→User:213.7.112.229 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: ): withdrawn by filer |
No edit summary |
||
Line 715: | Line 715: | ||
::Thanks, this seems reasonable, and now that I look at the page history, you weren't the only one with more than 3 reverts. Given that Blanc is currently a highly visible, controversial, public figure it's best to hash out major edits on the talk page, but you weren't the only one at fault, and a lot of your edits weren't reverts at all. |
::Thanks, this seems reasonable, and now that I look at the page history, you weren't the only one with more than 3 reverts. Given that Blanc is currently a highly visible, controversial, public figure it's best to hash out major edits on the talk page, but you weren't the only one at fault, and a lot of your edits weren't reverts at all. |
||
::'''Note to admins:''' I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination, the IP seems to get it, and did make some helpful, non-revert edits. I do think the page should be protected, and someone has already requested that at RPP. Cheers, [[User:Dawn Bard|Dawn Bard]] ([[User talk:Dawn Bard|talk]]) 17:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
::'''Note to admins:''' I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination, the IP seems to get it, and did make some helpful, non-revert edits. I do think the page should be protected, and someone has already requested that at RPP. Cheers, [[User:Dawn Bard|Dawn Bard]] ([[User talk:Dawn Bard|talk]]) 17:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof]] reported by [[User:Juno]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Social Justice Warrior}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}} |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> |
|||
Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Justice_Warrior&diff=634428494&oldid=634427298] |
|||
<!-- 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: |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Justice_Warrior&diff=634445802&oldid=634445676] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Justice_Warrior&diff=634445306&oldid=634444113] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Justice_Warrior&diff=634442746&oldid=634442454] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Justice_Warrior&diff=634442054&oldid=634441423] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Justice_Warrior&diff=634440529&oldid=634439882] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Justice_Warrior&diff=634432156&oldid=634431115] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Justice_Warrior&diff=634428874&oldid=634428494] |
|||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> |
|||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. --> |
|||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANorthBySouthBaranof&diff=634442783&oldid=634315937] (warning was subsequently reverted) |
|||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> |
|||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_Justice_Warrior&diff=prev&oldid=634443244] |
|||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> |
|||
For reasons that I will not presume to know, NorthBySouthBaranof made 7 reverts on an article in 2 hours. This was after he or she was warned on his or her talk page, invited to discuss the matter on the article talk page, and after he of she nominated the article for deletion. I have every reason to believe that he or she will continue this pattern of behavior on this article, which is likely to attract continued editing. [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 23:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
Revision as of 23:06, 18 November 2014
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:Kashmiri reported by User:Gurjeshwar (Result: Reporting editor blocked)
User Kashmiri deleted heavily debated consensus material
Previous version reverted to
cur | prev) 13:27, 17 November 2014 Kashmiri (talk | contribs) m . . (42,832 bytes) (-2,091) . . (Reverted edits by Gurjeshwar (talk) to last version by Kashmiri) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 03:22, 17 November 2014 Gurjeshwar (talk | contribs) . . (44,923 bytes) (+2,091) . . (Undid revision 634143514 by Kashmiri (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 23:19, 16 November 2014 Kashmiri (talk | contribs) . . (42,832 bytes) (-2,091) . . (Undid revision 633619018 by Gurjeshwar (talk) Nope, previous version was much better) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 03:35, 13 November 2014 Gurjeshwar (talk | contribs) . . (44,923 bytes) (+2,091) . . (Undid revision 633616998 by NeilN (talk) We means Wikipedia writer, Please do not remove images with references. Thanks) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:01, 22 October 2014 King vishal singh (talk | contribs) m . . (46,317 bytes) (+145) . . (→Gurjar rulers) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:23, 9 November 2014 Kashmiri (talk | contribs) m . . (42,832 bytes) (-1,981) . . (Reverted edits by Kashmiri (talk) to last version by Sitush) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 21:12, 9 November 2014 Kashmiri (talk | contribs) m . . (44,813 bytes) (+10) . . (Image resize, wikilinks) (undo | thank)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Comments:
Kasmiri and other 1-2 writers are continuously reverting the contents which was displayed on Gurjar since long time and lots of debate and discussion has already be made by many writers in this regard. Images and article are removed by Kashmiri & Sitush without presenting the appropriate reasons. First image is of Samrat Mihir Bhoja which was provided by Ashok Harshana with all copyright, he himself has contributed in Gurjar Wikipedia as a prominent historian with user Chhora and AP Sing and myself. We have done great effort to improve the artilce by providing full references from authentic public and government sources. I request you to block writing of Kasmiri on Gurjar. No body has owned this article so no body can revert or remove the authentic conyents written by other writers without presenting the proofs and proper debate. Till then i request you to block kasmiri to write on article and Article be on previous version which i reverted yesterday.I am writing on Wikipedia with all trust and good faith from 10 years.
This for your kind information. Thanks.. Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Roscelese reported by User:Padresfan94 (Result: )
Page: Care Net (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roscelese (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: Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese made 3 reverts on the Care Net page in 1 afternoon. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm busy trying to improve the article by discussing the issue on the talk page with the user I was initially in disagreement with, and the second edit here is the result of our discussion and compromise. Padresfan is a SPA stalking me (check out that lack of participation in the discussion) and I expect this report to be the WP:BOOMERANG this user deserves. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- So you don't deny that you made 3 reverts on an article under community sanctions? Padresfan94 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of thoughts: first of all, while this article arguably falls under the abortion general sanctions, the article did not bear a talk-page notice nor an edit notice notifying editors of those restrictions (I've since added them). I'm loathe to block someone without warning on a page which displayed no visible indication that it was subject to 1RR, and would be inclined to instead warn Roscelese and insist she adhere to the 1RR on the article now that notice has been given.
Separately, we generally make allowances for reverting sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors and other inappropriate alternate accounts. Padresfan94 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet, and a combative agenda-driven single-purpose account on top of that (e.g. [5]). As such, I'm inclined to block the account indefinitely, but first would like additional administrator input. MastCell Talk 22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- This does not seem appropriate. If Padersfan94 is a SPA or suspected sock puppet (and looking over his/her edits, I'm not actually convinced that's the case) but if that is actually the concern, then the issue should be brought to the appropriate board. It doesn't justify edit warring or violating community sanction. Also, I recall Roscelese was very recently brought to this board by another user: Juno [6] regarding violation of the 1RR on abortion related articles, for an article I was editing, and I purposely did not comment because although there was a 1RR violation, the issue was resolved and I don't believe blocks should be punitive. It was closed with reminders of the 1RR restriction on abortion related articles to all participants. A violation of 1RR shortly after reminder seems to warrant some type of action--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Of the 3 reverts that Roscelese fired off that afternoon, only 1 on them was directed at material that I wrote. Even of you want to entertain that "I had to break 1RR because this guy who already passed a chekuser is totally a sockpuppet" nonsense, that still wouldn't explain the other 2 reverts. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- You "already passed a checkuser", Padresfan94? What do you mean? Please name the checkuser who checked you. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
- Roscelese already filed a sockpuppet investigation against me when I was editing as an ip. Give me a moment to go find it. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- This I can now see that it was actually Contaldo80 that filed the report. As he and Rosclese edit the same articles at the same time from the same POV you will understand if I occasionally get them confused. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Roscelese already filed a sockpuppet investigation against me when I was editing as an ip. Give me a moment to go find it. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- You "already passed a checkuser", Padresfan94? What do you mean? Please name the checkuser who checked you. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
- Of the 3 reverts that Roscelese fired off that afternoon, only 1 on them was directed at material that I wrote. Even of you want to entertain that "I had to break 1RR because this guy who already passed a chekuser is totally a sockpuppet" nonsense, that still wouldn't explain the other 2 reverts. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- This does not seem appropriate. If Padersfan94 is a SPA or suspected sock puppet (and looking over his/her edits, I'm not actually convinced that's the case) but if that is actually the concern, then the issue should be brought to the appropriate board. It doesn't justify edit warring or violating community sanction. Also, I recall Roscelese was very recently brought to this board by another user: Juno [6] regarding violation of the 1RR on abortion related articles, for an article I was editing, and I purposely did not comment because although there was a 1RR violation, the issue was resolved and I don't believe blocks should be punitive. It was closed with reminders of the 1RR restriction on abortion related articles to all participants. A violation of 1RR shortly after reminder seems to warrant some type of action--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The comment that you linked to was a direct response to this, and no, I'm not a sock.
- Per the idea the Roscelese didn't know because the talk page didn't bear a notice: the talk page has a header for Wikipeoject:Abortion, the word Abortion is mentioned twice in the 3 sentence lead and the contested material involved abortion. Do you honestly not think that she knew the article pertained to abortion? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you were one of the two IPs named in the report, there was no CU done, so your contention that you have been checked by a CU is not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)- Oh, sorry then, I though that that had happened. In any case, I'm still not a sockpuppet and Roscelese still violated 1RR twice in one afternoon after being warned repeatedly against doing so. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've dug some more and have struck my comment. I can't disclose the details, but, again, assuming you were one of the IPs in the report, it is highly unlikely there was a technical connection between the IPs and User:Esoglou. As a consequence, Esoglou, who had been blocked for a week, was unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry then, I though that that had happened. In any case, I'm still not a sockpuppet and Roscelese still violated 1RR twice in one afternoon after being warned repeatedly against doing so. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't really buy the "wasn't notified about 1RR" argument. However, I am very much swayed by the "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument. I don't know this subject area well, so I don't know the particulars of the various sock masters, and I don't have any time to do research to get some kind of indisputable proof, so I won't stick my neck out to far and block them now. But I recommend that whatever admin decides to close this consider reminding/warning Roscelese about this, rather than blocking. Anyone mind if I issue Padresfan94 and the other editor (can't recall the name, they have all of like 5 edits) a warning, along the lines of "do not revert Roscelese again", under the General Sanctions? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I object to this. If there is evidence to bring a sockpuppet investigation against anyone (and I've yet to see anything to convince me there is, but I haven't followed it closely enough to say for sure) then that investigation should be brought to the proper board. Absent that, giving anyone a warning to "not revert Roscelese again" seems inappropriate considering this user appears to have a history of edit warring on the topic area of abortion. I see no reason that Roscelese should be given free reign to revert (especially in violation of community sanctions) while others are warned they cannot revert her.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not a sockpuppet. But even if you didn't like that the " "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument" would only explain 1 of the 2 differednt 1RR violations that Roscelese made on the same page in 4 hours. After being warned repeatedly and having had been previously blocked for the same issue. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is like the hundredth complaint about Roscelese related to edit wars on pages connected to women's rights. Many of those complaints involved retaliatory allegations by Roscelese or those who share her POV, that the other editor was "stalking" her, "harassing" her, "hounding" her, etc. She's also had several warnings about abusive use of accusation templates. I know because I'm currently a victim of related conduct -- I made a request for page protection and dispute resolution to stop an edit war, and the response was a torrent of personal attacks and then a ban request by people with whom she tag-team edits. She has a remarkable ability to respond to complaints about her behavior by making distracting allegations against her accuser -- here, that s/he's a sockpuppet. She's been involved in at least 4 different edit wars with multiple people over women's rights articles in just the last week. As I understand it (I am not a master of the admin tools), there have been several blocks, and quite a few block violations in the past. I respectfully request that a warning be given as to the entire subject matter of gender issues, and as to abusive use of personal allegations against other editors. Since this has come up so often, I also respectfully request that it be the final warning before a subject-matter ban is contemplated. Djcheburashka (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Someone mentioned me here so I'll chime in: Roscelese is a valuable editor but this a problem area for her and she stepped over the line, again. There can be no claims of ignorance: if you look at her talk page 3 different editors (myself included) warned her for violating or nearly violating 1RR on 3 different abortion pages since mid-October alone. This is her second time here for violating abortion 1RR in a month, and her block log shows that this has been a long-running problem. She was left off with a stern warning earlier this month, it didn't do any good.
- She clearly violated 1RR, twice on the same page in one day. (something she admits to) She clearly knew it was wrong. She is not sorry. This is far from the first time. Juno (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since this has somehow not been closed yet, I'll point out, again, that the second "revert" here is an edit that the user I was in disagreement with asked me to make and endorsed on the talk page after I'd made it - is anyone really suggesting that it's a good idea to let 3RR be gamed in this way? "Ha ha, you made the edit I suggested you make, now you're an edit warrior!" - and that the third is an obvious sockpuppet and single-purpose account who exists to follow me around and edit war. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- What about the other two RR's on a 1RR limit that she's violated on similar pages three times already in the past? What about the other simultaneous edit wars? And what about the groundless accusation that her accuser is a sockpuppet who's been "stalking" and "harassing" her? If someone with a view opposed to hers had made this number of reversions, Roscelese would be shrieking for his head --- she's done so consistently on far, far weaker grounds. With the number of violations here, over this long a period of time, not taking action would send the message that a different set of rules apply to her than to everyone else. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
So does this editor just get to break 1RR at will? Padresfan94 (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Gringoladomenega reported by User:KyleRGiggs (Result: Indef)
- Page
- Template:Spain squad 2014 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Gringoladomenega (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 05:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* October 2014 */"
- 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
- 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
- 17:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Edit with no reason for many many times, warned him would be considered "vandalism" already but no avail. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – Indef for long-term edit warring and refusal to communicate. The last block was in September for one week, but User:Ymblanter warned him that the next block (if there was one) might be indef. This block can be lifted if the user will agree to engage on talk pages and work for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
User:76.201.60.184 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Semi)
Page: Orion (constellation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.201.60.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [7]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [8] - where he reverts this removal by A. Parrot of redundant and poorly sourced material the IP added
- [9]
- [10] - where he seems to make some bizarre claim that everyone else constantly reverting him means I'm edit warring and he's not, or something?
- [11] - where user explicitly refuses to discuss matters
- [12]
- [13] - falsely accuses others of vandalism for removing his redundant and poorly sourced addition
- [14]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Orion_(constellation)#Ancient_Egypt
Comments:
IP has a history of edit warring for specific fringe views (focused on Orion and Osiris), refusing discussion, and ignoring other users under different addresses that locate to the same area (such as at 66.214.143.68 at Hayk). This address is static, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Result: Indefinite semi. Appears to be the same kind of edits coming from multiple IPs over several years. Looks to be sockpuppetry. See the protection log. According to recent discussion at Talk:Orion (constellation)#Ancient Egypt this IP might be WP:Long term abuse/Ararat arev. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Gowtham avg reported by User:Davey2010 (Result:Withdrawn)
- Page
- Chutti TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Gowtham avg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633950973 by Davey2010 (talk)"
- 11:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633909631 by Davey2010 (talk)"
- 06:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633874387 by Davey2010 (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 06:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Unlink */ new section"
- 15:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Unlink */ And again....."
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
After coming off an edit warring block myself I've been extremely cautious with this - After the first and second reverts I left 2 messages on the users talkpage explaining my reasons for reverting [16][17],, The only response I got was him telling me to "Mind my own business" [18] So as clearly shown I've got absolutely no where and don't think it's going to improve anytime soon, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Mrbates76 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Declined)
- Page
- Of Pandas and People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Mrbates76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) to 05:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- 06:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
- 07:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Of Pandas and People. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 07:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits reverted */ new section"
- Declined. The account is new and has not breached WP:3RR. Nor is their own version in place.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
User:TheSawTooth reported by User:Widefox (Result: No action)
- Page
- Jason Minter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- TheSawTooth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 11:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Widefox (talk): Reverts harassment tag. Disputes notability, disputes conflict of interest, disputes harassment. Let debate conclude. (TW)"
- 09:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverts tag bomb"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 10:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Jason Minter. (TW)"
- 11:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jason Minter. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 21:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "delete - non-notable" (AfD not talk since listed there by another editor)
- 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC) "comment - massive undisclosed paid editor problem linked to Fiverr"
- 11:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "claims not backed by sources (and disruption addressed at the talk page)"
- Comments:
- Also previous edit warring - 3RR limit reached (with different editors not me) at Electronic Recycling Association resulting in current lock
- 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "Disputes no connection. Do not revert everything just discuss case by case and let me make corrections. Also disputes disruption of my attempt to fresh improve."
- 14:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Nikthestunned: Disputes removing good faith revision. Discuss on talk and request what you disagree I will correct it. You have also revised my other improvements that you do not dispute. (TW)"
- 14:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632422746 by Nikthestunned (talk) Disputes Three revert rule. It is my third revert as my first edits were new work. I will not revert so just discuss revisions on talkpg!"
- Locked [19]
Warned:
- 20:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Electronic Recycling Association. (TW)"
I'm reporting here to prevent this article being locked like Electronic Recycling Association. A massive sockfarm undisclosed paid editor issue at WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez is linked (but denied), (there's more info at ANI and 2x SPIs linked there). Widefox; talk 11:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comments:
- Comment I have done only 2 revert on this topic today. Widefox is harassing me by adding harassment tag everywhere. I even corrected my one edit on his request so I am not in editwar. This report is made as counter report because I have reported widefox for harassing me with evidence. I move that this user should be blocked. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note I was not involved in editing Electronic Recycling Association, and have not seen ANI yet. Widefox; talk 11:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- He is involved because he has added my name to tag in talkpage of ERA and he has added my name to his list on conflict of interest noticeboard without proof. I have replied everywhere to ask him for proof but he does not have proof. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can you either provide a diff that I have edited Electronic Recycling Association or withdraw the claim that I was involved in edit warring that article until it was locked, thank you. Widefox; talk 12:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your editwar was on talkpage of ERA [20] [21] but I left you alone even then your intention was to harass and tag in this new topic. If I leave it alone this time you will do it on third topic as well. So I have reported you. ERA was locked but you have continued to stalk me. I move that admins look at ERA talk page and see my efforts that how much I am replying and building consensus. I am discussing every single source. Widefox is trying to block me so that I can not edit at all because he does not have proof. So now he is using this method. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- So we agree I have not edited Electronic Recycling Association and was not involved in the edit war there. Widefox; talk 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- You were at talkpage but I did compromise. Otherwise you were tagging it again. Now you are tagging at Jason Minter and I did compromise again. I have answered your concern on talkpage and made one correction as well. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- So we agree I have not edited Electronic Recycling Association and was not involved in the edit war there. Widefox; talk 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your editwar was on talkpage of ERA [20] [21] but I left you alone even then your intention was to harass and tag in this new topic. If I leave it alone this time you will do it on third topic as well. So I have reported you. ERA was locked but you have continued to stalk me. I move that admins look at ERA talk page and see my efforts that how much I am replying and building consensus. I am discussing every single source. Widefox is trying to block me so that I can not edit at all because he does not have proof. So now he is using this method. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can you either provide a diff that I have edited Electronic Recycling Association or withdraw the claim that I was involved in edit warring that article until it was locked, thank you. Widefox; talk 12:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- He is involved because he has added my name to tag in talkpage of ERA and he has added my name to his list on conflict of interest noticeboard without proof. I have replied everywhere to ask him for proof but he does not have proof. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note I was not involved in editing Electronic Recycling Association, and have not seen ANI yet. Widefox; talk 11:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Widefox is on 3RR. I have revised to status quo but I shall not revise again because I have read 3RR. I have warned widefox for 3RR [22]. I will not revise if he revises more but he is creating havoc. --TheSawTooth (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note. SawTooth has not come close to breaching 3RR on the Minter article. The dispute is over templates. SawTooth's edit warring at the ERA article was more troubling given the promotional, undue content they were adding to the article, but that battle is stale. At this point, it seems to me that the allegations are better raised at other boards rather than this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: For future reference this dispute was also discussed at at ANI (permanent link). It is also claimed that there has been socking at Electronic Recycling Association but that evidence is hard to summarize briefly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Aku Indonesia reported by User:MbahGondrong (Result: Locked and warnings)
- Page
- Persib Bandung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Aku Indonesia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634060227 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 09:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC) to 09:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- 09:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* First-team squad */"
- 09:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Players */"
- 09:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Intercontinental competitions */ This is Wikipedia! Everyone can edit. As long as the correct and sourced. Consensus? That is only talk with few people. not important"
- 09:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Performance in AFC competitions */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 10:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Persib Bandung */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The article has an history of edit-warring and a consensus was reached to remove the informations he keeps on adding. MbahGondrong (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, MbahGondrong, there's been too many reverts by too many editors since the lock I placed on the article expired. Although I warned editors on the article Talk page that reverts might be met with blocks, that warning was not necessarily seen by everyone. At one point in the last few days, I thought of blocking any editor who reverted on the article but had not participated in any discussion on the Talk page, but even that block might be unfair based on lack of warning. Part of the problem is there are too many editors. Another part of the problem is even those who have taken the time to discuss issues have not necessarily reached consensus, or the consensus has been very limited. With respect to the section added by Aku Indonesia, where is there discussion on the Talk page for that issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- The case for the section that was added by Aku Indonesia actually was included in the first discussion here. There was discussed about the informations that should and should not be included in the article as a whole. As for the 'Performance in AFC competitions' section, this was included in the 'Honours' already and a separate section is seen as redundant information. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't find that month-old discussion very clear with respect to this section, and even some of the edit summaries regarding this section complain about other issues rather than "too much".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well I suppose there could be another discussion again to reach a consensus for this section, but still I cannot see that the user involved will participate as he already said that consensus does not mean anything. It will be pointless, unless you have any other way to solve this issue? MbahGondrong (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't find that month-old discussion very clear with respect to this section, and even some of the edit summaries regarding this section complain about other issues rather than "too much".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- The case for the section that was added by Aku Indonesia actually was included in the first discussion here. There was discussed about the informations that should and should not be included in the article as a whole. As for the 'Performance in AFC competitions' section, this was included in the 'Honours' already and a separate section is seen as redundant information. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected (full) for two weeks. Apparently, Walter Gorlitz disagrees with you and reverted. I've therefore locked the article, this time for longer. Hopefully, the discussion on the Talk page will be more robust. Keep in mind that other content dispute resolution mechanisms exist as well.
- Warned. The following editors are warned that any reverts on the article after expiration of the lock may be met with blocks without notice: Aku Indonesia, MbahGondrong, Walter Görlitz, Tommy1933, and Fenix down. These are the editors who have reverted in the article after the first lock expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. What do I disagree about? There was a discussion on the talk page and the material there is what I reverted to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I thought it was pretty clear. You reverted MbahGondrong. That usually means you disagree with the edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you mean the edit where he stated that the content was already contained earlier in the article, yes, I disagree since it's not earlier in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Fortrade59 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Withdrawn)
- Page
- Monte Boulanger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Fortrade59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 19:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) to 19:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- 19:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) ""
- 19:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "←Replaced content with '
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Monte Boulanger. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 19:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal of sourced content, EW */ new section"
- Comments:
Note multiple notices on user's talk page. MrBill3 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw this report Apparently the editor is the creator and subject of this and another article on their pen name and wishes the content removed due to privacy concerns. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Mrbates76 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Of Pandas and People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Mrbates76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) to 05:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- 06:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
- 07:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
- 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC) ""
- 00:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Of Pandas and People. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 07:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits reverted */ new section"
- 08:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Pseudoscientific in Lead Paragraph */ r"
- Comments:
Second report, first was declined. Editor is now beyond 3RR. MrBill3 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed! They seem to have no intention to stop. A block is due. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked)
Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [23] deleted heavily debated consensus material
- [24] asked to revert self, snarky response
- [25] 2nd revert after another editor restored said material (note this is a 1RR Community Sanctions article)
- [26] sanitizing ISIL actions
- [27] disruptively tagging high traffic article with an essay tag.
- [28] engaging in disruptive arguments
- [29] Notified of disruptive editing
- [30] more strange behavior and false accusations
- [31] and more strange disruptive posts
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see talk page links above
Comments: This article is under active 1RR Syrian Civil War and ISIL Community Sanctions. These edits seem to constitute edit warring.
Other involved editors: Gregkaye P123ct1 Myopia123 Dwpaul
- Legacypac, I'm not sure what you mean by "involved", but please notify the other four editors of this report; you can use the template at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Md iet, User:Ramiericson and User:Burhanhusain reported by User:PolenCelestial (Result: No action)
Page: Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ramiericson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Burhanhusain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [33]
Diffs of the users' reverts:
Diff of the talk page: [37]
Comments:
Different members of Dawoodi Bohra continually revert my addition to the article of the 90% female genital mutilation rate within the sect. They claim that the statistic is partisan or hate speech, but the same information is confirmed by many reputable sources, several of which I cited. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV because the article is about the sect which they personally belong to. There is no valid basis for deleting this information as it is verifiable fact, not opinion.
Md iet has been involved in previous edit wars to make non-NPOV edits about Dawoodi Bohra and has been blocked from editing the article before. Non-NPOV Bohra-related edits by Ramiericson have also been discussed by the user that got Md iet blocked.
PolenCelestial (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your addition seems quite in the face. Firstly, there did not seem any need to paste the particular bit of information about female genital mutilation in the lede. You could have, using editorial discretion, inserted the same within the article rather than right at the top to make a point. As it looks right now, it does look non-neutral. Secondly, your statistic that 90% of women's genitals are mutilated, is one that is apparently a primary quote from one of the interviewees in your references. So that again seems synthesis and against NPOV. Thirdly, you've already crossed 3RR and should be the one who should be blocked. So do please tread carefully. My advice would be to back off. Remove the statement from the lead. Take it to the talk page of the article. Discuss its inclusion within the article, rather than within the lede. I'm sure you'll be able to make your point of view clear to the other editors without edit warring. Wifione Message 17:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The fellow seems to be a puppet for a particular group and joined Wiki for this specific purpose, may please dealt suitably.
- Not blocked. Qwertyus seems to have taken good effort to edit the NPOV statements in the article. The reporting user also has taken heed of the note above and shifted out the statements from the lede. Wifione Message 12:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Gurjeshwar reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: 1 week)
- Page
- Gurjar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Gurjeshwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634143514 by Kashmiri (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User continues edit war even after recent (barely outside 24h) release of block. The block (re. the same article) was clearly not educative enough, especially in the light of fairly long history of edit wars and blocks on the part of this User. The User has reverted the page several times in the last week or so (the ARV tool missed most of these reverts, hence they are not listed above). Thank you to act. kashmiri TALK 13:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTHERE. They have been nothing but trouble on this troublesome article, and they've been warned (by different people) of both the WP:GS/Caste and WP:ARBIPA sanctions recently. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- While this seems a plain and simple issue of disruptive editing inviting a long term block, I'm just hoping the editor might see better sense from hereon. Although I think it might be just a waste of time, I'm still inclined to wait and see if Gurjeshwar responds here and accepts to back off from the warring. If the editor reverts again, he will be blocked immediately. In the meanwhile, may I suggest that either one of you could again open up a discussion on the talk page of the article inviting the editor back to discussions? Thanks. Wifione Message 17:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did ... and BOOM. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- [Edit conflict] The issue is, Gurjeshwar edits are in WP:GF, the problem I see is with his WP:OWNERSHIP of this article (which NB talks about his own caste) as perfectly evidenced by Gurjeshwar's reporting of me above. He would not accept deletion of any information added by him and a "prominent [Gurjar] historian", even if strongly justified as Sitush did. Considering Gurjeshwar's overall contributions to WP, I would be tempted to look for other methods than a long-term blank block on contributing to WP. Perhaps a selective block, or removal of WP:AUTOC tag so that all their edits will have to be manually approved? Just an idea. kashmiri TALK 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did ... and BOOM. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- While this seems a plain and simple issue of disruptive editing inviting a long term block, I'm just hoping the editor might see better sense from hereon. Although I think it might be just a waste of time, I'm still inclined to wait and see if Gurjeshwar responds here and accepts to back off from the warring. If the editor reverts again, he will be blocked immediately. In the meanwhile, may I suggest that either one of you could again open up a discussion on the talk page of the article inviting the editor back to discussions? Thanks. Wifione Message 17:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Kenfree reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked KenFree and User:Sayerslle)
Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kenfree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [39] (revert of this edit [40])
- [41]
- [42] (same issue, different part of article)
- [43] (the usual (see below) edit warring about the word "disinformation")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44] (asked Kenfree to stop reverting and edit warring on the article talk page)
Kenfree filed a 3RR report on me several days ago [45]. This was closed by User:EdJohnston as "No action against User:Volunteer Marek. Whether sanctions are needed against anyone else depends on a better case being made." The "anyone else" refers to Kenfree, I presume. The fact that he's back at the article edit warring left and right against multiple users, again, makes it a "better case".
Discretionary sanctions notification: [46]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47] [48] (and a host of other venues, like NPOV noticeboard)
Comments:
Previous edit warring (including several 3RR violations which went unreported) on the same page (all are reverts, some within a very short period of time):
October 27th [53]
October 21st [56] [57], [58], [59] (that one was a 3RR violation which went unreported)
October 13 [62]
October 9 [63], [64], [65], [66], [67] (another unreported 3RR violation).
Volunteer Marek 19:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: additional problematic edits AFTER this report was filed and user was notified of the report: [68]. Volunteer Marek 21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked Kenfree for 48 hours and User:Sayerslle for one month for violating WP:3RR. Neither editor was blocked pursuant to WP:ARBEE, although both editors were alerted to the sanctions. Although Sayerslle was not reported, they have an extensive history of edit warring and should know better. Part of the reason I didn't block Sayerslle pursuant to the discretionary sanctions is because the duration was based on their history, and I wasn't sure that would be clear if logged as a sanction. And if I wasn't going to do one, I didn't want to do the other as much of the battle was between the two of them, although other editors were involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:134.223.230.156 reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: Semi-protected)
Page: Interstellar (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 134.223.230.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/134.223.230.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [69]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]
Comments:
The same or similar material has been added by other anonymous editors recently; it's probable that some are related.--Cúchullain t/c 21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected for two weeks by MusikAnimal.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Hughey reported by User:PBS (Result: Blocked)
Page: Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hughey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Type: A slow edit war.
Previous version reverted to: link permitted as the reverts involve the deletion of material, this is the last edit before the first delete
First delete: diff 17:25, 11 September 2014 "The Siege of Drogheda: Not true, see above"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- diff 17:59, 7 November 2014 "Undid revision 625117315 by Pinkbeast"
- diff 14:37, 12 November 2014 "Undid revision 633355211 by Pinkbeast"
- diff 13:30, 14 November 2014 "Undid revision 633658369 by Pinkbeast (talk)While it may be true that Reilly argues a point, that in itself does not add any substance. Maybe User:Pinkbeast should start a page on Reilly"
- diff 20:07, 15 November 2014 "Reilly's book has been refuted by other historians"
- diff 19:07, 17 November 2014 "The Siege of Drogheda: Removing vandalism"
Diff of edit warring warning : diff (Revision as of 20:53, 15 November 2014)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (Revision as of 21:16, 15 November 2014)
Comments:
Slow edit war. Hughey repeatedly deletes the same sentence that has now been reverted by four different editors: Pinkbeast (x3), user:Dhtwiki, PBS and Jdorney. Hughey has yet to edit talk:Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.
-- PBS (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Dcbanners reported by User:Scalhotrod (Result: Protected)
Page: Sonic Boom (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcbanners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [76]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [77], removed all uses of the Template:Cite episode template and removed the field from the template specifically for a source
- [78], same
- [79], same
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80] made by 136.181.195.25
Comments:
After a resolution to a source and content dispute was reached on the article Talk page, this (albeit new) User continues to remove sources that link living persons (i.e. Writers, Directors, etc.) to the content of the article.--SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Result: Article protected three days. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Page: Texarkana Moonlight Murders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JeremeK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [81]
Diffs of the user's reverts: By Clent225:
- Revision as of 01:44, 18 November 2014
- Revision as of 01:33, 18 November 2014
- Revision as of 01:26, 18 November 2014
- Revision as of 23:35, 17 November 2014
- Revision as of 02:22, 18 November 2014
- Revision as of 23:28, 17 November 2014
By JeremeK:
- Revision as of 01:21, 18 November 2014
- Revision as of 01:29, 18 November 2014
- Revision as of 01:37, 18 November 2014
- Revision as of 01:51, 18 November 2014
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]
Comments:
A new book by a Dr. James Presley,a Pulitzer Prize-nominated author, has just been released. He is a documented expert on the Phantom Killings. Included as a reference is a video of a criminal expert interview stating that a Board of Inquiry should be held, and that he believes the evidence will close the case. The person reverting the edits does not want this information published. I feel that is a miscarriage to the public.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clent225 (talk • contribs)
- I'm seeing 4 reverts and possible WP:OWN ([83], though at least a third, if not half, of the revisions are by him and those edits added lots to the article) by JeremeK, but WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW (possibly due to a WP:COI?) by a WP:SPA who has been editing WP:PRECOCIOUSly. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm seeing 4 reverts and WP:OWN ([84]) by JeremeK, but WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW (possibly due to a WP:COI?) by a WP:SPA who WP:PRECOCIOUS editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since he clearly knew to report JeremeK, he is aware of 3rr and should understand that he's edit warring as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected. No clean hands; will leave a note with an expectation to use the article's talk page to resolve their dispute during the protection. Kuru (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Gregkaye (Result: )
Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [91] (See first sentence of Lead)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18 nov 1.25 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij) → 1RR broken
- 17 nov 13.59 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij)
- 14 nov 13.46 (sentence about Khawarij added to end of Lead, against consensus) → 1RR broken
- 13 Nov 22.53 (whole para added to end of Lead, against consensus)
- 4 Nov 1.17 (last Lead para wording changed against consensus)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92], [93], [94], additional indirect notification, pinged
Comments:
ISIL is 1RR and here goes:
I personally sympathise greatly with the editor's position as the actual content of the edits concerned are definitely those that I think would be beneficial to make. Never-the-less, their form constitutes vandalism and deception al-be-it to a typically limited extent and it violates a consensus which may have been achieved at a time when misrepresentations were present on the talk page but it was "consensus" none-the-less. It is also possible that to an extent, Mohammed, may have some difficulty with English. He (presumably he) does not tend to respond to questions on the article talk page and I am not aware that he has ever responded on to initiation on a User talk page. This all smacks of rudeness. It would be hoped that Mohammed can become more of a team player and he should be aware that his lack of response does not contribute to a collegiate atmosphere (which is otherwise notably lacking in many aspects the ISIL related discussion). I hope that some kind of action can be taken but in a way that if Mohammed chooses to remain/return that encouragement is given to be more of a team player and, ironically considering the topic, less of an outsider. I hope that the form of this report is acceptable. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Kashmiri reported by User:RoyalGurjar (Result: Malformed)
Previous version reverted to Diffs of the user's reverts
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
{{subst:AN-You have involved repeatedly reverted the authentic information which was displayed since long time and being provided by many experienced writers -[[3RR warning]] }}
Comments: User continues edit war even after recent release of block. RoyalGurjar (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment:: Malicious report - reporting editor is likely a sockpuppet of User:Gurjeshwar, currently under a block for edit warring. kashmiri TALK 14:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Result: Malformed report. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurjeshwar which is a sock complaint about the submitter User:RoyalGurjar. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Skrippner reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked and semi-protected)
- Page
- Stanley Krippner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Skrippner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 14:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC) to 14:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- 14:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Fixing reference error raised by ReferenceBot"
- 14:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
- 15:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
- 15:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */ The previous material was unauthorized and was done by someone with the alias "Goblin Fcae" also known as "Dan Skeptic". He is making false accusations about parapsychologists! Thanks you, Stanley Krippner"
- 16:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */ This material was unauthorized and was placed on the page by a person with the alias "Goblin Face""
- 16:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */ added pertinent material and deleted inaccurate material"
- 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */ removed inaccurate material and added pertinent and correct info. SK"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
16:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "(/* November 2014: Edit Warring)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 15:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal restored, content based only on primary sources removed */ new section"
- Comments:
Discussion on BLPN here, WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stanley Krippner. Discussion on talk page of article regarding similar behavior by a series of IPs here, Talk:Stanley Krippner#Adding in fringe material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note. I've blocked Skrippner for one week for violating 3RR and for making personal attacks. I've also semi-protected the article for two weeks because of similar edits by IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:213.7.112.229 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Withdrawn)
- Page
- Julien Blanc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 213.7.112.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634397115 by Dawn Bard (talk) I'm trying to make the article less biased against Blanc. I also removed redundant descriptions of the material Blanc posted and instead added an img"
- Consecutive edits made from 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC) to 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC) ""
- 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Work with Real Social Dynamics */"
- 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Work with Real Social Dynamics */ uncited, unrelated and biased content"
- 13:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634372105 by Philip Cross (talk) Again, see WP:NOTNP. This is way too much detail."
- 13:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 634372186 by Philip Cross (talk) well then find better sources, the tweet made by police does not claim his visa was revoked"
- 12:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Please stop undoing every single one of my edits. I am trying to make the article more neutral. The prices are redundant. Undid revision 634367806 by Philip Cross (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Julien Blanc. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Sorry for too many reverts, I wasn't aware of the 3-revert rule I have to admit. Another user kept reverting to a heavily biased page. There was also spam at some point by a real social dynamics "fan" stating his own experience with the company. I accept if this means I have to blocked however — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.112.229 (talk)
- Thanks, this seems reasonable, and now that I look at the page history, you weren't the only one with more than 3 reverts. Given that Blanc is currently a highly visible, controversial, public figure it's best to hash out major edits on the talk page, but you weren't the only one at fault, and a lot of your edits weren't reverts at all.
- Note to admins: I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination, the IP seems to get it, and did make some helpful, non-revert edits. I do think the page should be protected, and someone has already requested that at RPP. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Juno (Result: )
Page: Social Justice Warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [95]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103] (warning was subsequently reverted)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]
Comments:
For reasons that I will not presume to know, NorthBySouthBaranof made 7 reverts on an article in 2 hours. This was after he or she was warned on his or her talk page, invited to discuss the matter on the article talk page, and after he of she nominated the article for deletion. I have every reason to believe that he or she will continue this pattern of behavior on this article, which is likely to attract continued editing. Juno (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)