ThurnerRupert (talk | contribs) |
My very best wishes (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 513: | Line 513: | ||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive794 i asked here] for advise on how to best handle the [[Dokeos]] article, and it was proposed to bring it up here. [[User_talk:Antiochus|Antiochus]] reverted with a comment "advertisement for [[Chamilo]]" or similar three times. afaik it was first added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=458567702&oldid=447335430 by Acuna007], and removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=510727746&oldid=509325713 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=550357768&oldid=550312464 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=549840637&oldid=549840142 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=506586586&oldid=506476856 here]. i [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dokeos#History_of_Dokeos had a talk] with thomas de praetere, the author of dokeos and also editor of the article, about it as well. there were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=164521061&oldid=164520821 former reverts stating there is too much advertising in the dokeos article], which was my impression as well. i do not feel comfortable to touch this again - i did make my point (even more often then i should do) and somebody else did not like it, which is fair enough. if you could pls advise who should proceed how in such a case? or it is best to just leave it alone? --[[User:ThurnerRupert|ThurnerRupert]] ([[User talk:ThurnerRupert|talk]]) 10:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC) |
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive794 i asked here] for advise on how to best handle the [[Dokeos]] article, and it was proposed to bring it up here. [[User_talk:Antiochus|Antiochus]] reverted with a comment "advertisement for [[Chamilo]]" or similar three times. afaik it was first added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=458567702&oldid=447335430 by Acuna007], and removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=510727746&oldid=509325713 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=550357768&oldid=550312464 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=549840637&oldid=549840142 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=506586586&oldid=506476856 here]. i [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dokeos#History_of_Dokeos had a talk] with thomas de praetere, the author of dokeos and also editor of the article, about it as well. there were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokeos&diff=164521061&oldid=164520821 former reverts stating there is too much advertising in the dokeos article], which was my impression as well. i do not feel comfortable to touch this again - i did make my point (even more often then i should do) and somebody else did not like it, which is fair enough. if you could pls advise who should proceed how in such a case? or it is best to just leave it alone? --[[User:ThurnerRupert|ThurnerRupert]] ([[User talk:ThurnerRupert|talk]]) 10:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Polarscribe]] reported by [[User:My very best wishes]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Polarscribe}} |
|||
Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev&oldid=552832149] |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> |
|||
Diffs of the user's reverts: |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev&diff=552832387&oldid=552832149] 3;40, April 30 |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev&diff=552855040&oldid=552854261] 8:31 |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev&diff=552925896&oldid=552902719] 18:58 |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev&diff=552950604&oldid=552950366] 21;54 (see edit summary) |
|||
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev&diff=553028484&oldid=552996773] 11:57 May 1 |
|||
Not all reverts are reverts of the same text. Last, 5th revert fall outside the 24 hour period, but it shows that user intends to edit war despite the ungoing discussion. This is my argument to include information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev&diff=552992845&oldid=552975215]. This is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev&diff=553028810&oldid=553027905 his response]. This material is well sourced and does not fall under BLP exemption because people described in the removed segment are dead. |
|||
This user was previously blocked for 3RR violation. He knows what he is doing. |
|||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> |
|||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
Revision as of 12:26, 1 May 2013
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:173.238.2.246 reported by User:Skycycle (Result: Stale)
Page: List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.238.2.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:173.238.2.246
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2013#Constant_edits_by_IP
Comments:
The unregistered user has been constantly splitting two entries on the terrorist incident page related to the Boston bombings. The general consensus is that entries on terrorist incidents should be as short and precise as possible, and if the attack is significant enough and has its own WP article, then that is easily linked to so we keep the tables as short as possible. Consequently, the user has kept splitting the entries on the attack into 2 separate and very long (as well as unsourced) entries - one for the actual bombing and one for the ensuing manhunt. Not only has he kept reverting back to his version, but every time he does his for some reason part of the table goes missing and that also has to be fixed later, not to mention the missing links to other article, the wrong names of terrorist organizations and the amount of information that is being written twice for no specific reason. I posted a warning on the talk page of the article first, together with a personal link to it on the user's talk page - the result was yet another revert today, with the description "You give no reason for deleting terrorist incidents , I am in no mood to talk to you. This is a free editing site and I am posting correct incidents". Obviously, he is not very interested in either reading what others have said, or taking a look at how everyone else has edited these terrorist incident articles in the past.
Even though there have been only two reverts so far, and both were done in more than a 24-hour period, I have no clue where else to post this, and I'm tired of repeating the same stuff over and over again and opening WP just to find the article messed up again, with overly long attack descriptions, missing links, broken tables and no sources. The next revert is bound to pop up from around the corner, so let's hope this leads to some sort of resolution, whatever it may be. Skycycle (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Dgf96 reported by User:TEB728 (Result: 36 hour block)
Page: Dgf96 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dgf96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [4]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Scott Summers
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 36 hours JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
User:81.101.27.98 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: )
Page: Car classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.101.27.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 16:53, April 28, 2013 Undid revision 552610392 by Nasty
- Revision as of 17:17, April 28, 2013 Undid revision 552622459 by CZmarlin
- Revision as of 12:09, April 29, 2013 Undid revision 552629211 by CZmarlin (talk) Can you stop goddamn trolling!
- Latest revision as of 13:46, April 29, 2013 Undid revision 552750395 by CZmarlin
- Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notice
- Attempts to resolve dispute on the summary edit comments seem to be ignored by this contributor. Moreover, the identical changes were previously done under a different account: User:82.1.231.59 as noted below:
- 1. Revision as of 14:24, April 28, 2013 Undid revision 552587975 by Nasty (talk) Stop trolling
- 2. Revision as of 15:18, April 28, 2013 Undid revision 552605494 by Nasty (talk) YOU CHEEKY SHIT!!!!!!! THE REASON I AM EDITING IS BECAUSE MOST MODELS ARE OUT OF PRODUCTION/NOT RECOGNIZED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User:TheVirginiaHistorian reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: )
Page: United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheVirginiaHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10] 15:51, 20 April 2013
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [11] 06:39, 29 April 2013 (no consensus to remove territories. see Talk)
- [12] 14:31, 29 April 2013 (→Political divisions: add sourced encyclopedic style, expansion, clarification)
- [13] 15:12, 29 April 2013 (include territories as geographic places and native-born persons in places, sourced)
- [14] 17:09, 29 April 2013 (Reverted 1 edit by Golbez (talk): The description of the US is sourced per discussion page. There is no backdoor. There is modern era counter source. (TW))
- [15] 21:12, 29 April 2013 (Undid revision 552761139 by Golbez (talk). No discussion at edit thread, no sources, reneging on previously agreed including "territories" a part of US per of dispute resolution page.)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16] 18:51, 29 April 2013
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]
Comments:
4 differences as reverts adding back "and territories". Another is the revision of a section about U.S. territories. TFD (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
TheVirginiaHistorian reply. As a newbie, I haven't figured out how to make the hot links to (diff) yet. Below are the 28 elements of the MISREPRESENTED edit war on the United States page between A - include territories and B - exclude territories. A = TVH, Gwillhickers, Collect and others. B = Golbez and TFD and others. Every source requirement demanded to "include territories" has been met: government, history, political science and law, primary executive, legislative and judicial, specific acts of legislation and Members of Congress for each territory. "Just quote one president". Okay, John F. Kennedy San Juan, PR, 1961. “…I am in my country… in America this afternoon. “ Barak Obama San Juan PR, 2011. “I include Puerto Rico… [Puerto Ricans] help write the American story... in our country’s uniform...” But reasonable editors say Obama cannot mean ‘our country’ is a part of the US. And so it goes.
Since 28 October 2012, I have attempted to place a sourced description of the US geographically, nationally, politically and constitutionally in the introduction of the United States article, reverted. --- Wikipedia approaches sequence by TVH --- community talks for geography and political science, third party and mediation --- As the discussion wore into March 2013, at dispute resolution, an accommodation was reached -- eight finding consensus language, TFD, who placed this edit war complaint, refused to admit US territories, regardless of the accommodating language. Gwhillickers brought the DRN language to the article by March 19, Golbez placed the final wording.
On April 3, Golbez determined he had made the article, he could unmake it, "I should not have implemented it." On April 20, Golbez found an unsourced revelation to exclude US territories from the US, and so he did. I reverted it because he has no sources, has found no comparable group of eight (Buzity for including, is inactive). It may be as simple as refusing to acknowledge the US is not 'we the states' but 'we the people' -- he says below, the US as a nation has no sovereignty, "the country IS the states". But that is a peculiarly arcane take on "Tucker's Blackstone" used to justify the Civil War by Jefferson Davis, not common usage in the modern era for an online encyclopedia. It is impossible to tell for sure, because there are no sources to say, "modern US territories are not a part of the US." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
|
|
|
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
All I see above is you admitting that you shirked the bold, revert, discuss cycle, then hypocritically warned me of an edit war that you yourself were engaging in. We've broken DRN, what dispute resolution will we break next? However, thank you for documenting that your (and yes, I do say your, since it's often you implementing non-consensus measures, and me reverting them) edit war has stretched back six months. Surely we could find a better use for our time. I know I did, that's why I've stopped generally talking to you. I'm fine with defending my actions in an appropriate forum, this is not it. --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Rangoon11 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )
Page: BP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [18]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [19] 20:26, 29 April 29 2013. "rv - crude attempts to turn this article into (even more of) an attack piece"
- [20] 20:30, 29 April 2013. "rv - this series of edits do not have consensus and drastically change the article"
- [21] 20:58, 29 April 2013. "Undid revision 552785956- attempt to force controversial large scale changes through edit warring - editing of the most cynical nature"
- [22] 21:25, 29 April 2013. "Undid revision 552788585 by Petrarchan47"
- [23] 21:40, 29 April 2013. "Undid revision 552790823 - complete contempt for very extensive talk page discussions, tag teaming, cynicism of the highest order"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:BP#Reversion_of_edits_of_past_two_days
Comments:
Rangoon11 edit warred with Coretheapple on 27 April [25][26] but then was away from the article and talk page for two days, during which time she was making many edits to other articles. Rangoon11 returned to BP today and immediately reverted five times, two of them being joined as one revert to make four total reverts. Rangoon11 could have participated in talk page discussion about building the article but chose not to do so. Ironically, Rangoon11 accuses other editors of edit warring and contempt for the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Was going to report this, Rangoon11 looks like he has done this before see block log here. YarisLife (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is unusual, not to say unlikely, that the first edit (except to put their name at the user page) by a new editor, just nine minutes after account creation, is a reporting of other editor at the ANI for edit warring. [27] It seems to be a SPI case. Beagel (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that YarisLife looks suspiciously like a sockpuppet. Let's not allow this side issue to lead us astray from the proper examination of Rangoon11's editing behavior. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- User:Rangoon11 has been vandalising Scottish company articles and categories for years, in blatant breach of official policy like WP:VERIFY. His aim seems to be to remove all and any references to Scotland or England / Scottish or English from every single company article (despite companies being legal entities, defined by their registration under Scots respectively English law), and to empty (out of process) Scottish company categories, circumventing WP:CFD. A total menace of an editor, made worse by an endless propensity for rude and abusive edit summaries. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- A recent flurry of edits is turning BP article into an attack site. Please compare it with the only FA on a large multinational company, Microsoft. The two articles a vastly different. Rangoon has bravely stuck his neck out in a attempt move the page towards being a good quality encyclopedia article rather than a list of 'everything bad we can find in a source anywhere to say about BP'. No administrative action is required. Maybe an RfC or a peer review or something else that focusses on encyclopedic quality is though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding the edits by Rangoon11, the battleground atmosphere around this article has been a long-time issue. The recent last three days massive edits have caused new tensions. The harsh comments and baseless accusations at the talk page does not help to improve the overall atmosphere. Therefore, the BP article needs more close 24/7 surveillance by admins.
- In addition, [serious accusations about paid editing] have been posted by user:Binksternet to the article's talk page and been echoed by some other editors at different user talk pages. This should be investigated very seriously as, if true, this is a violation of the Wikipedia's core principles. Otherwise, these accusations should be removed as non-constructive. Beagel (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm wondering how the report of a violation of 3RR, when those edits reverted corrections, agreed-upon changes and edits on behalf of the BP PR dept, has attracted comments about the editor reporting the issue and false claims about the overall dynamics of the page. FYI, the BP page has a good degree of content written word for word by BP, and the editors were asked to comb through all of this and work towards balance. We are now persecuted for it with labels of "battleground" and "attack site". As for the subject of this investigation, her edits were reckless and were made with no regard for the activity on the talk page or to the article itself. That is the issue at hand. petrarchan47tc 18:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I personally am not out for blood, nor do I think anyone else who has had difficulties with this editor feels that way either, although I do note that apparently BP is not the only article where he has edit-warred, judging from the comment about the Scottish articles. What does concern me is that he was asked to self-revert, he did not, and now is back in the article talk page and shows no indication of a change of heart. Also, Petrarchan's point is correct. I could go on and on about how I don't like the atmosphere of that article and a number of other articles on Wikipedia. There was one particular edit yesterday that I found especially tendentious. So what? That's not why we're here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
User:HomoByzantinus reported by User:RJFF (Result: )
Page: Attack (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HomoByzantinus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [28]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]
Comments:
Since his/her registration, User:HomoByzantinus has almost only edited articles related to this Attack party or its leader, deleting content that disagreed with the party's POV (even if it is backed by sources) and adding content that promotes the POV of the party (even though it is not supported by reliable sources). HomoByzantinus never explains or discusses his/her edits. I have tried to explain our policies (verifiabilty, NPOV) to this editor since February 2012, without any success. HomoByzantinus has continued edit warring even after Snowded warned him/her and expressly invited him/her to discussion. --RJFF (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Northamerica1000 (Result: No block)
Page: Fine art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Canberra Marathon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Fine art: Previous version reverted to: [35]
- Canberra Marathon: Previous version reverted to: [36]
- Island: Previous version reverted to: [37]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52], [53], [54].
Comments:
Please also see the discussion occurring at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement, section: "Bot was reverted earlier today on run, so {{TAFI}} tags are not on articles" and at User talk:Beyond My Ken#Why the reverts?. Editors had asked the individual to stop, but they just continued. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand why NA1000 opened a AN3 report after posting a warning on my talk page [55], since I did not make any of these edits subsequent to the warning. The purpose of the warning is to give the warned editor the opportunity to change their behavior before seeking any sanctions against them, so filing a report when there has been no edits afterwards seems a bit ... battlegroundish. Also I'm concerned that NA1000 and his project affiliates do not understand the principle behind WP:BRD, in which articles are to be kept in the state they were in before the contentious edit (the addition of the unnecessary, frivolous and non-consensus tag to various articles) while discussion is ongoing, and the edit which is being discussed should not be continuously returned to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- While the decision to implement TAFI was done after long discussion and consensus, Beyond My Ken's actions were based on ignorance and continued (deliberate) intention to revert rather than discuss, despite being repeatedly asked to come to discuss the topic. He was the one initiating "bold", and never came to "discuss". TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Any decision to allow WikiProjects to add their own tags to articles (as opposed to talk pages) needs to be agreed to by the entire community, not by discussions here or there, which is why I am asking for a well-publicized community-wide RfC, which discussion I will be glad to participate in. Participating in a discussion on a WikiProject page is non-productive, as no project has the authority to make such a major change in the way we deal with articles.
As for "Bold", TOS is confused: the use of the word in WP:BRD is a term of art, and refers to any edit which another editor disagrees with. It has nothing to do with whether the WikiProject NA1000 and TOS are involved in is making a "bold" change. Tags were Boldly added to articles by a bot employed by the WikiProject, I Reverted them for the reasons given, and then Discussion takes place, without further reversions of the contentious edit. Instead, the Bold tag addition was reverted back into the article, in opposition to the intention of WP:BRD, which NA1000 and TOS would do well to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Any decision to allow WikiProjects to add their own tags to articles (as opposed to talk pages) needs to be agreed to by the entire community, not by discussions here or there, which is why I am asking for a well-publicized community-wide RfC, which discussion I will be glad to participate in. Participating in a discussion on a WikiProject page is non-productive, as no project has the authority to make such a major change in the way we deal with articles.
- While the decision to implement TAFI was done after long discussion and consensus, Beyond My Ken's actions were based on ignorance and continued (deliberate) intention to revert rather than discuss, despite being repeatedly asked to come to discuss the topic. He was the one initiating "bold", and never came to "discuss". TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not blocked It appears that the edit warring has stopped for the time being, so blocking is not necessary. Beyond My Ken, understand that you will be blocked if you revert again. Though for Northamerica1000 and TheOriginalSoni, it may be a good idea to revisit the discussion and bring in the whole community by posting on WP:CENT, WP:VPP, etc. Personally I keep an eye on a lot of things here, but I never heard of such a discussion myself, which kind of indicates that it was not advertised well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- @KOH: I understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- KOH, I see no reason for this discussion to occur again. It's in the VPR archives at least twice and has been on the main page talk page for a while. If editors are unaware of a discussion at VPR, they can't complain about the outcome of that discussion. VPR and VPP are both pages that everyone should have watchlisted because that is as widespread as they get. WP:CENT is nice, but unnecessary. Ryan Vesey 05:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose my most recent point is moot anyways CENT addition. Ryan Vesey 05:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
IranitGreenberg reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: )
Page: Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IranitGreenberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [56]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [57]
- [58]
- [59] Here's at least one revert in yet another whole set of edits by this editor done a couple hours ago, within the 24 hour period and since this report made; doubtless more in that set. (Added by: CarolMooreDC🗽 03:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC))
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]
Comments:
Article is in the IP topic area and subject to 1rr restrictions. User has been warned multiple times for violating 1rr regulations in several articles. He could have been reported on a number of previous occasions. I have brought this here because it seems clear the editor has no intention of following the rules in the topic area or using the talk page to resolve content disputes. Dlv999 (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Finally when we are reaching a kind of agreement, you report me. It is very dishonest. I didn't violate 1RR rule in this article and I didn't even remove the controversial content this time, I just added a few more references and recovered some three images. For more information see here and the talk page.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- The images you "recovered" were previously removed by other editors, so that's a revert, the second one you have made today. 1rr rules are not optional. Dlv999 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, I didn't revert anything. In fact, I leaved the controversial content since you recognized images are a different topic of discussion (you said: Kept all images, which is the only explanation for the deletion on talk). 1RR doesn't say I can't edit twice an article, only that I can't revert more than once per day.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- CarolmooreDC deleted the image, then you restored it - that is a revert, because you are undoing the actions of another editor. Dlv999 (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, I didn't revert anything. In fact, I leaved the controversial content since you recognized images are a different topic of discussion (you said: Kept all images, which is the only explanation for the deletion on talk). 1RR doesn't say I can't edit twice an article, only that I can't revert more than once per day.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
comment - iranit - you are right but also wrong. an edit and a revert might be the same thing and might not. dlv will gladly explain and show you which of your edits are reverts, and which are not. and once you understand that, i suggest following the rules. Soosim (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- IranitGreenberg was informed and then warned several times. There is not reason not to block him even more given he doesn't seem to be here to develop wikipedia but for other reasons. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, in any case RabeaMalah is not here to develop Wikipedia, but for other reasons (you didn't say nothing to him though). See this reversion and this one (breaking the 1RR rule, not for the first time) despite the issue was already discussed and agreed on the talk page a few days ago. See also this message and this blank.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
68.174.146.222
68.174.146.222 has been editwarring at Jackie Mason (changing his birth date) and going over 3RR by reverting 14 times in 3.5 hours (see contribs for evidence). I will notify them of this as soon as I save this edit here. King Jakob C2 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:Ronhjones for vandalism. + Crashdoom Talk 23:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
User:GDallimore reported by User:Damonthesis (Result: )
Page: Psychotronics and Psychotronic Weapons
User being reported: User:GDallimore
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychotronic_weapons&oldid=552942761
User:GDallimore has spent the entire morning removing historically significant information, sourced from US MIlitary, Government, and Russian government sources from the Psychotronics page, which purports to be about a single scientist, his "discovery" and the apparent lack of interest in it. Quite the contrary, there is a significant interest in the Russian Psychotronic weapons program, which has recently been re-ignited by Vladimir Putins 2012 comments about its funding. This is a 50 year old program, with zero presence on Wikipedia, yet this user has repeatedly censored it from the original article, and then completely erased the new Psychotronic weapons program on numerous occasions. He appears to be intentionally censoring this historically accurate and important information.
I am baffled as to why someone would attempt to remove these sources, which again, have come directly from U.S. Military publications, regarding the Russian program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GDallimore&diff=552946850&oldid=552942349
- Comment Damonthesis appears to be a POV warrior who has an agenda that mind control devices are real. They've been trying to add similar material at Stalking as an IP and under this account, and have argued tendentiously on the talkpage there. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I count four reverts on one topic at Psychotronics [62] [63] [64] [65] and now tag-warring. Much the same thing is happening at Psychotronic weapons. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- The weapons are real as is expressed in a number of properly cited Military and Government sources on Psychotronic weapons. Your viewpoint that they are not is exactly what the problem is. You have routinely violated WP:RS on Stalking in order to suppress the viewpoint in the already cited sources that the weapons are possibly real. Further research shows that they are most definitely real, and have been investigated by both the USSR, as well as the NSA and US Army.Damonthesis (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- (Comment from involved editor): yup - Having failed to spin the original article, Damonthesis has just created a POV-fork of Psychotronics at Psychotronic weapons, and seems determined to spin as many questionable sources as possible to back up dubious claims regarding 'mind-control weapons', while omitting the salient fact that much of this is pure tinfoil-hattery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, psychotronic weapons is a POV fork founded on sources Damonthesis was abusing at Stalking. As I've reverted his original IP and have (fruitlessly) engaged them there, I'm involved. I'd further note that this report appears to be aimed atGDallimore in retribution for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic weapons. Acroterion (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- This opinion, presented by Andy and Acroterion is contrary to all of the sources cited. The existence of the technology and research projects is unquestionable. It is supported in literature from the U.S. Army, and from the NSA. Were these users not attempting to remove these sources from the articles in question, that would be obvious. Instead, they insist on continually describing the possibility of the existence of well documented programs as delusional, contrary to any source cited.Damonthesis (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- The AfD request was made after numerous edit reversions, removing properly cited sources that simply did not agree with his, and your, personal opinion. It is in essence just another edit-reversion. The only thing being accomplished here is providing a biased and untruthful personal opinion in lieu of the source materials unbiased approach.Damonthesis (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, psychotronic weapons is a POV fork founded on sources Damonthesis was abusing at Stalking. As I've reverted his original IP and have (fruitlessly) engaged them there, I'm involved. I'd further note that this report appears to be aimed atGDallimore in retribution for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic weapons. Acroterion (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I count four reverts on one topic at Psychotronics [62] [63] [64] [65] and now tag-warring. Much the same thing is happening at Psychotronic weapons. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I feel no need to comment. Thanks to everyone else. GDallimore (Talk) 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just to chime in, GDallimore has now stalked my edits, reverting them for no reason on other unrelated pages. Damonthesis (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_code&oldid=552960442&diff=prev for his attempts to continue to start edit wars on completely unrelated pages, this user is malicious.Damonthesis (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I'm inclined to say that both sides have been pushing the boundaries a bit, Damonthesis appears to be POV pushing from their recent edits on the respectively reported pages. However, GDallimore also appears to be harassing Damonthesis on pages which they would not normally edit. I concur with Acroterion that it appears to be aimed in retribution for the AfD. Perhaps a short break for both editors from the articles they've engaged with each other on for a good day or so? If you both agreed to prohibit yourself from engaging with each other and actively warring, I'm sure this can be resolved and closed (Although I'm not an admin so my say holds no backing). + Crashdoom Talk 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- (Comment from an involved editor) I don't agree that GDallimore's actions are harassing. When you come across an editor who consistently abuses sources it's natural to try and clean up the mess they have left at other articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is a personal attack. I am not abusing sources, the information under question is properly cited, from reputable sources. You have continually accused me of "original research" yet everything being presented is truly in the source material. Meanwhile, the action in question is clearly not a "mess" it was an analysts published contribution to a discussion about Bible Code.Damonthesis (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing of the sort. Per WP:HARASSMENT: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- There was no error, and no violation of wikipedia policy, the multiple warned revisions were nothing short of malicious. Damonthesis (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing of the sort. Per WP:HARASSMENT: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is a personal attack. I am not abusing sources, the information under question is properly cited, from reputable sources. You have continually accused me of "original research" yet everything being presented is truly in the source material. Meanwhile, the action in question is clearly not a "mess" it was an analysts published contribution to a discussion about Bible Code.Damonthesis (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, guess I will have to chip in. This "harrassment" was exactly as LuckyLouie said - here we have an editor who has shown a clear inability to use sources properly. Three different editors have been telling him he is making improper syntheses from the sources and I am not the only person who has been undoing his edits - I was just the first to take a stand and say enough is enough, you are damaging the integrity of the articles and this will not be accepted. Nevertheless, every single one of my edits has been carefully considered and I have salvaged good sources that have been brought forward and attempted to use them in a neutral way without adding my own original research.
And yes, I went back over his edit history. This is something that MUST be done when you have an editor who is working on fringe articles because there is often insufficient editor coverage on those articles to double check the edits. If that is harrasssment or hounding then block me now because I will not stop trying to protect fringe articles from blatant POV-pushers. And what did I find in my background checks: A lengthy discussion and edit war at Stalking where Damonthesis (initally under an IP) was trying to push exactly the same POV based on the same set of sources and accusing anyone who reverted him of being malicious.
And then I found an edit he made to Bible code which proves my point entirely. It's a rarely edited article, so it needs a few extra people on hand. Damonthesis had made two edits, one which seemed OK and introduced a new source to support a previously cn'd claim - great. The other, however, shows this editor's inability to use source properly since the information he added to the article says the opposite to what the source actually says. I had to do some research since he hadn't provided a live link to the book he was quoting, but fortunately it was previewable on google docs.
In all, this is an editor who makes changes based on hidden or difficult to find sources which he twists to fit his own POV. With an editor like this, the only thing to do is to salvage the sources, wipe the slate clean on his contributions and start again from scratch with the article itself. I can understand that Damonthesis has a problem with that, but I tried to be polite by reverting him and salvaging what I could over the course of 18 edits (starting here, explaining my actions carefully and in a considered way and I would be surprised if any reasonable person could say I was out of line in any edit I made.
But when Damonthesis' response is to POV-fork the article, accuse people of censorship, suggest we're commie spies, say we're acting maliciously and reporting me to ANI, then the time for being polite is over. GDallimore (Talk) 10:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:Revent (Result: Declined)
Page: Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers
User being reported: Pigsonthewing
Diff of my original edit: [66]
- This is my addition of text to the page. Please notice my comment in the edit summary.
- Also notice my SPECIFIC statement in the text that I was asking for 'expert review' of what I wrote by emailing VIAF. I sent the email immediately after this edit, and because of the repeated deletion it will be impossible for them to do so.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Notice that in every edit I made to attempt to restore my text, I attempted to discuss the issue. Every restoration I made was directly preceded by a post to the conversation (unfortunately it never became a discussion) on the user's talk page trying to address exactly why I was adding the text.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]
- I did not use a template, but instead discussed in detail that I objected to him repeatedly deleting my text, and my concern that this was turning into an edit war (the whole first paragraph).
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page: [71]
- Complete text is at the bottom of this revison. As can be seen, he repeatedly ignored my attempts to actually discuss this. His 'edit summaries' were either autogenerated or said not here.
Comments:
Admittedly, my comments to him about that he was going to violate WP:3RR were premature, as I, not him, stopped and came here before it actually got there, but I feel it's pretty clear he would have reverted me again. Note my repeated comments (with references) to why I felt my text was acceptable, and his failure to express anything other than his personal opinion that my editing the page was rude. Note that my editing the page, and my judgement call that a note of some form there was needed, was in complete accordance with the most basic WP editing guideline, WP:BB. Also notice I pointed out that normal 'style' and 'content' concerns do not apply to this article, as it is "not part of the encyclopedia".
- I am attempting to make the point, where it will DEFINITELY be noticed, that automatic modification of authority control entries in articles on the basis of VIAF information could break WP by adding information that was later modified, and possibly create hundreds of thousands of links to redirect pages on the VIAF website. I discussed this in more detail in my email request to VIAF that they give a 'expert review' to what I wrote. I pointed this out in the text.
- I'm not going to dig out the detailed references (random archived talk pages), but this has been pointed out by other people in places where this was suggested that it was a bad idea, repeatedly. Someone is going to bring this up somewhere, and eventually someone will actually do it without finding the incredibly well hidden places where why it would be bad have been mentioned. If you really want to, search for old conversations about 'missing LCCNs'.
- If someone does this, which would be a matter of 'high school student'-level programming, someone else will then need to write a bot to /watch/ the records and fix the data when duplicates are removed from VIAF.
- Notice that per WP:DEADLINE, there was absolutely no urgency to removing it, and as I pointed out my edit was unlikely to go unnoticed by other editors (especially admins, given I was editing an admin category). Revent (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Justification of edit
Extremely relevant to why I was trying to make this edit is this thread. Specifically note the comment...
Regarding a bot, something that would affect this many articles will almost certainly need a widespread community RFC rather than simply the usual bot approval process (WP:BAG, but that's for a later discussion! Andrew Gray (talk) 5:05 am, 1 June 2012, Friday (10 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5).
The RFC about it was [72]. I was essentially trying to prevent someone from attempting the (trivial) task of trying to do this WITHOUT data validation.
Also see http://inkdroid.org/journal/2012/05/15/diving-into-viaf/, particularly the statement (about links from VIAF to WP)
The 301,345 links to Wikipedia are really great to see. It might be a fun project to see how many of these links are actually present in Wikipedia, and if they can be automatically added with a bot if they are missing.
Due to the level of duplication of some entries in VIAF, a premature attempt do this could potentially break the same articles five or sixtimes in a row as duplicates were removed there. Another old quote, from when this was discussed on the Village Pump here.
I have added thousands and thousands of authority data files to de.wikipedia, including thousands of VIAF identifiers, and more often than not there are multiple VIAF clusters for one persons, and very often there are complicated issues where people with similar names are very confusingly mixed up. I know that this happens as soon as some library data is bad (i. e. if titles are attributed wrongly), but VIAF inherits these problems, and believe me, it really happens a lot. In de.wikipedia, LCCN and VIAF usually have been checked manually which means that for tens of thousands of people in en.wikipedia, it is not necessary to inherit all those VIAF mistakes but use correctly matching sets from the very beginning. It also helps to maintain at least some consistency between de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia, and the Commons (whose authority data has been mostly copied from de.wikipedia as well). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 4:06 pm, 19 June 2012, Tuesday (10 months, 11 days ago) (UTC−5)
Revent (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the inclusion of this text on the category page is inappropriate — category pages should contain only category text and a brief description to ensure that their inclusion criteria are clear. If this had been placed on the talk page, removal would have been a problem, but placement on the category page is itself a problem. I'm going to IAR here because Andy shouldn't be blocked for doing the right thing; let me strongly urge you not to restore this text unless you put it on a talk page. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please explain exactly how repeatedly reverting me and refusing to talk about it is the right thing, which is the relevant issue here.
- Also specify exactly why that text being visible so 'urgently' needed to be reverted that it justified trying to start an edit war despite those repeated attempt to discuss it.
- Also, explain the logical inconsistency between saying he was doing the right thing, and saying you're going to IAR (which implies you have to ignore a rule to excuse his behavior).
- Sorry, but the inclusion of this text on the category page is inappropriate — category pages should contain only category text and a brief description to ensure that their inclusion criteria are clear. If this had been placed on the talk page, removal would have been a problem, but placement on the category page is itself a problem. I'm going to IAR here because Andy shouldn't be blocked for doing the right thing; let me strongly urge you not to restore this text unless you put it on a talk page. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Even if I was actually wrong to put the text there, (in a hidden maintenance category), unless I was somehow actually breaking WP that's irrelevant here. Revent (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Inhakito and User:Johnnytwet reported by User:Kodosbs (Result: Too complicated; taking to a different board)
Page: White Latin American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Good day, I am aware that wikipedia is a place to post information referenced neutral, what happens in this product is that the numbers of white people in Colombia are continually modified without reason. In the country there are many studies on these estimates made by the Congress of the United States where as I said "estimated" the total percentage of white ancestry in 20% in the country, which are referenced in the website of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA )https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html
and a study of the Library of Congress of the United States of the 80's, again by an estimated 25% http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0050) This last issue is the previous users constantly create and publish relevant in deleting my reference page study again by the Library of Congress of the United States but in the year 2010, in which he cites:
The 2005 census reported that the “nonethnic population,” consisting of whites and mestizos (those of mixed white European and Amerindian ancestry, including almost all of the urban business and political elite), constituted 86 percent of the national population. The 86 percent figure is subdivided into 49 percent mestizo and 37 percent white.
— Colombia: A Country Study, Colombia: A Country Study; pp. 86-87
Where the population is analyzed in terms of 86% is divided into 49% mestizo and 37% white, which makes an allusion to the general census conducted in 2005 in the country conducted by DANE, clearly an allusion to a census and a study of 2010 is more relevant than the above references, the user User:Johnnytwetchange my edits without reference, I first told my talk page in English that was Colombian, who had lived here and it was the correct figure, however on their website claims to be Venezuelan discucion a discucion with another user, similarly the user User:Inhakito the user User:Johnnytwet constantly reverses the data of 37% to 25% of the old estimated for no reason, he have evidence on their website in both Spanish discucion http://Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Inhakito Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Inhakito as its English page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inhakito constantly vandalizing ethnographic data on all nations as Chile and Colombia where inserts and deletes data without explaining why. I first wrote them as they should be on their website discucion no response from them. What I was unworthy becouse User:Johnnytwet accused me of vandalism usuuario what led me to settle my case determination to be saying here and I must do to continue to make an encyclopedia Wikipedia neutral data as far as possible the most reliable as possible. thank you very much --Kodosbs (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- The diffs show that there's no 3RR violation, since they were done by multiple users over several days. We can block for edit-warring when 3RR hasn't been violated, but that wouldn't be appropriate here: the situation is much more complicated than this board is set up to handle. I'm therefore going to copy everything to WP:ANI; please don't leave any more comments here. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Gaijin42 reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: No violation)
Page: Gun control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
[77]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82] [83]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Gaijin42 removed a tag questioning reliability of a source that is the subject of an ongoing RfC [84] Gaijin42 response to 3RR warning and notice: [85] Gaijin42 contentious denigrations of editors' concerns about RS and the tag Gaijin42 removed in one of the reverts cited above [86] Gaijin has also denied my good faith and engaged in a personal attack on me here: [87]
Comments:
User Gaijin42 was blocked for a previous 3RR violation at this same article on April 25: [88]
In light of user Gaijin42's continued hostile editing, denial of his actions even in the face of admin decisions, and personal attack on me at the article talk page, I suggest a more serious penalty be considered in this case. SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO made a specific suggestion on my talk page as part of his warning notice. I have attempted to get clarification on that suggestion, and he has not done so. There is no edit war going on, and contrary to his assertion, none of the edits are the topic of an RFC. (The RFC is to delete the entire section, and it is clear there is no consensus in any direction regarding the RFC. ) AGF works both ways. The "Personal attack" was that I said Specificos repeated analogy saying "Why would I care about Hitler's gun policies? Again, it's no more significant than his preference for mayo rather than the more conventional mustard on his sausage" was trolling, which is not a personal attack, and a statement that I stand by. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Further, SPECIFICO is attempting to wikilawer via techicalities. "revert" #2 is a statement which was left over from a previous version of the section, and is no longer applicable to the new organization. (The section previously was a combined "gun control and authoritarian governments" section. the statement now was in a "Nazi germany" section, so mentioning Italy was off topic. this was a copyedit, not a revert. The remaining portion of that sentence was removed by SPECIFICO shortly after that edit, so it is not even feasible to self-revert that "revert"Gaijin42 (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not a 3RR violation. Please understand 3RR is a revert rule, not an edit rule. Just because some editor does 3 edits that you disagree with doesn't mean he's violated 3RR. Anyone can look at the article history at Gun control and see that there were no revisions by anyone else between Gaijan's four "reverts" listed above. That's not edit warring. This is nothing more than wikilawyering on the part of SPECIFICO, and it's very poor. The case listed below (another report by SPECIFICO) appears to be a similar story. SPECIFICO, you can't just ANI everyone for every little thing they do. ROG5728 (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- 3RR "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Please review. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well sure SPECIFICO, if you want to get really technical, any edit could be considered a "revert" because technically any edit on Wikipedia undoes other editor's actions. But that's not how 3RR works. Looking at the article history at Gun control makes it very obvious that 3RR was not violated or even approached in this case. ROG5728 (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- 3RR "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Please review. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not a 3RR violation. Please understand 3RR is a revert rule, not an edit rule. Just because some editor does 3 edits that you disagree with doesn't mean he's violated 3RR. Anyone can look at the article history at Gun control and see that there were no revisions by anyone else between Gaijan's four "reverts" listed above. That's not edit warring. This is nothing more than wikilawyering on the part of SPECIFICO, and it's very poor. The case listed below (another report by SPECIFICO) appears to be a similar story. SPECIFICO, you can't just ANI everyone for every little thing they do. ROG5728 (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Further, SPECIFICO is attempting to wikilawer via techicalities. "revert" #2 is a statement which was left over from a previous version of the section, and is no longer applicable to the new organization. (The section previously was a combined "gun control and authoritarian governments" section. the statement now was in a "Nazi germany" section, so mentioning Italy was off topic. this was a copyedit, not a revert. The remaining portion of that sentence was removed by SPECIFICO shortly after that edit, so it is not even feasible to self-revert that "revert"Gaijin42 (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
User:kvaiting reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: No violation)
Page: Hanns Martin Schleyer Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: kvaiting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] The edit-warred text in this article was recently merged from another article. Link is unavailable. User Kvaiting is reverting to an earlier version he wrote.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]
[96]
Comments:
This user appears to be almost single-purpose promoting this prize and its winners. The user has reacted with hostility to other editors' suggestions and edits. The user has falsely accused me of vandalism and harassment, and does not seem to respond to advice or warnings from others.
SPECIFICO talk 03:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO is jumping the gun. There is no back-and-forth editing going on. Please close without action. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Antiochus COI, three times revert
i asked here for advise on how to best handle the Dokeos article, and it was proposed to bring it up here. Antiochus reverted with a comment "advertisement for Chamilo" or similar three times. afaik it was first added by Acuna007, and removed here, here, here, here. i had a talk with thomas de praetere, the author of dokeos and also editor of the article, about it as well. there were former reverts stating there is too much advertising in the dokeos article, which was my impression as well. i do not feel comfortable to touch this again - i did make my point (even more often then i should do) and somebody else did not like it, which is fair enough. if you could pls advise who should proceed how in such a case? or it is best to just leave it alone? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Polarscribe reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: )
Page: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Polarscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [97]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Not all reverts are reverts of the same text. Last, 5th revert fall outside the 24 hour period, but it shows that user intends to edit war despite the ungoing discussion. This is my argument to include information [103]. This is his response. This material is well sourced and does not fall under BLP exemption because people described in the removed segment are dead.
This user was previously blocked for 3RR violation. He knows what he is doing.
Comments: