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:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 11:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC) to 12:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    1. 11:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604027609 by Summichum (talk) It is immaterial what is topic of article, you cannot put anything abnormal about living person on Wiki against its BLP policy."
    2. 12:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC) "Matter written as reported, don't add your own research to divert/dilute the fact
    3. 11:44, 8 April 2014
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC) "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). (TW)"
  2. 17:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Quote from pritish Nandi */"
  2. 16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Quote from pritish Nandi */"
  3. 04:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC) "this is not BLP article , rather controversial event"
  4. 11:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC) on 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) "/* Succession controversy */"
Comments:

This user has also been reported at COI noticeboard , third party experienced user Anup mehra agreed to the fact that Md_iet has conflict of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mufaddal_Saifuddin Summichum (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting delete.svg No violation. I'm not sure I see edit warring here to begin with; certainly not a 3RR. He's also correct in his read of our BLP policy; controversial or disputed information about living persons must be meticulously sourced on any article, not just biographies. Kuru (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks but, User:Kuruin that BLP policy page it lists articles where this is not applicable , it includes controversies and the above page itself is about the controversy surrounding the person. Nevertheless please verify the diffs he has tried to remove that atleast 3 times at different period of times. Moreover it is well sourced info from reputed source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talkcontribs) 05:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Summichum, you should also be sorry to harass genuine editors at your will to force your POV. The matter in subject is direct blatant allegation to a reputed living personality, a head of community, without any proof or evidence given. Removal of the matter is already decided on the subject main page. This fellow wants to force his POV in whatever manner he wants. --Md iet (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • please see WP:CRYBLPand WP:BLPFIGHT, this policy clearly says that BLP policy does not apply to controversy related articles , it has valid source and reference from a leading news paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talkcontribs) 07:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend user:Summichum to READ the same what he has suggested and also WP:Gossip.This issue has been resolved why not take your discussion to talk page.Rukn950 (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • @ User:Kuru,The user:Summichum has taken all the command in his hand any tried to challenge already decided matter. He has deleted your para:

"*Pictogram voting delete.svg No violation. I'm not sure I see edit warring here to begin with; certainly not a 3RR. He's also correct in his read of our BLP policy; controversial or disputed information about living persons must be meticulously sourced on any article, not just biographies. Kuru (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)" intensely and blanked the result part, which I restored.

Stern action is to be taken.

In addition to the finding of User:Kuru, I want to add following:

  • WP:BLPFIGHTonly allows material which is 'relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced'. In the present case it is relevant and reliably sourced, but not at all properly weighted. The statement is just issued in isolation. The article topic is mainly on politics, “The Mad Hatter’s ball begins..”. The author discussing Kalmadi and Pawan Bansal, Reddy, Tejpal, Chavan, Sinde of their scandals, suddenly started talking of a prestigious religious community head, which is far away from any party politics and blatantly blames that:

‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’

No background, no references, no justifications, just all direct, blatant, allegations with full confidence. Can you call it ‘properly weighted, never ever. The article claim:

‘self declared’: What proof this Mr. Nandy have. If we don't consider earlier Nass done before 2011, then also Mufaddal was not present in London Hospital in 2011, his brothers informed him of incident, this is well proven and well reported fact, nobody can dispute. How can it be self declared, definitely his brothers are middleman involved. |quote= "in June 2011, the late Syedna had reportedly said to have suffered a stroke and had made the same proclamation of nass in front of his sons"- Indian express.

‘asked follower to..declare their allegance’...: Is he called the hundreds of thousand DB in Mumbai on the day of late Syedna demise( Mufaddal was away Colombo). Is he asked all the DB to chant ‘Moula Moula” to him in the street of Mumbai when he was on the bridge near Raudat Tahera, at time of last rituals.|quote= Tahera mausoleum after Syedna’s demise, lakhs of Dawoodi Bohras standing on the streets of Bhendi Bazaar screamed “Maula” giving a clear indication of who they have believed to be their 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq.”- Indian Express

‘his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ : the claimaint himself says that anoinment was done in private and did not put any direct proof of incident. From where this Mr. Nandy got the proof and declared single headedly.. ‘had anointed’..|quote= "Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.”- Indian Express

The statement is not at all properly weighted and a just allegation, never ever suitable for inclusion in BLP cases as per Wiki guidelines.--Md iet (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:50.151.118.112 reported by User:David.thompson.esq (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Rock Hudson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.151.118.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

I'm not quite clear on what should be filled in here. This is a list of the diffs showing what has happened:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] Please also note that in my edit summaries I asked the anonymous editor to please make his case on the Talk page.


Comments:
User:50.151.118.112 has deleted relevant, sourced information providing only flippant and conclusory reasons for doing so. When I reverted the anon user's deletion I created a section for comment on the proposed change on the talk page. When the non user failed to see or acknowledge the RfC, I sought advice from a more experienced editor: [9]. Based on that advice, i reverted again and directed the anon editor to the talk page with a message that the change could be made, but consensus was needed first. That invitation has been ignored. David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In his last edit summary the IP stated, "I can remove this indefinitely. Can you keep putting it back indefinitely?" This appears to be a promise to edit war. I'm notifying the IP of this complaint to see if they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Damn. I just blocked the IP without being aware of this report. I unblocked now. → Call me Hahc21 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) If there is no adequate reply, a longer block may be needed. Check the last six months of the IP's edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – One year. User is here to push an agenda. Was given some good advice here, last December but he edited the other user's words to turn it into a fake compliment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for helping! — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.thompson.esq (talkcontribs) 03:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:190.44.138.168 reported by User:ThaddeusB (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: April 2014 lunar eclipse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.44.138.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Consensus is toi include the info the IP is removing, see talk page

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. plus about 5 reverts on earlier days

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by TimL prior to latest revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP engaged on talk page, but then ignored the consensus

Comments:
3RR not technically violated, but edit war is clear. Each time the IP re-removed the material, a different user undid it so IP is only violator (plus consensus is to include per talk). IP's other editing is also problematic - there is a clear pattern of an "I'm right, deal with it" attitude. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Many/most edits are appropriate however the communication on edit summaries tend to be uncivil and rude. When an edit is reverted the user will not budge and borderline 3RR/war even after discussion (see Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) and talk).--☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen this type of behavior repeatedly from this IP. Another editor and I had already noticed this IP's extremely abrasive editing behavior. No doubt this IP will continue clashing with other editors in bad faith in the future. This editor has no conception of consensus or dialogue, and arrogantly believes in their own superiority to everyone on Wikipedia, as indicated by the conversation on the IP's talk page as well as elsewhere where this IP has disruptively edited. I think a block is necessary in order to prevent future edit wars and disruptive editing, unless the IP shows that they will try to cooperate rather than insult other editors in the future. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Result: No violation. The dispute was whether to include the table of local times for the eclipse. The IP was removing the table but has stopped reverting many hours ago. There is no continuing war. If he removes it again, reopen the report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
User has continued to remove it with no attempt to gain consensus. [13]  — TimL • talk 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for continuing to edit war after being warned not to, and for this comment where the IP makes it clear they intend to continue to remove the content. Tiptoety talk 01:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:RedGerbera reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No action)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: 8 April

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 9 April
  2. 9 April
  3. 15 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EW warning

Comments:
Its an edit warring report, not a 3RR. -- SMS Talk 21:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is about a politician not a cricket player(He is not known for the single match he played decades ago). I just noticed that the user who reported my edits has removed all links from article except the very unrelated cricket profile link which makes no sense to me. The page clearly is missing relevant external links. I was adding an official(although not verified by facebook) page to article, edit was reverted saying no FB links allowed. I read the policy and it says official pages are allowed so I added the link again. I don't know if only verified pages are allowed. However, its clear that the page has no relevant external link which I am trying to add. I still assume that Official pages are allowed regardless of if they are verified by Facebook or not ( EL: Link to official page). Admin guidance needed, Thanks. RedGerbera (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: No action. WP:ELNO is advice about 'links normally to be avoided' and does not firmly decide any particular case. Editors should reach a consensus on the talk page. If people keep reverting the disputed links without any talk discussion blocks are possible. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you if you can't agree about links. User:RedGerbera is cautioned to avoid copyright violations as noted here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous user from 112.203.xxx.xxx subnet reported by User:178.252.126.70 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Benevolent dictatorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 112.203.34.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previously reported here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [14]

--178.252.126.70 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: The editor from 112.203.* who constantly removes the Washington Post citation is an IP-hopper. I've semiprotected the article for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Boxfan6 reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Page
Juan Manuel Márquez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Boxfan6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */ Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery have nothing to do with Marquez."
  2. 04:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604250889 by BearMan998 (talk)"
  3. 03:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */"
  4. 03:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */ It is clearly a smear tactic."
  5. 02:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604241914 by BearMan998 (talk) What happened to "Don't remove sourced content."?"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 15:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC) to 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    1. 15:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */ More sourced content."
    2. 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */"
  7. 21:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 604046868 by BearMan998 (talk) Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery having nothing to do with Marquez. Put that information in the Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery page."
  8. 18:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */ That has nothing to do with Marquez. It is an obvious attempt to cast a cloud over Marquez's accomplishment."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Repeated reverting - April 2014 */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety talk 03:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Another editor started a talk page discussion and this editor was pointed to it. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Jjibber76 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jjibber76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff
  5. diff
  6. diff
  7. diff
  8. diff
  9. diff
  10. diff
  11. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

diff the actual 3RR warning. Jim1138 (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff. Initial comment by Jjibber76 diff. Discussion diff

Comments:

No serious attempt at good faith policy based discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC) It would seem another spa editor Redjim987 has joined the edit war diff, diff. Notifications welcome with notice, warning (from other user), Notice of this posting - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Redjim987 comment diff, my response diff - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of one day Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:MrBill3 reported by User:Jjibber76 (Result: )[edit]

Page: The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MrBill3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [17]
  2. [18]
  3. [19]
  4. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

Hm, no breach of 3RR by MrBill3, as soon as Jjibber76 hits 3RR Redjim987 (talk · contribs) a new account appears continuing to remove the same material. Going out at the moment but I hear quacking. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Redjim987 Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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:187.146.31.102 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Arch Rivals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 187.146.31.102 (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
  5. diff
  6. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page diff 187.146.31.102's talk 187.146.31.102 has not responded at either location.

Comments:

  • OskNe (t·c) Has been edit warring, but ceased when warned.
  • 187.146.31.102 (t·c) Is adding information suggesting that Arch Rivals was developed in Japan when I can not find a source suggesting so.

Another revert by 187.146.31.102: diff Jim1138 (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be insistent on Zero Wing as well. Jim1138 (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess that 187.146.31.102 is blocked user User:Sotosbros.--OskNe (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by User:Kralizec!. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Eastcote and BilCat reported by User:Duedemagistris (Result: WP:BOOMERANG)[edit]

Page:

Scotch-Irish American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported:

Eastcote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log),
BilCat (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]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Duedemagistris (talkcontribs)

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: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. ... going back months
  2. [24]
  3. [25]
  4. [26]
  5. [27]
  6. [28]
  7. [29]

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: )[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)

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. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] (→‎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. [36] --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. [37]
  2. [38]
  3. [39]

--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 [40] 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: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [42]
  2. [43]
  3. [44]
  4. [45]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

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)