→User:Oldstone James reported by User:SLBedit (Result: ): declined (using responseHelper) |
→User:SLBedit reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: ): declined (using responseHelper) |
||
Line 959: | Line 959: | ||
*{{AN3|d}} because the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackson_Mart%C3%ADnez&diff=670092102&oldid=670088958 self-reverted]. —[[User:Darkwind|Darkwind]] ([[User talk:Darkwind|talk]]) 05:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|d}} because the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackson_Mart%C3%ADnez&diff=670092102&oldid=670088958 self-reverted]. —[[User:Darkwind|Darkwind]] ([[User talk:Darkwind|talk]]) 05:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:SLBedit]] reported by [[User:Oldstone James]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:SLBedit]] reported by [[User:Oldstone James]] (Result: Declined) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Jackson Martínez}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Jackson Martínez}} <br /> |
||
Line 983: | Line 983: | ||
User reverts the content constantly, with reasons pretty obviously false. I tried to discuss the matter at his talk page, but he first refused to discuss and then started putting irrelevant Wiki-Help pages ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SLBedit#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jackson_Mart%C3%ADnez#Atl.C3.A9tico_Madrid]). After another edit revert, I tried to change the content for the first time, after what the user sent a report on me. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] ([[User talk:Oldstone James|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Oldstone James|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
User reverts the content constantly, with reasons pretty obviously false. I tried to discuss the matter at his talk page, but he first refused to discuss and then started putting irrelevant Wiki-Help pages ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SLBedit#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jackson_Mart%C3%ADnez#Atl.C3.A9tico_Madrid]). After another edit revert, I tried to change the content for the first time, after what the user sent a report on me. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Oldstone James|Oldstone James]] ([[User talk:Oldstone James|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Oldstone James|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
||
*{{AN3|d}} as a clear "revenge report", see above. {{Ping|Oldstone James}} STOP editing disruptively, or you will very likely end up blocked for a longer term next time, or interaction-banned. —[[User:Darkwind|Darkwind]] ([[User talk:Darkwind|talk]]) 05:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:CrazyAces489]] reported by [[User:SubSeven]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:CrazyAces489]] reported by [[User:SubSeven]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 05:59, 6 July 2015
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:KnightWarrior25 reported by User:TripWire (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Kargil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KnightWarrior25 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
—TripWire talk 17:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
It is necessary to note that User:TripWire was stick to one point an is involve in an edit war. Even I've mentioned him on the talk page but instead he keep on editing the article Kargil War I've just reverted him twice because his edit was unconstructive WP:FAKE he neither replied in the Talk:Kargil War nor did he paid attention to the dispute which is already solved and instead he keep on editing the article and was stick to one point which is already solved long ago by administrators and patrollers KnightWarrior25 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) -->
- I have commented on the page to quite an extent, even gave my comments on the RfC. The discussion is still open, there's an RfC which is still open. No consesus has been reached. You were warned twice to wait for the RfC to conclude and then edit, but you paid no heed. You participated at the talk page twice and thought other editors have accepted what you say? Sorry, sir, it does not happen like this on Wiki. You were even given ample comments to explain you to stop reverting and editing a topic/info which is still under discussion and have been there sine weeks, but to no avail, I had no other choice ut to report you for your undue reverts.—TripWire talk 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- 5th revert [8] now within ~ 24 hrs... obviously way beyond 3RR. The two net edits he is making are 1) change of out come to "Indian Victory" on which RFC is under way and the out come is supposed to stay as it was before the editwar / dispute per WP:BRD and 2) removal of information about peak 5353 which was compromised to have atleast a mention in the article per Talk:Kargil War#Peak 5353. Infact the user is citing me to have agreed to removal of this information while I never did. Infact the settled version was a compromise where this information was to be mentioned as per this which KW just removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can some one see to this, he's made about 7 reverts just within a day to about 4 editors and to more if we count his previous reverts. This is just disrupting the on going RFC (which has already taken toll by now blocked socks) and is quite irking as it instills WP:BATTLE mentality instead of working towards a compromise among those already participating heated discussion (although not reverting like this guy). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —Darkwind (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Continuation of editwar after expiring block: user has continued to revert the same edit right away after coming out of his block [9]. He's definitely not here to help the project. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Already blocked indefinitely by Future Perfect at Sunrise (t c). —Darkwind (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Continuation of editwar after expiring block: user has continued to revert the same edit right away after coming out of his block [9]. He's definitely not here to help the project. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Vimal varun reported by User:Diannaa (Result: Warned)
Page: Mayawati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vimal varun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Previous revision of Mayawati
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previous revision of User talk:Vimal varun
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of User talk:Vimal varun (on user talk, because his edit appears to be a misunderstanding of what a redirect is). -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
Diannaa (talk) You are an administrator. Why are you reporting a user to other administrator when you can block yourself.Count Chimera 17:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Probably because this admin is taking WP:INVOLVED into consideration. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Diannaa is nice admin, she won't block people when acting as editor. But I want to say something(which I should say on talk page but still..). Kumari should be used before name of unmarried girl, not after her name. It should be "Kumari Mayawati". Kumari is not surname of Mayawati. Kumari simply means "Miss". We don't write "Mary Miss", we write "Miss Mary". See translation of word Kumari, also on official website of her party name written is "Kumari Mayawati". BBC also used it. Moreover "Kumari should not be written in infobox as we don't use "Miss", "Mrs", "Dr" etc in name on Wikipedia, its not her official name, she is still unmarried thats why word "Kumari" usually used before her name.--Human3015 knock knock • 21:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Use:Vimal varun is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert about Kumari, unless they get consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Cscawley reported by User:2600:1006:B14D:6435:B945:D20A:9451:85D (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page: Indian Removal Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cscawley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk:Indian Removal Act#Native American name controversy
Comments:
- Cscawley (t c) and 2600:1003:B849:D635:0:29:8452:EE01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are both Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. —Darkwind (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Redfoxjump reported by User:BlackRanger88 (Result: 3RR violated)
Page: Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redfoxjump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]
Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Japan#"Japanese Invasions of Korea" dispute in the Feudal Era section
- Discussions regarding this same content have already taken place on the Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) page as well.
Comments:
Redfoxjump has reverted the same content four times between the time period: (06:42, 1 July 2015) - (04:57, 2 July 2015), which explicitly violates Wikipedia's "Three-Revert-Rule". I've had many encounters with this user, most notably on the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) page, over content similar to what is in question here. Redfoxjump has displayed similar patterns of behavior on that page as he/she has on this page, resulting in a hour block that was issued on 04:58, 25 May 2015. One of the reasons I filed that report was because Redfoxjump continued to add content that was not from a neutral point of view - for example claiming that the "Chinese were more important than the Koreans" in the conflict by citing one particular battle. What's particularly frustrating is that, even though it seemed as though we had reached a consensus regarding this issue on the talk page for that article, Redfoxjump seems to be trying to add the same POV information to articles such as Japan, in contrast with what was agreed upon before. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Your sentence is partial to Korea.
The siege of Pyongyang was the most important. The Japanese army largely withdrew for the first time. The Korean army was in the minority at the siege of Pyongyang
"Siege of Pyongyang".
The main force was the chinese forces.
Chinese 30000 Korean 10000,
Other main battles
Siege of Ulsan, Chinese 44,000, Korean 11,500,
Battle of Sacheon, 34,000 Chinese, 2,200 Koreans,
Siege of Suncheon, 21,900 Chinese Army, 5,928 Korean Army, 19,400 chinese Navy, 7,328 Korean Navy,
The main force was the chinese forces.
source """Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War, Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134, "(Korean) war minister Yi Hang-bok pointed out that assistance from China was the only way Korea could survive."""" Redfoxjump (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- User:Redfoxjump, please refer to the Talk:Japan#"Japanese Invasions of Korea" dispute in the Feudal Era section where I have addressed your concerns. There are just as many important battles in which the Koreans acted alone or were numerically superior. You claim that I'm partial to Korea, yet the only one asserting that one party was "more important" than the other is you. Regardless, edit warring is unacceptable. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No violation.(See below) I counted only three actual reverts ([25] [26] [27]) in a 24-hour period. That being said, Redfoxjump (t c), you cannot use "your edit is partial to [a particular point of view]" as an excuse to edit war. The only valid exceptions to the three-revert rule are listed here. Both of you are indeed on the verge of edit warring, so please exercise caution. —Darkwind (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this [28] count as a revert? The action performed here reverted part of the edit I made here [29] where I deleted the full name of the conflict since I felt that it was appropriately alluded to by the phrase "Hideyoshi would invade Korea twice in 1592 and 1596". Redfoxjump undid my edit by re-adding the full name of the conflict.
- The 3RR rule says that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." In this case, I believe this qualifies as "different material" that was undone "in part". Once again, please correct me if I'm mistaken. BlackRanger88 (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- @BlackRanger88: Yes, this edit is a revert by Redfoxjump (t c). It looks like I was looking at the timestamps incorrectly, as I counted that as outside the 24 hour period from his last edit, when it's actually just within it. Thank you for pointing that out. However, blocking him would not serve a useful purpose at this point. Blocks are not punitive and the disruption seems to have stopped.
- @Redfoxjump: Please be aware that you did indeed violate WP:3RR on this article, and any further behavior that appears to be edit warring or any other disruptive editing is likely to result in an immediate block. —Darkwind (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Darkwind: Thanks for your feedback. Hopefully we'll be able to work out a compromise through discussion. BlackRanger88 (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Jørgen88 reported by User:Keri (Result: Page protected )
- Page
- Adam Kotsko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Jørgen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 09:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669608676 by 199.48.245.215 (talk)Stop removing sourced content. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it should be removed."
- 09:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669608461 by 199.48.245.215 (talk)"
- 09:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669600361 by Wikimandia (talk) It doesn't matter what he said afterwards. His statements were real and can't be excused."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
- 12:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adam Kotsko. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 12:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "/* If someone has any problem relating to sourced and verified content, yet controversial, discuss it here instead of engaging in an edit war */ stop"
- Comments:
Edit warring at Adam Kotsko; discussion ongoing at talk page. SPI also opened as suspicious IP 176.11.33.252 edits being made to continue edit war while evading 4RR Keri (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- My content is sourced. And the IP is not me, but I don't know how to prove that. Jørgen88 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Page protected I have semi-protected for a week, which will stop the IPs. I am letting Jørgen88 off, because they have now stopped warring and are using the talk page. Jørgen88, if you touch the article again before a consensus forms, you may well be blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
User:MehrdadFR reported by User:Averysoda (Result: Page protected)
Page: Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MehrdadFR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [30]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User/IP didn't use the talk page.
Comments: New user (probably the same IP 109.60.45.52 who has been edit-warring before, when the article wasn't semi-protected) keeps trying to add mostly unsourced POV content, without bothering to gain consensus on the talk page.--Averysoda (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Page protected Edit warring throughout the day by multiple editors without a single talk page post. Page fully protected. NeilN talk to me 01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ok Neil, but let's not forget MehrdadFR broke 3RR (that's a fact!), and he was blocked in March for the same reason. He deserves a longer blockade to understand the importance of obeying Wikipedia's rules. This is regardless of the article we are discussing.--Averysoda (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Both of you were continuing the edit war instead of using the talk page. As WP:3RR states, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." --NeilN talk to me 01:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ok Neil, but let's not forget MehrdadFR broke 3RR (that's a fact!), and he was blocked in March for the same reason. He deserves a longer blockade to understand the importance of obeying Wikipedia's rules. This is regardless of the article we are discussing.--Averysoda (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Averysoda reported by User:MehrdadFR (Result: Page protected)
User:Averysoda, as can be seen from his contributions, is just going from article to article and pushing his rigid pro-Israeli agenda. There are two problematic examples:
- United Against Nuclear Iran, three reverts [36][37][38]. Not only 3RR is an issue here, he simply deleted scholarly source with explanation: what's the encyclopedic value or relevance of an unknown Iranian "scholar" named 'Sasan Fayazmanesh'?. It's an academic source by American professor, and he don't accept it because of his Iranian origin. Disgusting, and also a racist.
- Anti-Iranian sentiment, the same story: three reverts [39][40][41]. This article was lacking sources and it had dead links issues, which were improved by inserting fresh links and two academic sources (Stanford University Press + Peter Lang). Again he removed everything and he insist that there's "no consensus". Consensus for inserting reliable sources, not their removal? Simply ridiculous.
There's not any POV issue here, just vandalism by user who WP:DONTLIKE WP:RS. --MehrdadFR (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Leaving aside your add-hominem attacks, I didn't break 3RR in any of those two articles. You did in anti-Iranian sentiment. That's unacceptable and deserves a long blockade. You knew the 3RR policy since you suffered a blockade in March for that same reason.
- 3RR doesn't include WP:vandalism (point #4) like in your case, because your edits clearly fell under such definition. An obvious vandalism. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Page protected Edit warring throughout the day by multiple editors without a single talk page post. Page fully protected. NeilN talk to me 01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Zekenyan reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Articles protected)
Page: Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Walashma dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zekenyan (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:
- Revision as of 01:10, 3 July 2015
- Revision as of 01:12, 3 July 2015
- Revision as of 01:20, 3 July 2015
- Latest revision as of 01:21, 3 July 2015
On Walashma dynasty:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on Users Talk page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page discussion
Comments:
After some time away, Zekenyan has come back to edit war for the third time on two separate articles. AcidSnow (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- This user is not providing any sources for his edit which constitutes to Original research. For this reason I should have clemency. Zekenyan (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, please check the article and the extensive talk page discussion as well. AcidSnow (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry it doesnt work like that. You cant simply refer to a discussion from another article. Regarding the dynasty page im the last one to respond to him and he has ignored it here [42]. This user has removed my well sourced additions and replaced them with original research [43] Zekenyan (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- That discussion ended months ago. I left due to you making a personal attack against me which was accusing me of "trolling". I have never broken 3RR, but I can't say the same about you (in response to something you just deleted in your reply). Nor were you my statements "original research". Yours, on the other hand, were proven to be fringe months ago. BTW, stop bringing this discussions to this noticeboard. Your post to explain why you broke 3RR and not try to continue to bring up something that had already ended. AcidSnow (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- It seems you are use to breaking 3rr and getting away with it [44] Zekenyan (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, you can continue to revert vandalism. I recommend you check out WP:EDITWAR. You can report me for that if you don't believe me but you won't get far. AcidSnow (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- It seems you are use to breaking 3rr and getting away with it [44] Zekenyan (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- That discussion ended months ago. I left due to you making a personal attack against me which was accusing me of "trolling". I have never broken 3RR, but I can't say the same about you (in response to something you just deleted in your reply). Nor were you my statements "original research". Yours, on the other hand, were proven to be fringe months ago. BTW, stop bringing this discussions to this noticeboard. Your post to explain why you broke 3RR and not try to continue to bring up something that had already ended. AcidSnow (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry it doesnt work like that. You cant simply refer to a discussion from another article. Regarding the dynasty page im the last one to respond to him and he has ignored it here [42]. This user has removed my well sourced additions and replaced them with original research [43] Zekenyan (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, please check the article and the extensive talk page discussion as well. AcidSnow (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Two articles protected. Zekenyan, who filed this report, broke 3RR at Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad and AcidSnow was close behind. I suggest the two of you either take this to WP:DRN or open a formal WP:RfC. The talk discussion is reasonable but each side is quick to declare victory for their own position. The data is ultra-confusing and you should get some outsider opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:DisuseKid reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Stale)
Page: Jurassic World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DisuseKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 2015-07-03T03:32:56 (these first three are reverting the cast order)
- 2015-07-03T03:28:13
- 2015-07-03T03:24:32
- 2015-07-02T22:20:09 (which was a revert of [45], a plot detail revert)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46] (which was promptly reverted, and the editor has not used the talk page as advised)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: first attempt, second attempt, another uninvolved editor ultimately agreed with me on the talk page, and that's the only feedback I've received so far.
Comments:
- As linked to above, I left a note on the users talk page, also warning them of 3RR when I saw they had reverted me while I was leaving them a message. I submitted my talk page message, then went back and corrected the page one last time. The editor reverted my message on their talk page and reverted my change again, in defiance of the message I'd left them. If you filter the editors contributions to the Talk namespace, they've only ever made two edits to that namespace in their time here. :/ —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: I recommend a 42 hour block for DisuseKid because of a previous 2RR violation on June 30 in the article's history: [47] & [48] and a 1 week full protection lock to prevent continuous reverts after the block has proceeded. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- 2RR isn't a "rule" though. It is a prior example of edit warring behavior, which is problematic, but this user is also new. I'd tend to err on the side of not biting the newbies, go for a 16-24 hour block to get their attention hopefully and bring them to the talk page (which I note this user posted a question to, and then sadly deleted it a short time later). I'd even be fine with an uninvolved admin just leaving the user a note, letting them know they violated the rule, and getting them to agree to discuss edits in the future instead of blindly reverting. I disagree with the full protection: it's not necessary when it's limited to this small number of editors, and the page was only recently semi-protected (which has cut back on the anon edits). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- As evidenced by this recent interaction at Charleston church shooting — B-DisuseKid, R-VQuakr, R-DisuseKid — DisuseKid still prefers to debate via revert/editsum instead of article talk. Any block would tarnish her/his record forever, so it seems a bit harsh for a 14-day editor. I'd suggest some slack, but only if s/he says that s/he now knows the correct way and plans to use it from here forward. S/he could also show good faith by self-reverting in that article, thereby returning the situation to its proper state, and going to talk if s/he wants to pursue the debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- That interchange was collegial, and certainly not evidence of a need for administrative action. I haven't had any issues with DisuseKid edit warring, so please don't drag that interchange into this. A bit of "discussion in edit summaries" is acceptable as long as the environment is productive - the point of WP:EW and WP:3RR is to prevent disruption. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was here representing Wikipedia, not you, so it's not like I was sticking my nose into your business. Editor behavior is everyone's concern, whether involved or not. That situation was notable because it was part of a pattern and therefore relevant to this report. As always, I'm open to correction by experienced consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Of the three diffs you linked, the first was a non-controversial (maintenance) removal of a broken link, the second was insertion of a different, replacement link (not a revert), and the third was a WP:BRD-compliant removal with a new and quite reasonable rationale in the edit summary. You are on EW/N and suggested that DisuseKid needed to self-revert for some reason; I am replying that that particular set of edits documents a "pattern" of DisuseKid editing constructively. VQuakr (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Stale. Although DisuseKid (t c) did violate 3RR with this series of 6 reverts: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54], and the series of reverts between DisuseKid and Locke Cole (t c) was definitely an edit war, a block would not benefit the project at this time. Blocks are not punitive, and there is no apparent disruptive editing going on at the moment. DisuseKid, please remember that 3RR applies regardless of whether you are undoing the same material each time or different material, so if you frequently edit a particular page, you need to take specific care to watch your reverts. —Darkwind (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Page: Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SPACKlick (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:
- Revision as of 12:04, 9 June 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
- Revision as of 09:53, 30 June 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
- Revision as of 11:36, 1 July 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
- Revision as of 10:34, 2 July 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
- Revision as of 00:49, 3 July 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on Users Talk page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page discussion
Comments:
- SPACKlick (talk · contribs) has been notified of the community imposed sanctions here by Bishonen. This is a slow edit war going back to last month. Although technically not a 3RR violation the image is being deleted from the society and culture section 5 times by the same editor without consensus. A total of 3 different editors have restored the image. There was a previous 3RR violation on same article back in April. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#User:SPACKlick_reported_by_User:QuackGuru_.28Result:_.29. QuackGuru (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This is definitely disruptive editing. Per the general sanctions authorized by the community, SPACKlick (t c) is hereby prohibited from adding or removing images from articles relating to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, until July 31, 2015 23:59 UTC. I will log the sanction and notify the editor in question momentarily. —Darkwind (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Newhavenfire97 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: blocked)
- Page
- New Haven Fire Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Newhavenfire97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "continued quest to maintain factual information till 25 year old internet troll zackmann08 undoes this edit to his inaccurate info"
- 04:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "undid revision by zackmann08 who continuously posts outdated, false, unverified information."
- 22:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "undid changed by zackmann to reflect most current information. zackmann repeatedly vandalized page with outdated info"
- 18:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 667119360 by Zackmann08 (talk) zackmann08 keeps posting outdated false information"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
C.Fred (talk · contribs) previously warned the user. I requested that the user discuss on the article's talk page here. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours The primary justification for the block was the bright-line violation of the three-revert rule; however, there are other issues with this editor's conduct that may require some guidance and mentoring after the block expires—C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:104.156.240.134 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page: Grace Dunham (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: [55]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: mine as well as two other warnings for this same incident.
Comments:
The user is also topic banned from this subject according to the arbitration committee's ruling in the above Clarification Request link. The request concerned this incident specifically over which he is now edit-warring. 104.156.240.134 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- The scrutiny-avoiding IPs in question are reverting questionably-sourced and unduly-weighted highly-negative material into the article (claims that the article subject was a victim of sexual abuse) while removing the subject's own responses to these claims (rejecting them.) Note the series of different anonymous IPs with zero editorial history making similar reverts - this is clearly some sort of off-wiki-coordinated attack. I have requested page protection and reported a responsible IP on the appropriate noticeboards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I note that the page has been semi-protected due to BLP violations by anonymous IPs by FreeRangeFrog. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know that blocking the IP would be productive at this point given the protection, perhaps they will decide to engage in some discussion. Their removal of the subject's responses to the controversial material was very inappropriate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced this meets the "obvious" standard of WP:BANEX, but that's why we have WP:IAR. IP's edits are terrible, and I find it hard to believe someone would be pushing this at Grace Dunham without having encountered the history of similar attempts at Lena Dunham. Rhoark (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- @NorthBySouthBaranof: I apologize, I never noticed that the IP was reporting you instead of the other way around (thus my comment). I guess that boomerang-ed quickly, heh. For the record I have no problems whatsoever with your actions here, ban or no ban. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Filer IP blocked for 48 hours. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Jbmorgan4 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result:Blocked 48h)
Page: Aleksander Dugin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jbmorgan4 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68] (but this is also sock puppetry, so warning is moot)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69] [70] etc
Comments:
Based on edit summaries, it's obvious that this is the same user as: User:No Source - No Valid Source, User:SandSpietta90, User:Benjamin.Franklin.1706, User:Hierarchist + a few IPs and a couple accounts I likely missed. I'll file an SPI but in the mean time this is the 3RR report part. I'll most likely also ask for semi-protection (again) Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Marvzi reported by User:Attar-Aram syria (Result: blocked 24 hours}}
Page: Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marvzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [71]
Rojava is under 1 revert rule per 24 hours.
Diff: 1- [72]
2- [73]
Not to mention the removing of a whole sourced section [74] 4 minutes after I asked him to use the talk pages through a message on his talk page [75].
Not to mention that most probably he is a sockpuppet of a user recently indefinitely blocked User:Multi-gesture, who edit with the exact same style and was reported for racism [[76]]. This user "Marvzi" only started to be active again after Multi-Gesture was blocked. And what a surprise He removed the same material Multi-Gesture tried to remove, which are related to a website named Kurdwatch :
1- In here, you will see an IP removing Kurdwatch material [77] AND in here, you will see Multi-gesture admitting that he was the one who removed Kurdwatch [78]
2- After Multi-gesture was blocked, Surprise, Kurdwatch material was deleted by Marvzi [79] Please notice the edit summaries of Marzvi and Multi-Gesture, suspiciously similar.
3- Marvzi again is using the same ethnic spirit of Multi-Gesture by insisting on using the Arab designation for ISIS slave markets, even though its not mention in the source [80]. This "Arab" word inserted in association with ISIS is the style of Multi-gesture for which a case was filled against him in the ANI [[81]] and for which two admins decided to permanently block Multi-gesture--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Attar-Aram syria reported by User:Marvzi (Result: declined)
Page: Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Attar-Aram syria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [82]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Comment : The first so called revert was not a revert but a fix for what the source actually says which I provided in the summary. The second revert which is an real one, was a restoration of a whole sourced section deleted without a discussion which is actual vandalism. Please notice that I did asked him to engage in the talke page but he didnt cooperate [85]--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- On hold pending results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Multi-gesture. The first edit was absolutely a revert, but see WP:3RRNO. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm, Sorry then, I will accept whatever rightful measure that shall be taken against me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Update : this user was confirmed as a sockpuppet [86] hence I was reverting edits by a blocked user (which I knew for sure). So I acted under this WP:3RRNO.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm, Sorry then, I will accept whatever rightful measure that shall be taken against me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Declined per 3RRNO. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:108.3.162.35 reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )
- Page
- Perry Hall High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 108.3.162.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 02:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "Local newspaper"
- 03:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669723782 by John from Idegon (It's a local newspaper it's credible) (talk)"
- 18:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669736021 by John from Idegon (It is real, it is credible, people there care, We don't care about you, get over it) (talk)"
- 20:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669814612 by John from Idegon (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Perry Hall High School. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 19:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC) "/* recent edits 7/3/2015 */ new section"
- Comments:
in addition, their talk page was created with a edit war warning template that was not linked to, but was about the article in question. John from Idegon (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also edit-warring this same content at 2060s, where it is even less appropriate (sorry for not putting a link in my warning to the article where I first noticed the behavior). Editor is blindly reverting to his last edit, destroying others' unrelated intervening changes as well (even worse than simple inclusion/exclusion of his certain item of interest). DMacks (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just want to point this out. IP tried removing the report twice. [87][88] — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- IP just tried to remove my comment. [89] — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just want to point this out. IP tried removing the report twice. [87][88] — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
User:MehrdadFR reported by User:All Rows4 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: United Against Nuclear Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MehrdadFR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [90]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [91]
- [92]
- [93]
- [94]
- [95] - Continues to edit war, this 5th revert (of different material, partially reverting this edit) - even AFTER this report was filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Rows4 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96] - was warned about edit warring earlier today, on a different article, and has reported another user for edit warring on THIS article.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]
Comments:
User was just here a few hours ago, edit warring on multiple articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Rows4 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's already been discussion about everything here. Keep in mind that 3RR doesn't include WP:vandalism (point #4), which was obvious in Averysoda's systematically deletion of sourced material. --MehrdadFR (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- None of your reverts were of vandalism. You need to read WP:VANDALISM to see what it means. This is a simple content dispute and you are edit warring.All Rows4 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Clear violation of 3RR by WP:Battleground editor who was blocked for similar behavior in March[98]. Think a longer block is necessary this time. Particularly since the user ALSO in violation of 3RR at Anti-Iranian sentiment. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- None of your reverts were of vandalism. You need to read WP:VANDALISM to see what it means. This is a simple content dispute and you are edit warring.All Rows4 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours as 3RR was violated at both United Against Nuclear Iran and Anti-Iranian sentiment two days ago, and user reverted again today at the UANI article indicating disruption is likely to continue. —Darkwind (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Calidum reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Page protected)
Page: Northeastern University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Calidum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [99]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]
4 reverts in 2 hours
Contributor321 (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, imagine having the audacity to suggest someone wanting to add controversial information (which was already in the article almost verbatim) should discuss such a change on the talk page. You made no effort to resolve the situation. And I find it highly suspicious that two IPs, which both made their first edits and geolocate to the same city, decided to join in on the edit war. Finally, the page has already been protected so this appears to be an attempt at revenge. Calidum T|C 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, and look who just started a proper discussion on the talk page. Calidum T|C 05:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comments: Looks like edit warring to me in addition to a refusal to employ WP:BRD. After being told by the other editor to take concerns regarding disputed content, Calidum snarkily responds, "Or you could". No attempts to discuss that I can see; no real explanation for edit reversion in edit summaries, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm surprised it took you 15 minutes to find this report. And BTW, the user who filed the report also failed to follow BRD since they insisted on making a change to the article without discussing it first. Calidum T|C 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- I did discuss it: my change included the explanation "if it's ok to mention the rise in rankings twice, it's ok to mention the criticism twice" [106]Contributor321 (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm surprised it took you 15 minutes to find this report. And BTW, the user who filed the report also failed to follow BRD since they insisted on making a change to the article without discussing it first. Calidum T|C 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Page protected. No blocks issued because the disruption has stopped. @Calidum: regardless of your reasoning, you did clearly revert four times on the article, thus violating 3RR. You have a history that shows some difficulty editing in a collaborative way, so I strongly encourage you to avoid even the appearance of edit warring in the future. —Darkwind (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Handpolk reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: 48h)
Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger (poker player) (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Handpolk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [107]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
Comments:
Continually removing comment by 2005
Fairly clear violation of WP:TPO in addition to WP:3RR. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Am I reading it right that the warning came after the editor's last edit? 104.200.154.10 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, my warning for edit warring on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger (poker player) (2nd nomination) was placed at 5:29AM. At 6:22AM there was another revert from Handpolk. The Banner talk 09:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- 2005 is making baseless accusations across numerous venues that I'm a sock of a specific user, without offering a shred of evidence. He needs to take it to SPI and these accusations need to be removed.
- The SPA who reported this is hounding me with this report, he knows me from an area where I am topic banned and has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 07:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 07:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect this talk page comment might be disturbing as well [114]. In any case, we have here an editor who was topic-banned from Gamergate at AE and who is demonstrating that he's not WP:NOTHERE by editing elsewhere, and who has immediately wound up in conflict, drama, and dubious editing. The problem might be malice or might be competence, but it's hard to imagine that they will be an asset to the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, I have had to remove several of those baseless warnings, an admin needs to step in before this gets out of hand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Blocked for 48 hours. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, I have had to remove several of those baseless warnings, an admin needs to step in before this gets out of hand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Kzim777 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 31h)
- Page
- Darjeeling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Kzim777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Darjeeling falls under autonomous body GTA and GTA has official language called Nepali. Mr. Thomas(alias name for some bias person) let me tell you that you are not creator of Wikipedia and you are just one of admin. I am not adding false details."
- 13:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669915209 by Thomas.W (talk)"
- 13:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Stop the discrimination and dictatorship.Darjeeling district has maximum population that speak Nepali language.I may take necessary steps on this if any wrong details provided."
- 12:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Nepali is official language of India and one of language printed in India currency. Darjeeling district has maximum population of Nepali speaking people(Gorkhas,Lepchas,Bhutia etc.) and therefore the official language of Darjeeling District is Nepali."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Darjeeling."
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Editor repeatedly making POV edits removing Bengali as official langiage and changing it to Nepali, which is contrary to what the official government source in the article says. According to the source Bengali is the only official language in the state of West Bengal, with English being an "additional official language", that is secondary language, in all of the state, and Nepali being a secondary language in three hill districts, including Darjeeling. As the version of the article I revert to says, and as I have tried to make Kzim777 understand. To no avail. Thomas.W talk 13:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Rolandi+ reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
- Page
- Illyrians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "don't continue your "way of pov pushing" ,there is a discussion at the talk page"
- 18:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "disruptive editing by Alexikoua's sock,maybe needs reporting"
- 15:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "disruptive editing"
- 10:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669897819 by Alexikoua (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
POV-pushing of fringe theories about Albanians originating from the ancient Illyrians. Will not stop despite warnings. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- It appears that trolling is also a way for him to discuss a variety of topics, like in a recent ANI: [[115]].Alexikoua (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- He is edit-warring at Cham Albanians now: [116]. This guy is not going to stop. Athenean (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- With this edit [117] Rolandi has now broken 3RR on Cham Albanians as well. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Merging second Rolandi+ report:
- User:Rolandi+ reported by User:Dr.K. (Result
- )
- Page
- Cham Albanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "you said that my references weren't fully cited,now they are"
- 20:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Alexikoua's sock"
- 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "no ,it's not"
- 11:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "yes of course"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW★TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This is the second article Rolandi+ has violated 3RR on even while the first report was open. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. This closure comment applies to both reports above. Rolandi+ (t c), you are very clearly edit warring on both Illyrians and Cham Albanians, having violated 3RR on both pages. Furthermore, both of these articles are subject to discretionary sanctions, which you are already aware of per the alert on your talk page. Any further disruption from you in this topic area will almost certainly result in a topic ban. —Darkwind (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
User:MbahGondrong reported by User:Målfarlig! (Result: Protected)
Page: Nadine Angerer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MbahGondrong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [118]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [124]
Comments:
User warned for edit warring at Smail Prevljak last week, also actively edit warring at Wang Fei (footballer, born 1990) and Andressa Alves da Silva but not yet past 3RR. Målfarlig! (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Same applies for you also. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Both editors were edit warring and violated WP:3RR. I see no attempt to resolve the dispute in the article's talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Where is my 3RR breach? Målfarlig! (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Målfarlig!, You've been edit warring with MbahGondrong since June 28 in article: Nadine Angerer. The following reverts: [125], [126], & [127]. You've violated 3RR, you're just as guilty as MbahGondrong — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also, in article: Wang Fei (footballer, born 1990), the following reverts: [128], [129], & [130]. It's obvious that you and MbahGondrong aren't getting along and I see no attempt to resolve the matter in any of the article's talk pages both of you have reverted each other in. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- @JudeccaXIII Can you please show me where I actually violated 3RR? I don't accept I'm "just as guilty" either, I've been making serious edits/expansions to these pages and have then been Wikihounded with these stupid/trivial edits intended purely to annoy. That was after I and another editor expressed legitimate concerns about the quality of MbahGondrong's stub articles. Unlike MbahGondrong I don't have recent warnings for edit warring. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Målfarlig!, I've already linked your reverts that violate 3RR above. Anyway, I'll let an admin handle this matter. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hopefully one who can count to four. Målfarlig! (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Seriously? Bringing up an unrelated closed debate? You are desperate are you? Even your link for the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is wrong. Apparently you even dont understand the WP:3RR either, as you can not understand a simple rule of WP:INFOBOXREF and keep insisting on your own personal opinion. I'm glad actuall you reported me. Let's see how this will go. Good night! :) MbahGondrong (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hopefully one who can count to four. Målfarlig! (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Målfarlig!, I've already linked your reverts that violate 3RR above. Anyway, I'll let an admin handle this matter. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- @JudeccaXIII Can you please show me where I actually violated 3RR? I don't accept I'm "just as guilty" either, I've been making serious edits/expansions to these pages and have then been Wikihounded with these stupid/trivial edits intended purely to annoy. That was after I and another editor expressed legitimate concerns about the quality of MbahGondrong's stub articles. Unlike MbahGondrong I don't have recent warnings for edit warring. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Page protected – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Chotaripple reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)
Page: Battle of Chamkaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chotaripple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [131]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]
Comments:
User:Chotaripple has, since 24 June, been edit warring the inclusion of 1 million Mughal troops into the Battle of Chaumkar article. He has been reverted by Xtremedood[140], Plastikspork[141], and myself. If we take into account the IP that was edit warring over the exact same issue prior to 24 June, then the edit warring has gone on far longer.[142] My post on Chotaripple's talk page garnered no response except an accusation of betrayal.[143] Nor has Chotaripple chosen to address this issue on the article's talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Blocked 24 hours. Editor is warring to add the number '1 million' as the actual size of an army, while the reported size is a legendary quantity like 'very big number'. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
User:BiKaz reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Barelvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- BiKaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670022468 by Ogress (talk)"
- 08:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670016173 by Ogress (talk)"
- 03:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669954844 by Obaid Raza (talk)"
- 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Criticism"
- Another reversion: diff
- another "(I have removed one sentence to help make the article as CONSTRUCTIVE as possible.)" <== not true
- another "(Reverted Hypocrisy edits by (talk))
- another "(Undid revision 670022468 by Ogress (talk))"
- another "(Undid revision 670022468 by Ogress (talk))"
- There are even more edits since no one has been able to deal with this case, but I won't list them here.
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 06:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Barelvi. (TW)"
- 08:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Userpage vandalism on User:Ogress. (TW)"
- 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Barelvi. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
User will not discuss on talk page Response to multiple editors warning his talk page: "Just go and play away, kid! And stop spamming my page with this BULLSHIT!--BiKaz (talk) 8:03 am, Today (UTC−7)"
- Comments:
The user is engaging in edit warring and is refusing to talk about the issue; 3RR right here plus it's not just here. You'll note he also decided to decorate my user page with a statement. Ogress smash! 08:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours due to clear 3RR violation. —Darkwind (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Page: Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dandaawi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Preferred Version
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 10:38, 5 July 2015
- Revision as of 13:57, 5 July 2015
- Revision as of 14:06, 5 July 2015
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk Page Warning
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page Discussion
Comments:
Although these are 3 revert this is a long standing issue. They have also been avoiding 3RR by only reverting 3 times then coming back later to do it again. Anyways, for the course of several weeks, a single purpose account (Dandaawi) has consistently been defying consensus. In addition, he has also made constant personal attacks against me. These include: accusing me of engaging in "too many vandalism here", that I am adding my own "personal preference", that I am "misleading" and using "propaganda", that my actions are "very very biased and far from the reality" and are "clan based", that I am a "Pro-Somalia", etc. But I must say that the oddest one is this one: "All i see is you against the world. i see no consnsus". Especially considering the fact that the whole world considered it nothing other than Somalia. Nonetheless, everyone here can see his actions here so there's no need to deny it. But he still continues to do so. More importantly, the users that I stated that gave their inputs did so: CambridgeBayWeather (see here: [144]), Howicus (see here: [145]), and Rsrikanth05 (see here: [146]). So why deny consensus since it seems quite odd to continue to do so at this point?
If your wondering about the revert I made against 26o1, they are nothing but a user that is not only harassing other users but is also impersonating another user (26oo). AcidSnow (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why did you not file a report to WP:ANI about that user at the time you made that revert, then? I'm trying to decide what remedies (blocks and/or page protection) will best help the situation here. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You did did three 4 revers in the same page, you also refused to accept any kind of solution or bring documents supporting your self created map in the talk page .. You are taking advantage of your wiki system knowledge to block me. I will fill a file against you too. Adminstrators should take a look at the at the page history. You can clearly see Ucid acid did 4 reverts [148]. this is like The pot calling the kettle black Dandaawi (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- User self-reverted the fourth, so that isn't taken into consideration. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I did, however, as I already explained 26o1 is nothing but a user causing disruption and impersonating another user. That one doesn't even count since it falls out of WP:EDITWAR. I have also removed my last revert to make it even clearer. As such, I have only made 2 reverts in realty. Nor am I the only user to have rejected your "solutions". In fact, a solution has already been found but you nonetheless don't seem to care (as already shown above). Nor have I failed to provide sources like you still oddly accuse me of. As for using my knowledge to an "advantage" I have no desire to do so. Especially considering the fact that I am the one constant warning you of your violations. But you nonetheless seem not to care. So by all means file a report against me but you won't get far. AcidSnow (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's more to this C.Fred when it comes to my first revert as well. AcidSnow (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You are twisting the reason those user names reverted those edits which has nothing to do with concensus. in fact you are avoiding to send them notifications although you mentioned their names multiple times over the last several days. , how come your one month old self created map can be more prefereble than 8 years old maps without bringing any valid reason. Lets prove who is the liar. I am calling all the users you mentioned to ask when and where did we reached consensus over this Talk:Somaliland#Map ladies and gentlemen please come forward CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk) Rsrikanth05 (talk) Howicus (Did I mess up?). Dandaawi (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hahaha, I did notify them! See here: [149]. It seems that they opted not to return since a consensus was already established. So why would I want to annoy them with constant notifications? t's best you give up with the baseless accusations as they only speak negatively of you. AcidSnow (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, I was notified last time. I chose not to comment because I had no clue what was going on. If at all I have made an edit on the page, it was probably with Huggle or Stiki to undo/revert a change that was obviously incorrect. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Who authorized you to delete my comments i posted user Buckshot06 (talk) talk page just moments ago. Please adminstrators take a look at this. User Acid removed a comment i posted Some other user's talk page , Does he has the right to do so? [[150]] Dandaawi (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't delete. I moved it to Fred's talk page. I don't enjoy Buckshot06s following me and another user around. AcidSnow (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
you moved and hided from his talp talk page. The evidence is there, adminstrators can confirm if you just moved a copy of iit or Made it disapear from his talk page Dandaawi (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't make it hidden from anyone. Regardless of what I do Buckshot06 will be well aware that you sent him a message. The only group that can make it hidden are other admins which is something I am not. I moved it to Freds page and made it distinctly clear on his page as well. AcidSnow (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You did it what is this, [[151]] Dandaawi (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I moved it here: [152]. What this user did here was hidden and deleted: [153]. Do you get it now? I mean, you can literally still see your edit: [154]...... AcidSnow (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You think i am stupid. I could not litterally see it on his page until i reverted your edit after me. Here is the page history [[155]] Dandaawi (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't and I never said it either. So could you kindly stop putting words in my mouth as well as making other attacks against me? You can see it without doing anything. In fact, I literally showed you the diff link for it. As I already explained, no matter what I do Buckshot06 will always see you message. Making things hidden and deleted are completely outside of my powers, I am not an admin. AcidSnow (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
User:87.68.150.229 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Semi)
- Page
- The Bachelorette (season 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 87.68.150.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 11:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Call-Out Order */"
- [156]
- [157]
- [158]
These edits are not in order.
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Bachelorette (season 11). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This IP in question has been removing the <!-- --> tags from an unused colorbox. I initially hid it because it is being unused and serves for nothing until the winner is revealed. After the short back and forth between me and them, they've returned with disruptive editing Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
User:SchroCat reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Protection, Warning)
- Page
- Ariana Grande (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670081905 by Chasewc91 (talk) Back to version in place when RfC was filed. Do not edit war to push your own preferred version in place, and sont come to mytalk page to threaten me"
- 15:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Aytk (talk) to last version by SchroCat"
- 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670057325 by Aytk (talk)sourced info, regardless of your POV on the point. We Anto be neutral, not try and gloss over every little flaw in some idol-worshipping nonsense"
- 07:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Accolades */ not inherently unreliable on everything - and reporting an award is not something they would lie about"
- 23:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by FrB.TG (talk): I think the talk page is the best place to discuss the removal,of well-sourced material. (TW)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ariana Grande. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
see Talk:Ariana Grande#RfC: Grande "Diva" claims and Talk:Ariana Grande#Aytk
- Comments:
Continued warring from a habitual edit warrior who has been blocked in each of the last three calendar years for the same behavior. SchroCat was warned after the fourth revert and then continued.
SchroCat's warring on the Ariana Grande article includes, but is not limited to, content that is currently being discussed in an RfC. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to edit warring, this editor has also been making rude comments towards others that border on personal attacks (see here and here). Chase (talk | contributions) 18:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
At least one of those was not a revert. I am tired of the lies and deceit by this editor who has (possibly deliberately) "misunderstood" policies in order to use them as weapons to get his own way. He has pushed his POV in two deletions of reliably sourced information during an RfC. I have reverted the text to how it was when the RfC opened, pending the completion of the discussion. This editor has edited to his own personal preference, and without regard to others, and away from the version that was under discussion. THAT is utterly underhand ad despicable behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of which version was in place when the RfC started, but regardless of which version should have been replaced, you reverted (regardless of whether or not you used "revert" or "rollback" functions - see the definition at WP:3RR) 5 times, including after you were warned to stop. Edit warring can lead to a block regardless of who is "right" or "wrong." You should take accountability for your own behavior instead of making unfounded accusations of lying and deceit against me. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again, try and be honest. The RfC started, and you then deleted the very section of text in question. Please do not insult the intelligence of everyone here by trying to claim that you were not aware. I am not at 5RR, I know what a revert or rollback is, so don't try and patronise me. I repeat: not all those diffs go towards that count, and all I have done is to put the text back to where it was at the start of the RfC, as it should be, and regardless of your rather spuriousclaims to the contrary. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that there was an edit war over the material before the RfC and that I was not at the RfC as soon as it began notwithstanding, I have only removed that material twice: once before I knew it was a hotly contended issue on the article's talk page (and not recently, may I add), and once today to revert you while you were edit warring. 3RR clearly states that the rule extends to reverts that don't cover the same material: you've also reverted cleanup tag placement. You were warned at four reverts, yet you did it a fifth time. Why is that? Chase (talk | contributions) 19:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm cutting out of this: you're a timewaster and your discussion style regarding veracity isn't something I can be bothered with. I have said all I need or want to say to you: if the admin dealing with this wants to come and discuss this with me I'll be happy to explain further. I have an PR I need to deal with, in which good editors offer level-headed and high-quality comments which isn't something I'm going to get here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that there was an edit war over the material before the RfC and that I was not at the RfC as soon as it began notwithstanding, I have only removed that material twice: once before I knew it was a hotly contended issue on the article's talk page (and not recently, may I add), and once today to revert you while you were edit warring. 3RR clearly states that the rule extends to reverts that don't cover the same material: you've also reverted cleanup tag placement. You were warned at four reverts, yet you did it a fifth time. Why is that? Chase (talk | contributions) 19:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: The supplied diffs show SchroCat making five reverts within 24 hours. In my opinion SchroCat can avoid a block for WP:3RR violation if they will agree not to edit this article or its talk page for the next 7 days. Whether an RfC was running or not doesn't excuse someone for breaking 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- SchroCat just made another comment on the talk page. Pinging him just in case he didn't see your message. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no intention of editing the article, but I will comment on the talk page: there has been no edit warring there, and a great deal of nonsense has been written that needs to be corrected. It seems utterly pointless to try and gag someone during an RfC. FWIW I had forgotten about the edits last night, and tha removing spurious tags could somehow be considered reverting. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's completely up to you, but I think it would be wise to take EdJohnston's advice. You could easily be blocked right now for 5RR and you're being offered the chance to avoid said block for stepping away from a discussion where you've already made your stance perfectly clear. As you said in this thread that you're currently working on an FLC, it might be in your best interest to take Ed up on his offer. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again, try and be honest. The RfC started, and you then deleted the very section of text in question. Please do not insult the intelligence of everyone here by trying to claim that you were not aware. I am not at 5RR, I know what a revert or rollback is, so don't try and patronise me. I repeat: not all those diffs go towards that count, and all I have done is to put the text back to where it was at the start of the RfC, as it should be, and regardless of your rather spuriousclaims to the contrary. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comments: (edit conflict)It looks to me as if there are 7 reversions by SchroCat in 24 hours (history here). Further, saying,
"I am tired of the lies and deceit by this editor who has (possibly deliberately) "misunderstood" policies in order to use them as weapons to get his own way"
is completely uncalled for. I've known Chasewc91 for a while now, and have never gotten the impression that he is a liar, deceitful, uses anything as a weapon against other editors, and works to get his own way. That comment needs to be struck at the very least. I think it's actionable, personally, when you consider how many rude comments/personal attacks Schro has been racking up with this dispute. Schro should know better, especially with being fairly fresh off a recent block for edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think you need to look again if you honestly think there are seven reverts: there are nothing of the sort. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Response Whether it is five or seven is really neither here nor there. Five is certainly more than the threshold of three, so you're in violation, regardless. Like others are telling you, SchroCat, Ed Johnston is being extremely patient and generous by offering you an out. Don't you think it would be wise to take that offer (including not commenting at the article talk page)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Personal attacks have continued and SchroCat has indicated that he does not plan to stop. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Then you misread the situation as badly as your chum has. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion there is a clear violation. I think that SchroCat should accept EdJohnston's generous offer without negotiation as this is something that warrants of block. You have been given an out, you may want to take it. Chillum 20:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Clearly a violation, as EdJohnston pointed out. Whether the article should remain in its current version (which has the material included when the RfC began) or in a version not including those "diva" claims, until the RfC is decided is a matter of debate, of which editors can disagree. Personally, I tend to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, and feel the inclusion is a clear violation. Other editors disagree and don't see a BLP issue. Such is life. But that is irrelevant to this discussion which is whether or not an editor violated the 3RR rule, which clearly occurred. Onel5969 TT me 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Page protected for three days by User:KrakatoaKatie. User:SchroCat is warned for breaking WP:3RR. If you continue to revert after protection expires the next admin may choose to issue a block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Oldstone James reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Declined)
- Page
- Jackson Martínez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Oldstone James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669808662 by SLBedit (talk) Official website announcement not a primary source"
- 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670065254 by SLBedit (talk) Well, I guess it's you edit-warring now - I attempted to discuss the matter at your talk page, but you refused. It's me who has the reason to edit (c below)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 15:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Atlético Madrid */"
- 03:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Jackson Martínez "start class"
- Comments:
I started a discussion in talkpage, then user was blocked. User's block expired and now user is back reverting the same content. SLBedit (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC
- Declined because the user self-reverted. —Darkwind (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
User:SLBedit reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: Declined)
Page: Jackson Martínez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SLBedit (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User reverts the content constantly, with reasons pretty obviously false. I tried to discuss the matter at his talk page, but he first refused to discuss and then started putting irrelevant Wiki-Help pages ([162]). After another edit revert, I tried to change the content for the first time, after what the user sent a report on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs)
- Declined as a clear "revenge report", see above. @Oldstone James: STOP editing disruptively, or you will very likely end up blocked for a longer term next time, or interaction-banned. —Darkwind (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
User:CrazyAces489 reported by User:SubSeven (Result: )
Page: Royce Gracie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Over a period of time, CrazyAces489 has attempted to make many changes to this article, all clearly in some way attempting to discredit the subject of the article, Royce Gracie. Now he is aggressively trying to restore ALL of these edits to the article, en masse. These edits are either poorly sourced, misapplication of sources, or without sources at all.
Previous version reverted to: [163]
Diffs of the user's reverts from today:
And a few days ago, before he 'retired' and then came back:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [171] I posted this on his talk page today, trying to explain that there is simply no way to treat this mass of controversy as one edit/discussion point and to stop restoring the whole lot of it. This was of course answered by a full revert on the article by him.
Discussions regarding some of the various issues this dispute has raised on the article talk page: [172] [173]
Comments:
Obviously I am on the other end of these recent reverts, but to illustrate that it is not just me, here are diffs of several other editors in the past challenging CrazyAces489's edits, none of which has deterred him from attempting to re-add all of them, both then and now. (these edits are all part of the current 'package' CrazyAces489 is trying to push:
I hope it can be imparted to him that it is unacceptable to aggressively push all of these changes on the article without consensus. --SubSeven (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Article was stable from Feb 17 to May 17 when SubSeven did a massive reversion. [180] I asked him to take this to an RFC to which he has refused. [181] . His edit warring goes back a long way. I have documented them from Oct 2014. [182] I have only debated this with SubSeven as of Dec 2015. Subseven has been arguing this with people on the page since 2006. [183] CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)