Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

Administrator instructions

Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
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.
  • 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
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated 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:Fonsy74 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocks)[edit]

Page: Homotaurine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

  • Fonsy74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  • 84.120.139.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  • 81.60.45.17 (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 as IP
  2. diff as IP
  3. diff under account now
  4. diff again
  5. dif again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link for Fonsyn74

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

Comments:

Please block. WP:NOTHERE. Based on their IP and editing, this user may be a sock of the blocker user, Nuklear (see SPI. The style is the same, the interest in obscure old drugs is the same, but the edits are not adding synthesis content which was the hallmark of Nuklear. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is finally happening here, but the article is still messed up. I stood down and allowed Fonsy74's version to stand, but this new editor is completely resisting paying mind to policies and guidelines and instead is just making personal attacks. There is no way forward here. Please do block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Update. So last night I finally got time to find good sources and was able to restore some of the content Fonsyn74 wanted but sourced to MEDRS sources - see here. Today Fonsyn74 showed up and edit warred back in the content (actually incorrect) based on the poor sources. They also came to the Talk page and made an argument that shows they lack competence in the underlying science, as I explained here. WP:CIR and this user and its IP do not understand the science nor the policies and guidelines, nor are they interested in working within the policies and guidelines. (they explained here that they are a software person who is interested in nootropics, which is a topic that unfortunately attracts a lot of cranks and advocates)Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
note - added 2 IP addresses this user has worked from as well. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homotaurine&oldid=709390872 This is the summary of the discussion. Sorry if I've done something wrong, anyway it is necessary that an external person decide for my contribution or the other. We need a administrator. This is my humble opinion, Sorry to all wikipedia users to see the discussion and thanks. Fonsy74

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts. I've blocked the two IPs each for a week. I tried to negotiate on the user's talk page but got nowhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • follow-up - Special:Contributions/Wintryce - obvious sock of User:Fonsy74 who was blocked this morning. Would you also please block the sock, and would you please consider protecting the article? Thanks. (Note - I posted this first at :EdJohnston's talk page here. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Follow up, Fonsy74 acknowledged here that their use of a sock was wrong and has apparently abandoned that account as they stopped using it after that. It should be indeffed, if anybody wants to do that. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Deffrman reported by User:Onel5969 (Result:36h )[edit]

Page: Sukhumi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deffrman (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. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
  8. [8]
  9. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Deffrman#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sukhumi#Edit-warring by Deffrman

Comments:

Several editors have tried to explain this poor behavior through the edit summaries and on the talk page. All to no avail. Onel5969 TT me 04:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Deffrman reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11] 03:48, 10 March 2016
  2. [12] 03:50, 10 March 2016
  3. [13] 03:57, 10 March 2016
  4. [14] 03:58, 10 March 2016
  5. [15] 04:05, 10 March 2016‎
  6. [16] 04:06, 10 March 2016
  7. [17] 04:10, 10 March 2016
  8. [18] 04:13, 10 March 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:
No fewer than four editors have had to revert his contentious edits, which remove https from link and adds pictures that are entirely too large for the infobox. Additionally, he is editing another editor's comments (mine) on his talk page to make it seem as if I am saying the opposite of what I wrote — blatantly misrepresenting another editors. [21]]

User:VanEman reported by User:Debresser (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Western Wall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tallit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) <br/ ) Tefillin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: VanEman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diffs of the user's reverts at Western Wall:

  1. [22] First addition
  2. [23] Revert of undo
  3. [24] Another revert of undo

Then he started to add the same Tallit:

  1. [25] First addition of material that was contested at Western Wall
  2. [26] Revert of undo

And here at Tefillin:

  1. [27] First addition
  2. [28] Another picture after the first was removed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

On his talkpage: [29], [30] In discussion: [31]

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk pages: Talk:Western_Wall#Photos_of_the_Wall_and_gender_discrimination, Talk:Tefillin#Tefillin_and_the_Western_Wall Talk:Tefillin#Tefillin_and_the_Western_Wall

Comments:
VanEman has huge POVs, every few months a new one, which various editors have told him on numerous occasions. His talkpage shows a lot of edit war warnings. This editor is a hothead who edit wars about all kinds of subjects in Judaism related areas. I recommend of temporal block and a topic ban from Judaism-related ares. This editor has proven himself to be unable to participate in community editing. We, the other editors active in the field, have tried to reason with him, he will not improve his behavioral problems. It is now time to say goodbye to this editor, at least in the field where he has proven he can not keep cool. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks — MusikAnimal talk 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I was just going to comment that I don't see much, if any, edit warring here. The edits were sequential and when reverted, it was not always the same content that was replaced. Am I missing something? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Reverts can not be sequential. There is always an undo in the middle.
Please also note that "3RR" means three reverts, not necessarily of the same edit.
The edits were analogous, even if they weren't identical.
The point I am trying to make is that this editor is a POV edit warrior, and unfit for editing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: please comment — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mezzi10 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Libby Schaaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mezzi10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC) to 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 17:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 05:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"
  2. 17:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"
  3. 17:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Promo fluff */ reply"
Comments:

Editor repeatedly inserting promotional material to an active politician's page, previously blocked for socking to enter this material. Ongoing problem, and the editor refuses to discuss. Scr★pIronIV 18:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for soapboxing and edit warring, with no engagement on the talkpage at all. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Adamstraw99 reported by User:Ankisur2 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Template:Astra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamstraw99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_%28weapon%29&action=history

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]19:59, 10 march 2016
  2. [diff]16:09, 10 march 2016
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_%28weapon%29&action=history Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]19:59, 10 March 2016

Comments:

The user is posting personal opinions calling them "general view" and deleting sourced material.He has been duly warned in the edit summary page,but continues to edit without referencing and deleting materials that have been referenced.

User:Herakliu reported by User:Zoupan (Result: )[edit]

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


User insists on returning "In the 7th century AD, there is a reference to the "Ducagini de Arbania" on a Bosnian manuscript; the clan of the Dukagjini were engaged in a quarrel with the Byzantine Empire after stirring up a revolt in Bosnia." to the article, when this has been refuted on the talk page (see main discussion here). The faulty assertion was removed on 1 January 2016, an IP reverted it, but was reverted by another user, the article being stable until the coming of Herakliu, who sneak-added it on 10 March. The user refuses to acknowledge that the "Ducagini" were first mentioned in 1281, and Albania in the 11th century, and that the faulty assertion has its origin in an alleged 14th-century manuscript which lists a number of South Slavic princes, none of whom existed (one lived for over 200 years). The manuscript is not used in scholarship.--Zoupan 07:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3

Comments:


To the attention of the administrators or mods, Zoupan's and Alexikoua's reverts are plain and simple unencyclopedic, based on mere personal opinions and dislike of the state of facts. Zoupan said the source was refuted but I can't see any refusal from his side except that of "It can't be put", that is hardly an argument. The source is accepted by Makushev, Hammond and Gegaj therefore I really cannot understand how this cannot go in wikipedia. Herakliu (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain once again. Makushev (1837—1883) published a transcription of, according to him, a 14th-century manuscript. This "ancient manuscript" enumerates the South Slavic states and Albania (meaning, centuries before the actual first mentions of these!), "Bosnian kings" (none of which existed, one lives for over 200 years) and various fictitious tales. The manuscript is not used in historiography or scholarship. Do I really need to explain this? Gegaj only makes mention of the entry on "Ducagini d'Arbania", while Hammond, likewise, mentions it. It is nowhere stated that this was a historical fact. As explained here:
  • Memoirs of the American Folk-lore Society 44. American Folk-lore Society. 1954. p. 64 (footnote 1). Gegaj writes further on this page that, according to the same source (published by Makushev), in the seventh century already the Dukagjini ("Dukagjini dAlbania") had fomented a revolt in Bosnia, particularly in Dubrovnik, but they had to retreat after a defeat, inflicted by the Bosnian lords. Indeed, it is in 1281 that Gin Tanusio (ducem Qinium Tanuschum) carries this title for the first time. 

I really cannot understand how this would go in wikipedia.--Zoupan 10:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are repeating again and again that the document is in 14th century, thing that doesn't minimally nick the sopposed validity of the same (in fact it is explained that it is a copy of a more ruined one). But apart from that, the datation of the source isn't even that relevant, because a chronolgy of events (with years!) is written in it. And it doesn't mention "Slavic States" but a single one, that is the (obviously the earlest) kingdom of Bossina. The 130 years thing (not 200, learn to count, or better learn to not falsify) can simply be explained as an error in writing 5 instead of 6 from the writer of the text (it's just really a single mistake because all the narration is coherent and realistic). The trivia about Gin Tanusio is irrelevant. And again for the last time, Makushev and Hammond agrees in the veridicity of the source! Herakliu (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Learn to identify Reliable Sources and stop adhering to pseudohistory.--Zoupan 12:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
You are not saying anything relevant or useful. You made 4-5 desperate points, all of wich don't have any specific meaning or effects against the document. Herakliu (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
...right, like "can simply be explained as an error" and "coherent and realistic"? Haha, crazy.--Zoupan 14:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Aidepikiwnirotide reported by User:UCaetano (Result: )[edit]

Page
Achaemenid Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aidepikiwnirotide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "Yes, I had added 6 credible reference and You "deleted" "two times" all of them. It's you who need to mention your reason to delete theses credible references on talk page."
  2. 14:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "Look at the references!, Btw you cannot "delete" credible references. Your problem is other thing ! ... What does "Achaemenid Iran" mean? You cannot "distort" the history!"
  3. 18:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Not the first time he's done it, warned a few times, and been blocked recently for it. UCaetano (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And apparently he decided to report me here, copying my exact report, as you can see below, including listing him as the user reported. UCaetano (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Not the first time either he has filed a bogus case here as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:UCaetano reported by User:Aidepikiwnirotide (Result: )[edit]

Page
Achaemenid Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aidepikiwnirotide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "Yes, I had added 6 credible reference and You "deleted" "two times" all of them. It's you who need to mention your reason to delete theses credible references on talk page."
  2. 14:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "Look at the references!, Btw you cannot "delete" credible references. Your problem is other thing ! ... What does "Achaemenid Iran" mean? You cannot "distort" the history!"
  3. 18:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user had deleted two times 6 credible references regardless their contents.Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: )[edit]

Page: Ford Pinto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HughD (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. Material restored to section lead [32], and reverted when page lock was lifted [33]
  2. Restoring the Feb section title that was unilaterally changed by HughD [34], HughD changing section title [35]
  3. New content added here [36], Removal of some of that content [37], adding an attribution in order to downplay the content [38]
  4. Added content [39], adding attribution in order to downplay content [40]
  5. Added content [41], and again trying to down play the source [42]

Edit: Additional reversions after this warning

  1. Added material including statement "worst-case" [43], removed with claim not in source [44] (statement is in source, page 41, end of 2nd complete paragraph on page) Springee (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User if familiar with edit warring definition. Link to notice of this posting [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Once the article was locked HughD swamped the talk page with comments. [46]

Comments:
Due to HughD's previous 6RR, the article was locked for 3 days. [47]

Greglocock, a long term editor on the Pinto page has noted HughD's unwillingness to work with other editors. [48] "You seem to be polite but largely incapable of answering a straight question or making a coherent point. ", "'HughD' please do not interleave comments it is deprecated behavior and you can and will get pulled up for it, as I have in the past. I can rarely understand your logic at the best of times." The latter interleaving of another editor's comments after I asked HughD not to do the same thing 4 times (example [49]).

Hugh has made an enormous number of edits to the article in a short period of time. Common sense would suggest most could have been done in his sandbox then added to the article. Since March 2nd, including a 3 day window when no edits were allowed, the editor has added 255 edits. [50]

HughD has accused me of following him to articles [51]. HughD does not have a history of editing automotive related articles. I've been involved in the Pinto page since last year with most of my involvement starting in January of this year. After a recent editorial interaction on an ExxonMobil related page, HughD decided to follow me to the Ford Pinto article. This seems like the behavior of an editor who is looking for a fight rather than someone who wants to be left alone.

One needs only look at the difference in talk page etiquite and civility before and after HughD's arrival to understand how HughD's behavior towards other editors and their concerns is problematic. This problematic behavior is part of a pattern that can be seen in the editor's block history.

I would ask that the editor be topic blocked, narrowly defined to the Ford Pinto article for a period of time deemed appropriate.


Agree- topic blockThe fundamental issue is that “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” :- Alberto Brandolini . HughD makes many tens of edits in a day on a single article, and uses misleading edit summaries, so even tracking what is happening, never mind sorting it out, is a Sysiphean task. Greglocock (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I idly note that in 12 hours after the article was unlocked he made 60 edits to the article and its talk page. QED. Greglocock (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Xismrd reported by User:Midas02 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Pantheon-Sorbonne University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xismrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56]
  5. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments: Despite multiple warnings by myself and C.Fred, this user keeps on reverting his preferred edit without making any attempt whatsoever in engaging in a discussion. I tried to put it off for a while, but the message just doesn't seem to sink in. --Midas02 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


User just reverted again.[60] I've invited them to self-revert and discuss at the talk page.[61] —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kindzmarauli reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: diff OK with me, or diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff reverting me
  2. diff reverting me
  3. diff reverting me
  4. diff reverting QuackGuru
  5. dif reverting QuackGuru
  6. dif reverting QuackGuru

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, deleted, warned again here by Jeraphine Gryphon

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and here.

Comments:
I took the time to build this case, but the user has now said they have unwatchlisted the article. originally with this unpleasant statement, which was removed by Quackguru here per WP:NPA I reckon; the user restored it then edited it to make it unobjectionable. I suspect that they have indeed unwatchlisted this. Because I took the time to do all this, I am finishing it. I expect this to be closed with no action, but I will cite it if they start up again. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment This is the third notice board you've forum-shopped, including the one where you accused me of having "advocacy issues". I wonder which others are out there you can report me to? The idea of one person edit-warring is hilarious. Three of those reverts were yours and three of them were QuackGuru's. Have you reported yourselves? Or is this yet another way for you to win your war on my attempts to keep the article stable while it was at AfD, and to prevent people from poisoning the well with their COI templates? LOL. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the only place where I have dealt with your edit warring, and as I said, I expect this to be closed with no action. the posting at WP:COIN was to deal with apparent COI of the other editor, and yes I did that because you were contesting the analysis. I have not posted to any other board. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Loverboy156 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Indeffed sock)[edit]

Page
Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Loverboy156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC) "You are in the wrong here. It doesn't violate the crystal ball policy, because while we don't know the track names, we DO know how many tracks there are. I attempted to do this on the 7/27 page, and someone reverted it back for this reason."
  2. 04:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC) "Livelikemusic, you need to be consistent here. 7/27 (Fifth Harmony album) has the exact same thing; one song has been revealed, and the rest are "Track #", so it can't be both ways."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 23:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC) to 23:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 23:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "7/27 by Fifth Harmony also only has one song revealed, and the tracklist is shown there, so this needs to be consistent."
    2. 23:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User was just warned about edit-warring and discussing before reverting again; user seems to have a borderline battleground behavior and a sock-puppet investigation has been opened against them, as I do believe them to be a problematic user who has had the same kind of issues in the past when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. Should be noted that the you do not need to do three-reverts in order to violate the 3RR; it is simply a noted guideline, but not a complete following of the rule, and given this user's edit-history, this is going to be an on-going problem. livelikemusic talk! 04:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I've indefinitely blocked Loverboy156 as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Livelikemusic reported by User:Loverboy156 (Result: Filer indeffed)[edit]

Page
Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Livelikemusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC) "Listing "Track 1" and "Track 2" is inconsistent. No need to list an incomplete tracklist."
  2. 04:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC) "Per the crystal-ball policy unless track is definitive, it violates. Take to talk page before reverting per BRD."
  3. 23:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC) You've been warned about edit-warring. Reporting you now. You seem to not be here to edit constructively.
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User and I have been edit-warring against each other. They asked me to discuss it with them, and when I attempted to do so, they removed my message. User is unapproachable, and seems to approach things with a battleground behavior. Loverboy156 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a complete retaliated report against me, with same excuses given to them, and given the suspicion of sock-puppetry, the edits are completely acceptable. To avoid potential problems I have chosen to not interact with the suspected sock, given their extreme dislike for me (see the current report and its history, as I've been told to "fuck off", among other things by the main sock account that I am suspecting the new user(s) to be joined under. Not to mention, this report is completely cut-paste from my own report above as the "diffs" are the reporting user's own edits. livelikemusic talk! 05:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I never told you to f*** off... and if your edits are acceptable, why aren't mine? Reverts are reverts, it doesn't matter if you think it was acceptable. You made three reverts within one day, which means you were edit-warring. I can't believe even after you clealy broke the rules, you have the audacity to report me, and deny that you yourself broke the rule. I may get blocked, but you are going to get blocked as well, whether you think you were wrong or not. Loverboy156 (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, as explained above, as I believe to you be a suspected sock, it's off of past experiences, and reverts were made under the suspicion that you are, in fact, a sock puppet. Again, feels like a very personal retaliated report right now. I have modified my post above to clarify my intentions. The fact Wikipedia Admins have to deal with this is just sad. livelikemusic talk! 05:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I should also mention, user is clearly paranoid. I don't mean that as an insult, but one other user came on and made a revert against him as well, and he claimed we were the same person (hence the sock-puppet investigation that is currently going on). User has a hard time considering that they're wrong. Instead, they choose to attack others and accuse them of being the same person. Even if the other user and I were the same person, both me and Livelikemusic were edit-warring, so blocking both of us from editing would be the obvious thing to do here. However, I don't like the way Livelikemusic went about attacking me and accusing me of things. They need to learn to be more mature and calm about things like this. Loverboy156 (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, they have to deal with it because you reported it. It also wouldn't have gotten this far if you would've just talked it out with me. I have nothing against you, and I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's a personal retaliated report. What did I say that was person, other than that you seem paranoid (which I said after you made that comment). All I did was report you for edit-warring (which you did do, even though you still deny it). Nothing about that is personal. Loverboy156 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I've indefinitely blocked the filer as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160312145103/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR

Leave a Reply