Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:92slim reported by User:Triptothecottage (Result: No violation)
- Page
- Bernard Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 92slim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet"
- 07:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet - speak for yourself"
- 07:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet"
- 06:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet - no I will not"
- 06:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet again - new SPA"
- 06:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet"
- 06:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759452996 by Oo Eddie oO (talk)"
- 06:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv - discuss in TP"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Article has been discussed on talk page before edit began between this user and Oo Eddie oO. Please note: I am not entirely sure which, if either, editor is to blame and I think the case requires the attention of experienced editors with WP:BLP expertise.
I am aware that I have not made any warnings to either editor, but as I say I am not sure where to direct warnings and I think this case needs attention before it spills over again. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Triptothecottage: I was reverting a suspected sockpuppet of User:Delotrooladoo. Edits by sockpuppets are to be reverted. For more info on the investigation, see here. --92slim (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- @92slim: Ok. Sorry I didn't notice; I came from Recent Changes and just got confused. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Triptothecottage: No problem, please remove this box. --92slim (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment from involved editor: I have no comment on the edit war with Oo Eddie oO, whose SP investigation is still ungoing, but I'd like to use this forum to ask for some help from uninvolved editors with the dispute on Bernard Lewis, where I've been fighting an uphill battle trying to have a policy-based discussion on including contentious material in a BLP lead. 92slim seems intent on labeling Lewis and a number of other scholars "genocide denier", and in this case in the lead, despite getting no support and consistent opposition from multiple editors (no matter how you count the socks). Eperoton (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, you're the one not getting any support. All of these that you call consistent opposition are obvious socks: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Perhaps, come up with something better and actually discuss in the TP. --92slim (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- You've gotten opposition from me, TheTimesAreAChanging and IPs from different countries. You've gotten no support. As for insunuating that I'm not "actually" discussing on the TP, I'll invite the others to take a look at Talk:Bernard_Lewis#Genocide denial and shake their heads. Eperoton (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Eperoton, here is support (for 92slim). The academic views of Bernard Lewis on the Armenian Genocide are contentious (he denies it was a genocide) - these views go against academic consensus, numerous individuals and organizations have criticized his position, and numerous sources have written about that position. The fact that a person's opinions are contentious is not the same as contentious material. I will continue this on the article's talk page, at your invitation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Those IPs from different countries are the suspected one use sockpuppet IPs and the weird newly created user that I mentioned above. You have not really got consensus. It's you against me (Since TheTimesAreAChanging is not even there). I invite everyone to see how User:Eperoton is being so partisan about suspected sock IPs. I shake my head instead now. --92slim (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Update - sock confirmed here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Delotrooladoo. --92slim (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- You've gotten opposition from me, TheTimesAreAChanging and IPs from different countries. You've gotten no support. As for insunuating that I'm not "actually" discussing on the TP, I'll invite the others to take a look at Talk:Bernard_Lewis#Genocide denial and shake their heads. Eperoton (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I think there is almost nothing to see here. 92slim was technically in the wrong by repeatedly reverting an (at the time) unproven sock, but in this case it was so obviously a sock (a newly created account, editing just a single article, repeating the editing aim of proven socks who had either also worked on that same article or who had tried the same editing aims on similar articles) that this is not a serious infraction in my opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
92slim, I have a question that relates to an edit on a different page, but it seems to me to be a similar issue to those described above, in a similar time frame. Please can I ask for the basis of your claim here that Carlotm is a sockpuppet? I am not saying you are wrong or right, I just don't see a basis for that claim, and it might be helpful for other editors to assess the merits of that edit - especially in the light of the discussion above - if you could provide one. Thanks for your help. zazpot (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I also don't think Carlotm is a spa. However, they jumped into an article on a contentious subject straight after a series of IP edits that probably are spa, and, in a single edit, done without any prior talk page discussion, reworded or reordered large sections of the text, accompanied with a completely inadequate edit summary for such a major edit. So, in the context, I think it would be easy to confuse Carlotm with that earlier IP editor or the editing style of a spa. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am not a sockpuppet. 92slim is getting too excited and most likely didn't even read my changes, which, mostly, were not about content but about text flow, a more logical one and with less repetitions. If I reused a flawed text and ref (Simele massacre), which I did just by unlucky chance (I work offline), 92slim should have corrected it and not reverted everything and, on top of it, with a false assertion. It is absurd the suggestion by Tiptoethrutheminefield that I should have opened a discussion for changes not affecting the content. He should look at it and consider if the result is a better text or not. Unless he want to hibernate Wiki pages, which is not a good idea, given their average current condition. Carlotm (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think it is almost impossible to consider if the result is a better text or not. The diff [9] reveals you made substantial changes, and the differences are so spread out throughout the article that it is very difficult to identify what is new content, what is rearranged content, and what is reworded content, let alone assess whether all or part of that newness, rearrangement or rewording was a good thing. Such a substantial amount of change shouldn't be done to any article in just a single edit, let alone one on a contentious subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Tiptoethrutheminefield, I edited the lede and the "Etymology" chapter only. So you cannot say that my changes "are so spread out throughout the article". It is not a difficult task to read about lede and "Etymology" twice, the preceding version and mine. And there is no new content at all, except for the substitution of a CBS interview with Raphael Lemkin, not available anymore, with an UN interview with the same personage. I also removed one of three identical etymology explanations. All the rest is rewording and rearranging, sometimes in depth rewording having to overcome incomprehensible passages (there is a {{clarify|reason=Whole para is confused}} tag). For the lede, I changed the wording of the initial para, which was, and still is, thanks to 92slim, not even in correct English. In the last sentence of the lede I added the name of Lemkin, absurdly absent, and substituted a long list of historical massacres with a plain Wikilink to the page where everything can be conveniently assessed. Even if I made some mistakes they didn't warrant a reversion and could have been easily adjusted punctually. For these pages where guardians and owners are in the majority a notice should be put above the lede warning willing editors not to waste their time by trying to make improvements. Carlotm (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- My point remains - that is a lot of different editing aims to be incorporated into just a single edit, and I think the resulting complexity of the diff makes it unreasonably difficult for other editors to assess the quality of the edit in whole or in its individual parts (for articles on controversial subjects it is important that editors do such assessments). I think it would have been better if these changes had been done through several edits, each having its own edit summary explanation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Tiptoethrutheminefield, I edited the lede and the "Etymology" chapter only. So you cannot say that my changes "are so spread out throughout the article". It is not a difficult task to read about lede and "Etymology" twice, the preceding version and mine. And there is no new content at all, except for the substitution of a CBS interview with Raphael Lemkin, not available anymore, with an UN interview with the same personage. I also removed one of three identical etymology explanations. All the rest is rewording and rearranging, sometimes in depth rewording having to overcome incomprehensible passages (there is a {{clarify|reason=Whole para is confused}} tag). For the lede, I changed the wording of the initial para, which was, and still is, thanks to 92slim, not even in correct English. In the last sentence of the lede I added the name of Lemkin, absurdly absent, and substituted a long list of historical massacres with a plain Wikilink to the page where everything can be conveniently assessed. Even if I made some mistakes they didn't warrant a reversion and could have been easily adjusted punctually. For these pages where guardians and owners are in the majority a notice should be put above the lede warning willing editors not to waste their time by trying to make improvements. Carlotm (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think it is almost impossible to consider if the result is a better text or not. The diff [9] reveals you made substantial changes, and the differences are so spread out throughout the article that it is very difficult to identify what is new content, what is rearranged content, and what is reworded content, let alone assess whether all or part of that newness, rearrangement or rewording was a good thing. Such a substantial amount of change shouldn't be done to any article in just a single edit, let alone one on a contentious subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am not a sockpuppet. 92slim is getting too excited and most likely didn't even read my changes, which, mostly, were not about content but about text flow, a more logical one and with less repetitions. If I reused a flawed text and ref (Simele massacre), which I did just by unlucky chance (I work offline), 92slim should have corrected it and not reverted everything and, on top of it, with a false assertion. It is absurd the suggestion by Tiptoethrutheminefield that I should have opened a discussion for changes not affecting the content. He should look at it and consider if the result is a better text or not. Unless he want to hibernate Wiki pages, which is not a good idea, given their average current condition. Carlotm (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- No violation, reverts of a sock. Please use the article's talk page to continue your unrelated content dispute. Kuru (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
User:TaerkastUA reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Taiwanese cross-Strait relations referendum, 2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TaerkastUA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Over the last couple of weeks, TaerkastUA has done little else on Wikipedia except repeatedly attempted to change wording in this article to avoid using the words Taiwan and China or refer to Taiwan as the Republic of China, despite the fact that the articles on those countries are at their respective titles. This has consisted of a range of outright reverts and partial reverts, several of which reintroduced incorrect links to articles that had been moved.
I have repeatedly asked them to take their dispute elsewhere and stop edit warring, culminating in a note that they would be reported if they continued to makes these edits (the last edit above prompted this report)
Comments:
I don't disagree that I've been edit warring on this particular article, and it has gotten out of hand, as has the reporting user, however, the diffs do show that my attempts at compromise were repeatedly ignored, and their reporting as to my reasoning is factually incorrect. I did not try to change article titles, merely introduce the formal titles, but leaving the common names in tact. As can be seen in those diffs as well. If blocked, I will accept it, but I have stated my case and I am not the only guilty party to this.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Result: Blocked 31 hours for long-term edit warring at Taiwanese cross-Strait relations referendum, 2004. Seven reverts since 31 December. Having our article on Taiwan/ROC be at the name "Taiwan" has been endorsed in move discussions, and it is implausible that we would use different names to refer to that country in different articles. User:TaerkastUA would need a strong consensus to overturn our current naming of that country. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Byates5637 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Vaxxed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Byates5637 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- diff 15:09, 12 January 2017, edit note: "NPOV"
- diff 00:30, 13 January 2017, Edit note: "Discredited it a subjective descriptor that clearly violates impartial tone in WP:NPOV"
- diff 00:50, 13 January 2017, edit note: "Please stop trying to edit war with me and let me improve this"
- Diff of notice of Discretionary Sanctions on PSCI: diff (note their response to the DS alert)
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Vaxxed#.22Discredited.22 where they have not responded.
Comments:
This is a documentary advocating pseudoscience, and we get people who come and aggressively want to "balance" it. This is Byates5637's stated goal per their edit notes and this comment they made in a different section at Talk. Does not go over 3RR but obvious EW violation, especially in the context of DS. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- well, now they have, but it is a day late and a dollar short and not based at all on policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried to make very small improvements to both the tone and content of this article and Jytdog has continually reverted my contributions. Jytdog Is actually the one in violation of WP:3RR and is trying to block others from helping make the article better. I'm not a prolific wiki editor, but over the years when I come across a bad article I like to try and add my small contributions to help. This user seems to be trying to bully me into non-participation by leaving borderline threatening messages on my talk page and I'm frankly dumbfounded as to why they are doing this to me. Byates5637 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- You stumbled into a serious topic, as I have tried to tell you several times. If you understand a notice of DS as "threatening" there is nothing I can do about that. If you don't understand DS and why they exist, you should ask. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This editor Jytdog is now following me to different pages reverting everything I do. How do I make them stop? Byates5637 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) So Byates5637 just shifted to the Andrew Wakefield article which has been on my watchlist for a long time, to the discussion of Vaxxed there, and did:
- this, 13:52, 12 January 2017, edit note "Improving NPOV", removing word "propaganda" and was reverted by someone else,
- then this 01:50, 13 January 2017, to attribute "propaganda"
- this 01:58, 13 January 2017, reverting additional refs I had added.
The intention to keep trying to force a WP:GEVAL perspective into WP about Vaxxed is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I did not "shift" to that article. I was making contributions there since earlier today before you began stalking me and edit warring over every contribution I make. Byates5637 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- in light of inaction here, the emboldened Byates5637 just made this dramatic edit to Vaxxed. Promptly reverted by yet another person. Across the two articles, four different editors have reverted them. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear edit warring on both articles. I'm not sure why you chose to open an edit war on another article after already being reported here. Kuru (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
User:TenderNuke reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked 48hours)
- Page
- Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, 2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- TenderNuke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759812623 by Terabar (talk) are you mad? why you reverting my edits. FOOL!"
- Consecutive edits made from 07:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC) to 07:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- 07:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Bharatiya Janata Party */ Referenced article title clearly says their agenda is development."
- 07:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */ Reverted unnecessary formatting and data manipulation."
- Consecutive edits made from 16:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC) to 16:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- 16:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759684229 by Terabar (talk) Removal of irrelevant opinion poll."
- 16:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Cleanup article."
- 16:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759682578 by Terabar (talk) Stop posting irrelevant and politically motivated opinion polls."
- 16:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Removed irrelevant opinion poll."
- 15:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759666951 by Terabar (talk)"
- 14:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759662269 by Terabar (talk) Removed irrelevant opinion poll. Referenced article clearly says "opinion poll if election are held on March 16 2016"."
- 07:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism. Possible sock-puppetry. WP:SOCK"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
All my edits are well explained in their respective edit summaries. Constant vandalism and politically motivated edits by User:Terabar are unacceptable. TenderNuke (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- No. You were clearly removing the sourced content multiple times despite 3 warnings on your talk page. Terabar (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Many other users reverted Tender Nuke for constantly removing the well sourced content without explanation. See 1 2, 3 User: Jim1138 also warned him to not to do personal attacks. When he couldn't defend then he started calling me mad and fool. This user was warned 3 times on his talk page but he still started removing the sourced content which he doesn't like. Terabar (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- No. You were clearly removing the sourced content multiple times despite 3 warnings on your talk page. Terabar (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Terabar reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
- Page
- Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, 2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Terabar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by TenderNuke (talk) to last revision by Terabar. (TW)"
- 08:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 759775789 by Terabar (talk): Revert Vandalism. . (TW)"
- 02:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 759687483 by DVdm (talk): Revert. (TW)"
- 16:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759681825 by TenderNuke (talk) Stop removing sourced content. Revert."
- 15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759673134 by TenderNuke (talk) Revert Vandalism. Last Warning."
- 14:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Thanks for pointing out. The opinion poll was revealed on March 2016. Changed the dates and reverted."
- 13:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Re-add the opinion poll concerned with this election which was removed by Tender Nuke."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Thankyou User: Widr for allowing me to defend myself. I will defend myself in a polite and in a sincere manner. First of all in all of the above reported edits I was only reverting the removal of well sourced content. One can even see the history of this article. Many other users reverted Tender Nuke for constantly removing the well sourced content without explanation. See 1 2 3. User: Jim1138 also warned him to not to do personal attacks. When he couldn't defend then he started calling me mad and fool. This user was warned 3 times on his talk page but he still started removing the sourced content which he doesn't like. So in this manner I think that I shouldn't be blocked Terabar (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Terabar: You really shouldn't continue edit-warring even while you're at this noticeboard. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- User: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Okay. I was only reverting the removal of sourced content. With regards, Terabar (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think we all need to discuss on the talk page (or somewhere else outside the article) after three reverts. Anyways despite this, I think a warning would have been enough. Tropicalkitty (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- User: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Okay. I was only reverting the removal of sourced content. With regards, Terabar (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours This is the third edit warring block for the editor and the edit warring continued after this report. —SpacemanSpiff 09:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:Fram (Result: )
Page: Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [21] (first three reverts), [22] (fourth revert)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning directly, but the page was fully protected due to the first 3 reverts (a protection Pigsonthewing was aware of obviously), and the fourth revert followed the unprotection (edit summary: "Protection expired"). Pigsonthewing, a veteran editor who was in a distant past even blocked for a 3RR violation, is (or should be) aware of the policy. Fram (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Comments:
- This is a bean-counting (and pointed - see my & Fram's interactions on the talk page of that page) nomination. The former edits occurred after I (twice) raised the matter on the talk page, but was reverted without any comment there. The fourth edit is clearly in a different part of the non-article-space page, which has been rapidly edited by many people; on a different topic; and regarding a different editor. And all it did was mere housekeeping; restoring an edit which was removed as breaching a period of protection, after that protection had edited - I doubt the editor I reverted had any objection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Pointed" in the sense that I created a page where you started edit warring to remove opinions you don't agree with, even though the intention was explicitly to list different opinions? "Pointed" in the sense that you disrupt an attempt at open discussion about a subject you care about, trying to stifle arguments against your position and reinstating arguments for your position? Oh yes, it is very pointed from me. I notice that you used the same tactic in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 21#Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata where User:DePiep asked you to retract your personal attack. Fram (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Saleh Hamedi reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Protection)
Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saleh Hamedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 16:03, 11 January 2017
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:07, 12 January 2017
- 14:11, 12 January 2017
- 16:05, 12 January 2017
- 16:13, 12 January 2017
- 12:20, 13 January 2017
Diff of warning: 12:44, 12 January 2017
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 15:35, 12 January 2017
- 15:38, 12 January 2017
- 15:43, 12 January 2017
- 16:23, 12 January 2017
- 16:54, 12 January 2017
Comments:
There are lots of content removed without ANY discussion, such as:
- My well-sourced edit at 15:32, 12 January 2017
- "War" and "allies" in the Template:infobox war faction
- First sentence and the rest of the reliably sourced content in the lead
- Unexplained removal in membership section
- Removal of "Terrorism" from Template:Portal
I asked for case by case discussion at 15:30, 12 January 2017, but the user did not bring his explanations on the cases above in the talkpage. I asked for a WP:RSN discussion at 16:23, 12 January 2017, which the user did not comply with. Pahlevun (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Result: Protected. Due to concern about possible socking, I've placed the article under extended confirmed protection for one year. Several new accounts with no other interests and good knowledge of Wikipedia have sprung up to defend the group that is the subject of the article. This seems like too much of a coincidence. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
User:AlexMiller2 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: 48 hours)
- Page
- Guerra de ídolos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- AlexMiller2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC) "Cuál es el problema?"
- 00:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC) "No entiendo cual es el problema. Rubio forma parte del elenco principal, ella misma lo confirmo en su canal de YouTube y el equipo de producción también en su canal en YouTube por un comentario."
- 00:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC) "No entiendo tu problema, quiero aclararte algo, María León es la protagonista, nunca dije que no lo fuera. Segundo, Sheryl Rubio es la protagonista juvenil, así que entra en el elenco principal."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Guerra de ídolos. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The user does not listen to the messages in his discussion, recently EdJohnston protected the article by war of editions and I clearly tried to reach an agreement in the discussion of the same article, but evidently AlexMiller2 did not participate, to which I said that it would undo its edition already That the user did not have the slightest interest in clarifying the points, only manifested through editing war. Philip J Fry • (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
User:107.184.220.254 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Blocked)
Page: Terence Crawford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.184.220.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [28] – restored the redundant zeroes for draws and no-contests
- [29] – same
- [30] – same
- [31] – same; should've tripped 3RR
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]
Comments: IP:107.184.220.254 is edit warring against consensus (achieved in early 2016 at WikiProject Boxing, which resulted in MOS:BOXING) by inserting zeroes for draws and no-contests, which are redundant given the total number of fights vs. losses. Identical edits also being made repeatedly at Juan Díaz and Errol Spence.. and quite a few more now that they've gotten going. No edit summaries or talk responses. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
User:174.103.115.142 and User:74.135.90.179 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )
Page: Hangover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.103.115.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 74.135.90.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- diff 03:34, 13 January 2017, this is by IP 174.103.115.142
- diff 19:31, 13 January 2017 by IP 74.135.90.179
- diff 20:09, 13 January 2017 by IP 74.135.90.179
- diff 04:22, 14 January 2017 by 174.103.115.142 again
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff at 174.103.115.142 and diff at 74.135.90.179
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hangover#Korean_remedy
Comments:
This is a heavily spammed article. Latest is this person using 2 IP addresses promoting a Korean remedy now marketed by a US company. Determined to get WP:PROMO content into WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Suswaralakshmi reported by User:GSS-1987 (Result: Blocked)
Page: S. Aishwarya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Suswaralakshmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: old revision
'Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:05, 13 January 2017 (Added content)
- 17:24, 13 January 2017 (→Family: Added content)
- 17:31, 13 January 2017 (→Family: Added content from S.Aishwarya s website. Kindly do not remove any content!!)
- 22:21, 14 January 2017 (→Family: Added Content ~~~~SS)
Diff of edit warring: link and link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Talk:GSS-1987 and Yunshui talk page
Comments:
The user continuously adding unsourced material earlier removed by Meatsgains. I reverted his edit yesterday and warn the user on his talk page also explained him not to add unsourced contents in edit summary and on my talk page but I see no effect of warnings and suggestion and today the user left a message on Yunshui's talk page and made a false statement that he is adding contents after an agreement with me. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)