs in the report to an unrelated one (03:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)) won't help your cause either.
I post from an old mobile device. Sometimes when I make a spelling error - and especially if the section I am editing is lengthy - the auto-correct software inserts the correct word at a random point in the text window, often over-writing existing text. When that happens, the best I can do is guess at what the original text read. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to lash out on me like this. You're the one who edit-warred and if the administrators consider it warranted to take action you only have yourself to blame for that. It took 6 editors, three of whom had to revert your additions to the article, to make you realize that you're edits were premature. So I don't see why you claim it is I who tried to force their preferred edits through. And I don't understand the claim that "someone else did my job for me" either. I brought the majority of the talk page input and the five of us who brought arguments against you wrote more or less the same: The content you were trying to add hasn't been confirmed yet, WP is not a news site so we can take the time to verify this, you misinterpreted Bernie's comments. Bretonbanquet added to that we should wait until we have FIA and FOM confirmation, something you had actually mentioned yourself earlier on. This report is entirely independent from the Dispute Resulotion on an unrelated issue we are currently taking part in. It's not even remotely my intent to try to prevent you from taking part in that, why else would I have suggested 1RR restriction in the first place you think, and I have never claimed that I would only accept the Dispute Resoultion outcome if it's my favor. The only reason why I have reported you hear is to make you finally realize that Edit-Warring is not a solution to resolve disputes. Again, these accusations you throw at me are entirely unjustified. Tvx1 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Update: Prisonermonkeys has since gotten involved in another edit war on the same article.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Once again, you dodge the question. Why is it that every time you report someone for 3RR, I am left unable to shake the feeling that there is something in it for you - something more than stabilising the page or resolving a dispute?

You claim, for instance, that you will limit yourself to two reverts before moving to the talk page. But do you know what I see? Someone who edit-wars just enough to avoid getting in trouble, relying on the other party to continue edit-warring, and then posting templates on their talk page or coming here to intimidate them into standing down and/or accepting the edits you want. You claim you do nothing wrong, and yet here we are, having this discussion. The idea did not simply appear in my mind one day - there is a pattern here.

And, predictably, you sit on that article, watching that content, for the first sign of trouble. As I expected you would, and so edited accordingly. It is quite clear to me now that you are compromised. You claim to be acting in the interests of the article, but always get something out of it. You want me to be put on a 1RR; fine. In that case, I suggest Tvx1 be prevented from referring cases to ANI or posting warnings on talk pages until he learns that they are not a platform for him to try and manipulate content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer the question for yourself why you assume bad faith by default in another user's contributions. That's something you yourself have to find out. I have stated and I will repeat that my sole intention of referring you here is to make you understand that edit-warring leads to nothing at all. If you refuse to accept that than that is your problem. I'm really getting tired of this ridiculous bullying/intimidating accusations. Please tell me what I stand to gain from the dispute between you and Dr.kolles. If you really want to prevent me (or others) from warning or worse even reporting you than the only thing you have to do is not to edit war at all. Tvx1 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Relisted because no attention was given to the original reporting. Tvx1 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. Tvx1, don't relist reports just because they didn't go the way you wanted them to. PM has not violated 3RR, and although I haven't checked whether the April 13 sequence is a violation, even if it were, it's stale. If you have a problem with a pattern of conduct by PM, take it to another board.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Article List of job scheduler software[edit]

Page
List of job scheduler software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users

Spamming an entry for their software into List of job scheduler software, which has been going on since at least February (I may be overlooking an ip).

I'm assuming these SQM03, RevSoft, 165.228.54.71, and 101.165.196.165 are all one person. I'm concerned that there is a language problem here, or at least extremely poor understanding that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotional purposes. I've self-reverted and am going to wait to see what others say on the situation.

Discussions at User talk:SQM03, User_talk:RevSoft, User talk:165.228.54.71, and User_talk:Ronz#List_of_Job_Scheduling_software.

Also, I tend to avoid reverting in such cases, but this has been going on since at least February, so I've treated it as spamming for promotional purposes. Turns out it is for self-promotion, but I'd like suggestions on how to handle it better next time around. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)