No edit summary |
Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 557: | Line 557: | ||
[[User:Drork|DrorK]] ([[User talk:Drork|talk]]) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:Drork|DrorK]] ([[User talk:Drork|talk]]) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Tiamut made three reverts in a 30-hour period. Not exactly a [[WP:3RR]] violation. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 08:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:05, 27 February 2010
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:Cleo22 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: moot)
- Omar Sharif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cleo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [1] Removing that Sharif was born into a Lebanese family.
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 21:22, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 21:47, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 00:39, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 06:38, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- Diff of warning: here
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Omar Sharif#continued removal of Lebanese
Comments:
I myself have reverted three times, but one of those times I added 7 reliable sources that said that Sharif was born into a Lebanese-Egyptian family. There was also one revert by an IP to the same edit here, also with no edit summary. The user refuses to answer any question or provide any type of response, just continues to blanket revert on a number of articles. See the users contribs, nearly all of their contributions are removals of "Lebanese" or "Syrian" from various articles on people who the user apparently feels are only "Egyptian". nableezy - 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: If you look at the entire editing history of user cleo22, the only thing that account is used for is to go around to biography articles and remove sourced background content. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Closed as moot. Cleo22 has since been indef-blocked for their edit-warring. Sandstein 06:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Иван Богданов (Result: invalid report)
- Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Serbia and Montenegro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Template:Politics of Yugoslavia (edit | [[Talk:Template:Politics of Yugoslavia|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
List of Diffs
User:DIREKTOR is behaving very uncivil and vandalistic. He constantly revert my edits at articles wich I listed above. DIREKTOR is known for numerous WP:3RR violations; his last 48 hours blockade expired only three days ago. He had four blockades so far. This behaviour shouldn't be tolerated on Wikipedia. --User:Иван Богданов (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- As stated above, it would be helpful if you would include the actual diffs to support your statements instead of asking someone to go through the articles looking for the information. Do be careful as it appears you are also involved with him in the edit wars. Thanks. JodyB talk 12:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to protect my edits from his vandalism. --User:Иван Богданов (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Parties are reminded that editing in this area is part of the area of conflict under WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2. Consequences of tendentious editing can be stern. Note in ARBMAC2 the discussion of page moves and naming conventions. I would strongly suggest that this discussion be taken to a talk page before any further editing. JodyB talk 16:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Invalid 3RR report. The diffs are of different pages. Closing as moot since the reporting edior has since been blocked indefinitely. Sandstein 06:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Wiki-expert-edit reported by NeilN talk to me (Result: 1 week)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wiki-expert-edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 14:16, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ some more small clean up")
- 17:05, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344817508 by NeilN (talk)")
- 17:32, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 344849106 by Ronz (talk)correcting errors.")
- 17:32, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ minor edit.")
- 17:59, 18 February 2010 (edit summary: "Correcting information in the Article. Please discuss before undoing it.")
- 18:34, 19 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ As per the conversation on talk page, I am removing this inaccurate information. I don't even know if any allegation that's not proven should ever be in reference material.")
- 21:36, 19 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ clarifying the information based on the reference")
- 00:17, 21 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345232240 by Ronz (talk)reverting to the facts of the situation. Please see comment I left for you.")
- 17:31, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ 16(b) is simply a mechanism for profit give back and there is no way to violate it.")
- 20:29, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345712509 by Ronz (talk)Please see detailed explanation of 16(b) on your talk.")
- 21:13, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345735556 by Ronz (talk)Information you added is incorrect.")
- 21:43, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ provided reference and clarified 16 (b) awkward language.")
- 23:28, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */dispute was settled by both parties and D&O insurance. the case was on behalf of the company and not by shareholders against the company.")
- 00:58, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "/* InfoSpace */ added information from SEC filing by Infospace")
- 01:06, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 345996836 by NeilN (talk)Information was correct and well sourced.")
- Diff of warning: [7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Wiki-expert-edit#February_2010
Comments:
Repeat edit warrior with probable COI issues intent on removing sourced facts of lawsuit settlement. --NeilN talk to me 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wiki-expert-edit is a WP:SPA, editing only information about Intelius and its business practices. He has been disputing this same content since 21 August 2008 . He was just recently blocked for edit-warring over this material on 18 February 2010. His first edit after the block expired was to remove this information once again [8]. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Continuing [9] --NeilN talk to me 04:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- And again [10] --NeilN talk to me 04:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am not any edit war here but trying to protect few people from adding personal bias to the article instead of using the trusted source like SEC filings. I don't understand how any other source could be more reliable than the filings by a company under the penalty of perjury. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Done Blocked for 1 week (second block for edit warring). OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Torebay reported by User:Wayiran (Result: 24 h)
Page: Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Torebay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [11]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Comments:
This user is extremely disruptive, and has been removing and tempering with references, and edit-waring about it, on several other pages too [17]. He has also been removing warnnings about it from his talk page [18]. --Wayiran (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked 24 h by another admin. Sandstein 07:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
User:DWL901 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 24 h)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Air New Zealand Flight 901 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DWL901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 00:57, 22 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- 04:18, 22 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- 06:01, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- 06:04, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- 06:21, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- 08:18, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- 08:33, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 346054460 by XLerate (talk)")
- 08:35, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 346055016 by XLerate (talk)")
- 08:40, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- 08:44, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- 08:49, 24 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 346056464 by Bidgee (talk)")
- Diff of warning: here
Comments:
- DWL901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely to be single purpose account who has an interest in sanitising the article (has been done in the past). Bidgee (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
—Bidgee (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. Sandstein 06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Jbts11 reported by User:Gnowor (Result: Warned)
Page: Jeff Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Jbts11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [19]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]-Commentary on User talk page by C.Fred
Comments:
First time reporting here. If my actions are not sufficient to warrant a block, so be it. It feels like this is a situation of half vandalism (not using edit summaries and removing content), and half edit warring.--GnoworTC 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Warned Jbts11. He has not edited since 24 February. If he continues to remove a section containing well-sourced info, without getting consensus on Talk, a block might be needed. The SEC and the state of Texas have taken an interest in the legal case, so this issue seems to form part of complete coverage of what reliable sources have asserted about Jeff Blake. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
User:24.147.62.213 reported by User:RL0919 (Result: Semiprotected)
Page: Van Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 24.147.62.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [26] (this is the stable version that the editor keeps changing in the same non-consensus fashion)
- 1st revert: [27]
- 2nd revert: [28]
- 3rd revert: [29]
- 4th revert: [30]
- 5th revert: [31]
- 6th revert: [32]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]
Comments:
Technically the IP editor is the one who is being reverted by multiple other editors. The IP keeps deleting sourced material from the lead with no edit summary. The cut isn't always exactly the same, but it is always from the same passages. The edits are not obvious vandalism, but clearly have no consensus and the IP has ignored requests to explain made by multiple editors in their own edit summaries and at User talk:24.147.62.213. The latest edit (#6 above) was made after a very explicit request by me on the IP's user talk page to please come discuss the edits on the article talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just after I posted this report, the IP editor posted on the article talk page to give some explanation of the edits. The explanation doesn't seem to match the edits, but it is a start. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- After the one talk page posting, the editor stopped responding on talk, and has now apparently migrated to a new IP address, 24.218.27.209. ThinkEnemies (talk · contribs) has now warned that IP about edit warring. The editing pattern is the same so it is very likely the same person, although the IP editor is now at least using edit summaries. --RL0919 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Semiprotected. An editor using two different 24.* IP addresses has been repeatedly taking out information sourced to the New York Times, and not waiting to get consensus for their changes. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Wexeb reported by 68.101.143.168 (Result: Declined)
Page: User talk:68.101.143.168 ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wexeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Three-revert rule violation on
User talk:68.101.143.168 ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs). Wexeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 21:28, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 68.101.143.168 to last revision by Dave1185 (HG)")
- 21:28, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Message re. User talk:68.101.143.168 (HG)")
- 21:29, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 68.101.143.168 to last revision by Wexeb (HG)")
- 21:30, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 68.101.143.168 to last revision by Wexeb (HG)")
Result - Declined. No reverts since 24 Feb. Wexeb has been restoring banners to the talk page of an anonymous editor. Personally I see the {{whois}} banner as traditional, and potentially helpful to new users who happen to take over an IP address that was previously used. The {{repeatvandal}} banner is not technically correct; this IP has only been blocked once. The IP is allowed to remove any notices of blocks that are now expired. EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The only thing that bothers me is the use of Huggle to do so, although NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) removed rollback. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 07:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
User:SamJohnston reported by User:LirazSiri (Result: Protected)
Page: Template:Cloud computing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SamJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- No Sam. It was a revert of the inclusion of a SaaS category in the cloud computing template. This is another editorial dispute in which you chose to unilaterally impose your opinions without discussion. Also note that 3RR rule does not have to be violated for a pattern of disruptive, aggressive editing which includes edit-warring to be shown. LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]
- This was not even a warning, rather a response to me warning you for particularly disruptive and tendentious editing previously. Your only warning here didn't come until a good half hour *after* you filed this complaint. DOUBLE FAIL. Furthermore, while you were on my talk page you chose to interfere with an unrelated discussion which had absolutely nothing to do with you - itself a form of WP:HARASSment and a TRIPLE FAIL. -- samj inout 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I commented on a dispute you have with another editor that follows the exact same pattern as my dispute with you. You impose your views unilaterally without any attempt to discuss the matter with other editors. What you don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia is not your personal wiki and you do not own the cloud computing pages.LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]
- This "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" was a> last year and b> between you and another editor. QUADRUPLE FAIL. -- samj inout 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
Ironically, user responds to complaints against his behavior by edit-warring criticism out of his talk page: [41] [42] [43]
Note that user has ignored the discussion on the talk page for the cloud computing template. No attempt to engage other editors and build consensus has been made despite explicit requests which the user has responded to with further edit warring. The user seems to believe that a couple of sections on the cloud computing template (e.g., appliances and SaaS) are inappropriate but has yet to explain his reasoning. Attempts to reach out have been responded to with more aggressive, anti-social behavior.LirazSiri (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok so the template this user has been vandalising despite many repeated warnings (by persistently re-inserting their own company over the last 3 months, for example here here here here here and here, despite reversion and warnings by myself and other editors, in blatant violation of WP:COI) is intended to illustrate the top level taxonomy of cloud computing using the best examples available (e.g. Amazon EC2) as per the template documentation.
- Instead of addressing or explaining your behavior you instead choose to attack your critics with baseless ad-hominem attacks. You also grossly misrepresent the facts. TurnKey is a community oriented open source project based on Ubuntu. It's not a company. That's not even relevant because our dispute is about the inclusion of the appliances category, not its contents. TurnKey is only one of the entries. The matter was discussed on the talk page a few months back when the appliances category was added. You came along a couple of months later, ignored the discussion, and deleted the category unilaterally. You edit war and call other editors names instead of explaining your reasoning.LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- It does not matter that it's open source - it's still a blatant conflict of interest and you have made no attempt whatsoever to follow guidelines by, for example, suggesting edits via the talk page. Bear in mind this is an area I'm reasonably well versed in, having spent a few months patrolling WP:COIN. Regarding your "discussion", note that there are 3 regular editors of that article and *both* User:SteveLoughran and myself have reverted your edits and referred to COI policy. Consensus is against you my friend. -- samj inout 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is not intended to be a WP:COATRACK for people to advertise their own products (which are only still listed courtesy deletion review following a successful CSD A7), nor to confuse matters by introducing entire segments that are not even referenced in the article despite it having been explained by myself and other editors that this is not appropriate.
- As if that's not enough the user has uploaded many images with problematic licensing here here here here here here here here here and here, and they have had the audacity to revert attempts to fix it (while simultaneously reinserting the offending images into *many* spammed categories). They similarly reverted templates highlighting WP:N, WP:V and WP:COI issues on their own products' article.
- Finally, despite my good faith explanations, the user resorted to WP:HOUNDing me on my own talk page, ironically violating WP:3RR (here, here and here) while doing so. In this edit, while blatantly violating WP:HUSH, the user even explained to me that "you don't own your talk page". Note that the user had been asked on more than one occasion to stay off my talk page.
- While I wouldn't normally bother reporting such incidents, as the user has chosen to do so, and in light of the particularly disruptive and tendentious editing, I hope that you might consider giving them a warning and/or some time off for violating a laundry list of Wikipedia policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT, WP:COI, WP:3RR, WP:HARASS for a start), despite repeated warnings, over an extended period of many months. -- samj inout 01:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is nothing more than one big glorified ad-hominem attack that does not respond to the issue at hand. You are attempting to control the cloud computing template (and other cloud computing articles) by edit warring instead of through discussion. You are in gross violation of Wikipedia policies. All of this hand waving and wikilawyering doesn't change the core issue. We have an editorial dispute. I've discussed why I think the appliances category belongs in there with other editors. The category is added. Then you come along months later and instead of explaining why you think it doesn't, you make threats on Twitter and edit-war. Your behavior needs to be sanctioned.LirazSiri (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- No it's not ad hominem - a charge you have repeated at least twice now - though it may feel like it when you put such a large sample of your problematic edits in one place. Your "threat" on Twitter was in light of your scrubbing out my attempts to remediate some of the more serious problems (tens of instances of category spam and more importantly, removing critical copyright templates from your uploads), and was in any case referring to nominating your article for AfD. -- samj inout 08:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Result - Template protected one week. Editors are advised not to revert again unless a talk page consensus is obtained. Follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if no agreement can be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Epipelagic reported by User:PrBeacon (Result: No action)
Page: Fishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Epipelagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [44]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49] -- Discussed my initial edits [50] -- asked the other editor to discuss his revert [51] -- responded to the other editor after he 2nd revert without discussion
Comments:
As I said on the talk page, Epipelagic made two reverts before he even went to the talk page. And his way of discussing the reverts seems to say, This is my turf, You're not welcome. He made no legitimate attempt to discuss my edits before the first two reverts, then proceeded to dismiss & patronize. PrBeacon (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is getting way out of hand. There is a relevant discussion regarding terminology at Whaling in Japan at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I brought up fishing in the discussion and now it is getting edit warred over. PrBeacon has been coming across a little rude and edit warring on two articles. I'm not saying a block is in order but a reminder that this behavior is not cool would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- How am I the one edit warring? I've discussed changes on this article's talkpage all along the way of making edits. The other editor Epipelagic is the one who refused to discuss the changes and reverted 3 times. And the Whaling in Japan is tangential, the discussion there simply brought this page's issues to my attention, and the same criteria apply -- i wasnt edit warring there, either. PrBeacon (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just because you make a point you like on a talk page doesn't mean you can revert. People disagree with you. There isn't consensus. Sometimes it takes more than a few hours. You have made multiple reverts in short time spans on two separate pages. That is edit warring. You should stop doing it. You are also not new to this. You have been blocked before. The fact that the other editor hit three before you did does not make it OK.Cptnono (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- How am I the one edit warring? I've discussed changes on this article's talkpage all along the way of making edits. The other editor Epipelagic is the one who refused to discuss the changes and reverted 3 times. And the Whaling in Japan is tangential, the discussion there simply brought this page's issues to my attention, and the same criteria apply -- i wasnt edit warring there, either. PrBeacon (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- RETRACT. I'd like to withdraw this petition. or cancel, whatever. I searched WP without finding out how. I blanked this section but the other editor (Epipelagic) restored it, presumably to get a ruling. But shouldn't he have to submit his own report? (For the record, although Cptnono makes a decent point, he is familiar with the previous situation to which he refers but it appears here out of context. My talk page archive has further details.) Thanks. PrBeacon (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Result - No action. I don't see a continuing disagreement, and the reverting has stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI
Perhaps somebody would care to take steps in a slow edit war I ran into while doing my usual wikignoming on Category:Animal rights activists. There seems to be a valid content dispute there as well. Preferably somebody should try to find a solution to both. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Nableezy reported by User:Nefer Tweety (Result: no action)
- Omar Sharif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:
Previous version reverted to: [52] Removing that Sharif was born into an Egyptian family.
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 21:25, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 22:02, 22 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 01:46, 23 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 20:53, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- Diff of warning: nableezy warning his opposing editor here -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- No action. Edits are not within the 24-hour period of WP:3RR. The other edit warrior is now blocked, making further action likely unnecessary. Blocks bay be made if the warring continues, though. Sandstein 07:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Lafuzion reported by User:Sandman888 (Result: other editor blocked 24 h)
Page: FC Barcelona season 2009–10
User being reported: Lafuzion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona_season_2009%E2%80%9310&diff=prev&oldid=346225022
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona_season_2009%E2%80%9310&diff=prev&oldid=346212530
- 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona_season_2009%E2%80%9310&diff=prev&oldid=346201573
- 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Barcelona_season_2009%E2%80%9310&diff=prev&oldid=346198165
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FC_Barcelona_season_2009%E2%80%9310 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lafuzion & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=339955474
Comments: This user and the user he is editing are constantly warring each other and it seems to be the case that a compromise shd be enforced, as earlier suggestions of getting there themselves are ignored. Sandman888 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lafuzion has agreed to stop, but Chapecoense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not, so they've been blocked for 24 hours. Sandstein 07:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Bearguardian reported by User:Verbal (Result: Page fully protected for three days)
- Three-revert rule violation on
Arthur Firstenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bearguardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 20:26, 24 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346017453 by Vary (talk)")
- 18:57, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346263554 by Verbal (talk)")
- 19:40, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346346965 by Verbal (talk) in order to remove unsource, libelous material in a BLP. This is an exception to the 3RR.")
- 20:10, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision, again removing unsource libelous material, not subject to the 3 revert rule.")
- Diff of warning: here
Continued editwarring immediately following block for same. Claims exception due to BLP. Claims discussed in detail on talk, and all material in the article is reliably sourced. —Verbal chat 20:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Article has now been fully protected for three days ending the reverting and these editors can and should now have the opportunity to move to discussion about this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note this is a single purpose account that is ignoring talk page consensus, has been recently blocked for this behaviour, and has made unsupported claims of sockpuppetry against the multiple established editors who have disagreed with him (see WP:BLPN). The account should be blocked to prevent further edit warring, and the page block lifted at that time. Note also the the suspected block evasion of User:Bearguardian. It is better not to protect the page if the issue can be addressed more clearly, and it is clear that this editor will resume edit warring as they have done in the past. Verbal chat 22:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Result: Page fully protected for three days. -- Please engage in discussion on the article's talk page. If necessary, please seek out third-party commentary and pursue appropriate forms of dispute resolution. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- A good one third of this account's not-quite-thirty edits have been reversions on this article - and that's not counting those by the now indef-blocked sockpuppet that the editor created during his or her last 3RR block. How do you expect protecting this editor's preferred version of the article to encourage him or her to work with the other editors who have disagreed with his or her changes (all half dozen or so of whom Bearguardian has decided are sockpuppets of eachother)? My primary issue with Bearguardian's edits is that they are slanted in favor of Mr. Firstenberg at the expense of the individual he is currently suing. I feel that she should be equally protected by BLP, and I feel that protecting this disruptive account's preferred version of the article will only encourage further disruption.
- Verbal, I would appreciate it if you would engage with Bearguardian on the talkpage, please. I'm getting a little tired of being informed that I'm biased and I'd love someone else to take a turn. -- Vary | (Talk) 06:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I request this is looked at again, as the page locking does not address the problem of Bearguardian's repeated editwarring, uncivil behaviour, accusations of sockpuppetry, etc etc, and is punishing our readers and editors in good standing. Verbal chat 09:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Bearguardian hasn't edited recently enough to do quite all what you've just said, but it does seem to be a WP:SPA. Bearguardian appears to possibly be gaming with a slow edit war by suggesting that certain reverts [53][54] are not subject to 3RR... Doc9871 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reply All of the points I've made can be backed by diffs - the sockpuppetry accusations are here, which includes bad faith. The talk page discussion is full of bad faith, unsupported accusations and other uncivil behaviour. The repeated editwarring is justified by the diffs above and teh previous block for same. Verbal chat 14:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Bearguardian hasn't edited recently enough to do quite all what you've just said, but it does seem to be a WP:SPA. Bearguardian appears to possibly be gaming with a slow edit war by suggesting that certain reverts [53][54] are not subject to 3RR... Doc9871 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Please, at least try to engage in some form of dispute resolution, at the article's talk page. I would suggest WP:RFC. Cirt (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This has been taken to WP:BLPN and discussed extensively on the talk page. By not blocking for clear 3RR violation, and protection the page at the "wrongversion" (naturally) we are in fact enabling this disruptive behaviour. There was no slow edit war, it is continued fast edit warring, gaming, and disruptive behaviour by one editor against 5 others who they proceeded to attack, while dismissing RS as non-applicable as it was non American, etc. Verbal chat 14:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
User:95.68.34.127 reported by Mosmof (talk) (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Ronaldo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 95.68.34.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also adding: 195.13.144.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which appears to be the same user, from a Latvian ISP, making identical edit, similar command of English.
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 18:36, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "there are plenty of ronaldos.")
- 18:37, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 18:37, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 18:39, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 19:03, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "reverted previous edit. There is plenty of ronaldo's - 8. There is no reason to exluce 1 playa.")
- 19:09, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Then Ronaldo (name) would be useless. Prominent or not but c. ronaldo is only 1 of 8. So I am objective.")
- 19:17, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "that and ehh gordo was not my edit. Undid to my last OBJECTIVE revision.")
- 19:29, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "feel free to dispute it, dude.")
- 19:41, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "your edit was landing here for a few days when I was in training camp. Long standing base was changed so your edit is on catching role.")
- 20:34, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "restored long standing edit, wait for consensus in dispute and then push your button.")
- 20:38, 25 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 346360902 by Connormah (talk)")
- Diff of warning: here
—Mosmof (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User:166.217.93.234 reported by Lanternix (talk) (Result: 31h )
- Three-revert rule violation on
Pan-Arabism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 166.217.93.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Already blocked by Ronhjones. nableezy - 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User:121.102.47.215 reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: )
Page: User talk:Oknazevad (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Oknazevad|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 121.102.47.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments:
Not sure if this is the right place, but the above anon added a nonsense comment at the Trains Wikiproject talk page that violated talk page guidelines (namely the idea that talk pages are not a general discussion forum). I reverted the addition, and followed through by checking the users contributions (I've found that if an anon violates that one place, they often have done it elsewhere, and I wanted to point that out to the anon in a gentle reminder.) To my great disappointment, the anon had placed the same comment in the actual broad gauge article, and as such violated WP:NOT, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. I reverted there as well, along with some previous nonsense edits.
In the case of all reversions, I made sure to put edit summaries explaining the issue (though I will admit I started loosing my temper and may have breached WP:CIVIL.) In my defense, however, by this time, after my first reversion, the anon apparently started taking it poorly, as they added the same passage (not a question about why it was inappropriate, but the exact same inappropriate passage) to my talk page. As I didn't want it there (being the passage is patent nonsense, and violates numerous wikipolicies), I removed it. As one can see from the history of my talk page, the anon has repeatedly restored the passage, even after I have removed it and asked them to stop via edit summary. I find this to be a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, and blatant vandalism of my talk page.oknazevad (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Support User:Oknazevad, with caveat.
- User:121.102.47.215 seems a classic case of soapboxing, where they're pushing a somewhat controversial viewpoint in a thoroughly non-encylopedic manner. Their non-encyc. behaviour should stop. They've been warned for this on their talk, and I'd ask other editors to watch out and assist. Guidance towards NPOV & V policies might be more helpful than edit warring.
- That said, they raise a few reasonable points, albeit some of them pretty tenuous. These deserve coverage, if that coverage can be NPOV with sourcing.
- I'd ask User:Oknazevad to please calm down a bit (which I'm sure they have done). Mainspace POV pushing deserves removal, talk pages don't (usually) and off-topics should be noted and discouraged, rather than reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll just back up Oknazevad in his complaint regarding this user. This user reverted the edits in List of rail gauges and Broad gauge once again to include what I shall describe politely as a novel point of view, and when I requested in the Talk:Broad gauge page that he/she do not do so again without citing references, he/she responded by suggesting I am stupid. The user simply cuts and pastes the same dubious "fact" into the user page of anyone who reverts his/her edit. It is of concern that this user is actively modifying a large number of articles, because if their edits are as apparently uninformed and baseless as their edits to articles on rail gauge, it's likely that these articles are severly diminished in quality and veracity.
- I note that during the time I have been adding this comment, the user has yet again reverted their edit to List of rail gauges. - Zzrbiker (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
User:SkyBon reported by User:Alex Smotrov (Result: )
Page: Russian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: SkyBon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 18:09, 25 February 2010
The user was inserting his own unsourced opinion, left only one vague message on the article talk page, implying that the original source + his own interpretation is sufficient to be in the article.
The user has 3K+ edits in Russian Wikipedia and was blocked there for both for edit warring and for 3RR, so he was already well aware of 3RR rule.
The page is protected at the moment, but the user will definitely continue edit warring as soon as protection expires.
— AlexSm 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Gd21091993 reported by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 31 hours)
Page: French colonial empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Gd21091993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [55]
- 1st revert: [56]
- 2nd revert: [57]
- 3rd revert: [58]
- 4th revert: [59]
- 5th revert: (blatant sock) [60]
- 6th revert: [61]
- 7th revert: [62]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]
Talk page: [64]
Comments:
Looks like a WP:SPA to me [65].http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrench_colonial_empire&action=historysubmit&diff=346517743&oldid=344821409
User:Inuit18 reported by User:Ahmed shahi (Result: )
Page: Ahmad Shah Durrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Inuit18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [66]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]
Comments:
The following editor (Inuit18) reverts my edits every day and I wish it ends.
Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Tiamut reported by User talk:Drork (Result: )
Page: State of Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [73]
Comments: (1) Tiamut's request to be unblocked after a long edit-war related block has been recently granted: User talk:Tiamut#Unblock request (2) Explanations why Tiamut's version is problematic and has to be changed were given in the article's talk page: Talk:State of Palestine#My revert
DrorK (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Tiamut made three reverts in a 30-hour period. Not exactly a WP:3RR violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 08:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)