→User:MrX reported by User:SashiRolls (Result: no violation): do i belong here? |
SashiRolls (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 321: | Line 321: | ||
:::That you wrote "Result:no violation" in the header for MrX and not for me. You should correct the header since you have twice now said they were warned, IMO.-- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 00:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
:::That you wrote "Result:no violation" in the header for MrX and not for me. You should correct the header since you have twice now said they were warned, IMO.-- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 00:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::Sashi, the way to handle this, in my mind, is to go to the UTP and politely ask for a self-rvt instead of running here. 1RR is incredibly easy to accidentally vio. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
::::Sashi, the way to handle this, in my mind, is to go to the UTP and politely ask for a self-rvt instead of running here. 1RR is incredibly easy to accidentally vio. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{ec}}The way to show intractable problems is to document them. That is what I have done. MrX is watching, if they feel like reverting I'm sure they will. WMSR is watching too. I'm sure they'll be quick to respond.-- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 00:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC){{od}} |
|||
:Am I somehow implicated in this complaint? I don't know what Sashi is talking about, and I was not given notice on my talk page (or even pinged). --[[User:WMSR|WMSR]] ([[User talk:WMSR|talk]]) 00:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
:Am I somehow implicated in this complaint? I don't know what Sashi is talking about, and I was not given notice on my talk page (or even pinged). --[[User:WMSR|WMSR]] ([[User talk:WMSR|talk]]) 00:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Your name is not in the bolded '''User being reported''' or in the header. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign&type=revision&diff=938571339&oldid=938528259 Tell us about your involvement]] with MrX's causes, WMSR. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 01:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:11, 1 February 2020
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:Authordom reported by User:Padavalamkuttanpilla (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Sriram Venkitaraman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Authordom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 08:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC) to 08:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 08:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Padavalamkuttanpilla (talk) to last revision by Authordom"
- 08:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 05:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC) to 05:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- 05:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "the person is a former ias officer"
- 05:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "arrested for killing a journalist"
- 05:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC) "corrected"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
This is second time disruptive editing.Previously, this page was protected in order to prevent vandalism from this person here
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Disruptive editing without reaching consensus on the talk page Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 08:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Padavalamkuttanpilla:welcome to talk page this is not a property platform to discuss about your vandalism. Authordom (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – 4 days. Authordom (formerly Kutyava) is continuing to change 'infobox person' to 'infobox criminal' in the article on a person who has not been convicted of a crime. This violates WP:BLP. Authordom was warned back in December about his use of this infobox at User talk:Authordom#Edits on Sriram Venkitaraman. He was pointed to the instructions for using the infobox which mention the BLP issue, but he continues regardless. Previous block was 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Melroross reported by User:NormanGear (Result: Partial blocks)
Page: Portuguese people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Melroross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [2]
- [3]
- [4]
- [5]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
This user started to revert content supported by sources. I started a Talk to deal with this user's reversals, and I warned him that he was close to breaking the 3RR rule. Instead of talking and trying to reach a consensus he concentrated on denouncing me for violating the 3RR rule, and the administrator declined his complaint alleging that I have not broken any rules and told Melroross that he should focus on dialogue. Despite this, Melroross has not discussed and has continued to delete information supported by Lead sources of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NormanGear (talk • contribs)
- See also the above report by Melroross, WP:COI#Spaniards and Portuguese people pages COI by user by the same editor, and their post to User:Bbb23[8] which Bbb23 reverted with a warning. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- See also Talk and history on both pages where dialogue/discussion/thank occurred from my end. Intro and Lead should not repeat same content and same quotes. NormanGear is inconsistent in the way they edit Portuguese people and Spaniards and appears to have created a Single-purpose account to edit only these two pages. This has been the issue all along. As mentioned repeatedly Third Parties should investigate and find a durable solution. Wikipedia is no one’s and everyone’s, not up to one or two editors to monopolise and use partial editing. Thank you Melroross (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Melroross: Nothing you mentioned in your comment excuses violating the three-revert rule. Why do you think you are exempt from it? —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Both editors were blocked in December for edit warring on what is probably the same issue (respectively one week and 48 hours). I recommend using three month partial blocks for both editors, from Spaniards and Portuguese people. This should still allow them to participate on the talk pages. The alternative is just a continuing escalation in block durations, up to two weeks or even indefinite. Neither party is getting the message. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I glanced at this earlier, but I was doing a complicated sock investigation and didn't have time to investigate the edit-warring. However, I glanced at the article history and saw that both editors had violated 3RR and both should be blocked. If it were up to me, I would block both for somewhere between two weeks and a month, and the blocks would be sitewide (oh my, that new term), not partial blocks. I don't want to override you, though, Ed, if you want to use partial blocks, which I freely admit I don't like.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Both editors were blocked in December for edit warring on what is probably the same issue (respectively one week and 48 hours). I recommend using three month partial blocks for both editors, from Spaniards and Portuguese people. This should still allow them to participate on the talk pages. The alternative is just a continuing escalation in block durations, up to two weeks or even indefinite. Neither party is getting the message. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Melroross: Nothing you mentioned in your comment excuses violating the three-revert rule. Why do you think you are exempt from it? —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- It has already been established by an administrator that I have not committed a violation of the 3RR nor an Edit War in this case. [9] NormanGear (talk •contribs 17:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- You had not violated a 3RR at the time that report was filed. I have not checked whether your further edits violated that brightline rule. At this point, I am leaning toward EdJohnston's proposal for partial blocks. Given Melroross's comment below, I'm almost wondering if a topic ban and interaction ban would be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- It has already been established by an administrator that I have not committed a violation of the 3RR nor an Edit War in this case. [9] NormanGear (talk •contribs 17:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I totally agree EdJohnston and C.Fred that Administrators should intervene and I welcome a fair decision on editing blockage for Spaniards and Portuguese people. Because this goes way beyond the 3RR today, the Portuguese people page should be made semi-protected from vandalism and Single-purpose accounts such as this NormanGear and a few others. I have been dedicating precious time for over 5 years now, free-willing and will continue doing so as Wikipedia is a tremendously useful platform of Human knowledge and history. If I am blocked from editing on these two pages, I will be happy with the decision taken by mature and reasonable people. Best regards to all. Melroross (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Resulte: Both editors issued partial blocks for 3 months. They may not edit Spaniards or Portuguese people. The blocks should still allow these two users to access the talk pages and to edit other articles. There has been an acrimonious dispute between these two editors since December. Their dispute has been brought to noticeboards. To get the flavor of their interaction, see Talk:Spaniards and Talk:Portuguese people. since 21 December. One example is a charge of "Systematic hostile conduct and editing harassment". It is especially puzzling to see User:Melroross here because they have a 5-year record of Wikipedia editing and until recently, have never been blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I totally agree with the block and as you mentioned, I have never come across a Single-purpose account so intent in their crusade. Their behaviour was pretty clear to me from the offset and on reflection, I should have put and end to this much earlier. I have never been blocked before and probably won’t be again. After this, I am sure the other user finally realised that Wikipedia is an ethical and fair institution. Happy editing! Melroross (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Ketone16 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Warnings)
- Page
- Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ketone16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 20:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 938044114 by Iamumar.thegeek (talk) Go to the talk page to discuss this and your other reverts. We are both at 3 reverts now."
- 20:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Take your edit war to the talk page and provide your rationales for your edits. Stop reverting people's well-justified edits without providing any explanation."
- 20:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 938041513 by Iamumar.thegeek (talk) The exact GPS coordinates of the person who took one of several videos is not necessary here. The neighborhood is good enough."
- 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 938041752 by Iamumar.thegeek (talk) Cited source does not support this interpretation"
- 19:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Flight and crash */"
- Comments:
Attempted gaming WP:3RR (Ketone16, it's not an entitlement). They seem to have miscounted. Obvious awareness of the 3RR per [10]. The other editor also may have broached 3RR, but some of their reverts are of clearly problematic content (though probably not to the level of vandalism). They also haven't done the same level of wholesale reversion as Ketone16, so I am not filing a reciprocal report at this time. VQuakr (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention to the article. You are right, I miscounted the reverts (both mine and the other user's) in batches; I thought he/she was at (but not past) the 3 revert limit, which I warned him/her of per Wikipedia best practice, in the edit summary (see above). (And to be fair, I noted I was at the same limit, which is why I requested for the second time that the other editor take the issue to the talk page, which so far has not happened.) I'm not sure how you define wholesale reverting; I only reverted the other user's reversions of my own edits, so we have reverted an equal amount of each other's content. I also don't think that my reversions (or my other edits) have introduced problematic content, with the exception of one mistake I made by looking at the wrong source (which you caught and corrected; thank you). I disagree about the level of reversion of the other editor, who has made quite a few reverts of content by at least three editors since the recent creation of the account, none with any justification in the edit summary or on the talk page, although he/she has been invited to do so. I created a talk page section to discuss the reversions of multiple editors' contributions. Ketone16 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I check the changes in the article from time to time, and I think it needs to be added here that in this edit war, Iamumar.thegeek almost never provided a rationale for his reverts in the edit summary, while Ketone16 did almost every time; Ketone16 also asked for the dispute to be taken to the talk page, twice. That of course can be attributed to the relative inexperience of Iamumar.thegeek but should be taken into account. I also do not like the interpretation that "haven't done the same level of wholesale reversion as Ketone16" - in this case, there is not much difference between more minor reverts and a general one (anyway, per 3RR "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.") I suggest warning both editors, who are perhaps both not that experienced anyway, and let it resolve at the talk page without any other restrictions. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Result: User:Ketone16 and User:Iamumar.thegeek are warned not to edit war. No blocks per the above advice of User:VQuakr. User:Iamumar.thegeek could make better use of edit summaries. He has never used the article talk page. If this article causes more trouble, EC protection should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
talk The issue is the source of the problem, User:Ketone16 has a history of unreasonable edits, in particular, when the sources are easily verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamumar.thegeek (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've had a few edits undone by User:Ketone16 regarding this page. It should be noted that his edit summaries had been very clear and concise, from that I understood their point and backed away. Another user suggested that better use of the talk pages would be the favoured option, I would agree and he did attempt to engage, Iamumar.thegeek, this way. Some of the undo edits by Iamumar.thegeek made no sense, being purely minor grammar changes, and without any edit summaries these undos almost seem like vandalism to me. Perhaps Ketone16 did break the rule but he seemed to ensuring the article was factual and verifiable. Mine and some of Iamumar.thegeek's edits involved too much assumption even when the verifiable source was clear about those assumptions. What is the best course of action if a user fails to provide edit summaries or engage in the talk, when their undos leave the page lacking? I guess Ketone16 should have approached an Admin for advice and assistance after the first unsubstantiated revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.194.192 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
User:CatcherStorm reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Jack Posobiec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- CatcherStorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "See DRN noticeboard. There was already previously a list-to-prose template under this section + no changes to the claims were made. "Whitewashing" btw"
- Consecutive edits made from 20:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC) to 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 20:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Political activities */ Reconverted list into prose. NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WERE MADE TO ANY OF THE CLAIMS, THEY WERE SIMPLY REORDERED."
- 20:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Political activities */ Removed bullet points and fixed spacing errors"
- 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Added {{POV}} tag to article (TW)"
- 20:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Take the time to read through the reference before mindlessly reverting my edits because you don't like them. The source in question is a heavily opinionated column written in a subjective tone by a subjective author. Putting this source in the lead section attempts to conflate it as fact and not a matter of opinion."
- Consecutive edits made from 19:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC) to 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 19:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "removing irrelevant "belorusian" label and moved bumble incident to more appropriate section"
- 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "rm biased/opinionated source presented as fact"
- Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) to 13:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- 12:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Converting the lead section from list to prose is a perfectly fine edit, one that I spent nearly an hour doing. I am not going to spend my time doing it over again because someone reverted it. If you want to reintroduce language that I removed, you are welcome to do so by editing it into the page."
- 13:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "typo"
- 10:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Reworked lead section, converted political activities section from list format into prose and ordered them chronologically. Fixed tone in some sentences to comply with WP:NPOV."
- 08:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "I am not the only editor who has previously expressed concern over the tone of this article, and I am actively disputing it. The template should remain."
- 05:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "Added {{POV}} tag to article (TW)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Looking for editing help regarding Jack Posobiec */"
- 20:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Looking for editing help regarding Jack Posobiec */"
- 20:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Looking for editing help regarding Jack Posobiec */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 20:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Bold edit rationale and further discussion to fix NPOV */"
- Comments:
Despite multiple editors, warnings and discussions, user continues to edit war instead of engaging (and throwing out personal attacks) or establishing any sort of consensus. Praxidicae (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- There are three open discussions, which you have barely participated in and offered zero rationale for. @Grayfell: has reverted my edits accusing me of "whitewashing" the article which 1. is a personal attack itself and 2. was brought upon me with zero further explanation. There is also a dispute resolution open at DRN which you have also not bothered participating in. CatcherStorm talk 21:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
CatcherStorm has repeatedly described editors warning them about edit-warring as "cringey." If this is an attempt at a personal attack, it's a nonsensical and rather lame attempt; but it certainly depicts CatcherStorm as being uninterested in complying with policy, as preferring unproductive putative insults to meaningful dialogue, and as utterly dismissive of attempts to change their behavior short of a block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- i have nothing to do with your edit war. The only edit I’ve made is restoring a severely broken reference tag. Praxidicae (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The use was blocked by Primefac x 31h. In response to user's request for unblock, I reset to a partial block, no change in expiration. If disruption resumes, please ping me or reblock if needed.-- Deepfriedokra 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC).
User:Aqşin Abbaslı reported by User:IamNotU (Result: No violation)
Page: Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aqşin Abbaslı (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/928017391/928088952
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Special:Diff/929032126/929280763
- Special:Diff/929705812/931308010
- Special:Diff/938039683/938055180
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/930093126/931313168
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic#Conventional and native names
Comments:
Aqşin Abbaslı (see also Agshin Abbasli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has repeatedly changed Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası to Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti in a slow-motion edit war, despite being reverted by several other editors. They haven't responded to multiple warnings and requests for discussion/explanation, and have never left an edit summary nor ever communicated to anyone in any way. They just keep repeating the same edit. I'm not necessarily opposed to the change (see the talk page) but it needs to be done by talk and consenus, not edit-warring. --IamNotU (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
User:DMacks reported by User: Jfbongarçon (Result: Filer partially blocked)
Page: Oscillococcinum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DMacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&diff=cur&oldid=14936766 [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&diff=cur&oldid=33490634
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&diff=cur&oldid=34143073
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&diff=cur&oldid=73247007
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&offset=20061108142114&limit=50&action=history
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oscillococcinum&offset=20061108142114&limit=50&action=history [diff]
Comments: Dmacks has been domineering the oscillococcinum article page with unsupported skeptical opinions he thinks are science. Apparently, he doesn't even believe in vaccination or its history based in homeopathy. Apparently he is a specialist in all things scientific. His version of the article is full of political soapboxing he claims is "truth," in complete denigration of other points of view, and this user dismisses any counter-argument as "pseudo-science" or "fringe-science." Apparently this user knows everything about particle science, the quarck, polarity of elementary particles, and knows better that 56 countries put together. Apparently this user is obsessed with this article and has been obsessed with it since 2005 and has been in edit-wars with every other user trying to make the article respectful of a different way of seeing things. I ask that Wikipedia please ban this user completely because I am not sure this user is human. I suspect this user is a bot seeing how rapidly this user remodifies this article constantly, persistently, and tries to warn, block, report every user that disagrees with him. This is the work of a very psychorigid, fascistic way of thinking and is not welcome in this world. Please use your precious intellectual scrutiny for your own government.
Jfbongarçon (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- After reading the rant above, and the edits on the article, I have partially blocked the filing editor indefinitely from the article in question. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Mr.User200 reported by User:RandomAccount13343413 (Result: Filer blocked as sock)
Page: Template:Campaignbox Persian Gulf Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Campaignbox 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Campaignbox Iraqi insurgency (2017–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [11]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17] (warned in edit summary)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]
Comments:
User has removed the article Israeli airstrikes in Iraq (2019) from 3 related templates (1) Template:Campaignbox Persian Gulf Wars 2) Template:Campaignbox 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis 3) Template:Campaignbox Iraqi insurgency (2017–present) saying it is "unrelated". After I've restored the article in the templates saying its related he removed it from all the 3 again. And accused me at my talk page of vandalizing Wikipedia.[19] WP:NOTVANDALISM WP:BOOMERANG. RandomAccount13343413 (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
He has been previously blocked for edit warring in a related article. RandomAccount13343413 (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- 1) Iraqi insurgency (2017–present) is not related by any means in the Iran–Israel proxy conflict. Read the Iraqi insurgency article, the 2017 conflict is namely a Iraqi Government(with support of US and allies/Iran) vs ISIS. No Israel role here, on any side. The fact that some events took place in a country in a given time does not means it is related.
2) Persian Gulf Wars Template have no military relation with Israeli Iranian Proxy war. The first revert was made by User:Greyshark09 on a User:KasimMejia edit (Banned user for being a Sockpuppet) without a reason in the edit summary. But its obvious Israeli strikes in Iraq on Iranian forces 2019 are not related to the Persian Gulf Wars. Geographically maybe, but historically in the current context does not. See here
3) Regarding the 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis, the strikes carried out by Israel are not part of US and Saudi Arabia and are part of the Israeli Iranian Proxy war.
In resume all the 3 Templates are not related by any means to the Israeli Iranian proxy war, it is a different topic. Recomend any reader and admin to read those articles. Iranian Israeli proxy conflict and war begun years before the Gulf Wars.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have blocked the filer as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ok.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Oknazevad on American Broadcasting Company (Results: Stale and malformed)
User:Oknazevad is without question a highly experienced editor and is very well versed in policies, needless to say WP:3RR. He recently began to assert himself at American Broadcasting Company over a personal opinion that specific information being added did not meet the LEDE criteria. Despite not elaborating where the guidelines supported his claim, in addition to more than one editor (me included) arguing the opposite, Oknazevad proceeded to remove the same section of the article not favourable to him:
- 15:24 on 22 Jan - 1st
- 22:07 on 22 Jan - 2nd
- 23:51 on 22 Jan - 3rd
- 00:04 on 23 Jan - 4th
- 05:30 on 23 Jan - 5th inside 24 hours
I then offered him an opportunity to revert himself[20], but he initially deployed the sockpuppetry excuse[21].
I next clarified the error[22] and in doing so, gave him a second opportunity to self-revert but he switched tact on an inconsequential BRD platform. Note however that his very line "Only if the material is left out while the discussion is ongoing" is basically saying "no I will not self-revert". I pointed out the problems with his response and allowed him a third chance to self-revert[23], to which he responded with a personal attack (calling me "full of shit", and trying to argue that a past encounter means it is suddenly invalid for me to take him to task over flagrant breach of WP policies).
As regards the article, he has since reverted on five more occasions although not committing a technical breach within this period, but the point is that this editor has no intention of respecting 3RR and I feel justified in going to AN/I over the personal attack. --81.137.62.113 (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
This attempt at harassment and retaliation for an old perceived slight is pointless. The IP never edited the article before until he came off a one-year block and immediately wikistalked a topic I was presently involved with in an effort to catch me for my part in his year-long block. He also posted on my talk page after I told him not to. There's no reason to pay any attention to this obvious bad faith post.
As for the subject matter, and the edits themselves, there's clearly a case of redemptions editing by the other user, who has refused to partake in the discussion on the talk page (where there's been zero support) or at his talk page where notices have been posted. (Also, not the only editor to revert him.) oknazevad (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I presume you are referring to his response. Otherwise you could adumbrate how this editor's behaviour has been in keeping with policies, and what damage would he have done had he self-reverted. --81.137.62.113 (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Bottle of Milk reported by User:HHH Pedrigree (Result: )
Page: The Road Warriors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
- 81.137.62.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Bottle of Milk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
- One year ago, the IP was blocked. The IP included unsourced material to The Road Warriors article. Some users remove it, so the IP decided to delete all unsourced information, which is WP:POINT. The IP was blocked for one year and, then came back, makes the same edition. I retored the article because stills WP:POINT with no helpfull intention. And a recently created user makes the same edition, reverting 3 times to a vandaliced version. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment. HHH Pedigree is hedging his bets that we are the same user. We are not. He is welcome to go for SPI. Before I intervened, I examined the edits and found POINT to be nothing short of a false claim for several editors to contaminate the article with several paragraphs of unsourced information. That is to say, nothing in the sources of the article supports the points being taken out. The POINT in this case is no source, i.e. building an encylocpedia which is the aim of the project. Bottle of Milk (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Note also that HHH Pedigree has conceded "unsourced information", so this now looks stale. Start bullying users for playing by the book and the next thing, we start blocking vandal fighters for making a POINT, of reverting vandalism. Where does the lunacy end. Bottle of Milk (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Come off it. Comparing the contributions alone makes it obvious you're the same guy. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- [28] One year ago, the IP was blocked for that same editions, removing content just because his content was reverted. Unsourced material isn't good, but the actions (removing the material jsut because other editos removed his unsourced claim) it's WP:POINT. The way to improve the article it's to find sources, not to delete everything without good faith. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Come off it. Comparing the contributions alone makes it obvious you're the same guy. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
User:92.5.242.47 reported by User:Autumnking2012 (Result: 72 hours)
Page: Joanna Cherry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.5.242.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [29]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]
Comments:
I reverted addition of unnecessary non-NPOV content, including addition of image created purely for vandalism/trolling reasons. Joanna Cherry's views on transgender matters are included in the body, do not warrant mention in the lede or info box, and phrases such alleging as person is a 'vile terf' do not belong on Wikipedia, and violate BLP. After 3 reverts by same user, I brought the issue here. My apologies if I have made any mistakes with this form. AutumnKing (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- An admin has now blocked the IP making the edits. Not sure how I close this off. Thank you. AutumnKing (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for blatant BLP violations/vandalism. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
User:MrX reported by User:SashiRolls (Result: no violation)
Page: Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of edits being reverted: January 6, 2020,, December 20, 2019 as revised January 1, 2020
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 1) 13:47-14:07 MrX 1
- 2) 14:22 MrX 2
- 3) 14:30 MrX 3
Insofar as MrX, WMSR, and Objective 3000 have previously been involved in prosecuting people for a "slight" (& sleep-coveting) 1RR violation, they are aware of 1RR + BRD on this page. Now my today "watchlist" shew this page turned to battleground, hwil(st) I werked still away the day.
I have made the first step there and here; MrX has not shown up unprompted there to explain his 3RR:. NB: MrX did not make any comment on the TP before filing about the previous section's "slight". I will do my best to resolve the edit war by not getting involved (except insofar as I file this report and offer FOC-y (not phoque-y) suggestions on the TP). -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 23:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Comments:
- No idea why I'm mentioned here or what Sashi means by prosecuting people. O3000 (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- If any admin thinks that I knowingly or intentionally violated 1RR, they should block me because I am aware that the article is subject to 1RR. In my defense, I did not know about Objective 3000's or GPRamirez5's intervening edits until after I completed my last edit at 14:30. My edits were intended to be a consecutive series of edits. I chose to edit at a time when no one else was editing the article so as to not experience intervening edits or edit conflicts (the previous edit occurred almost 18 hours prior to mine). I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of the comment by SashiRolls. It seems designed to make me look bad or something. - MrX 🖋 23:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Warned. We don't usually sanction for these sort of accidents. Like I told SashiRolls last time (of course it was the same article!), just try be more cognizant next time. El_C 23:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I will be more careful in the future. I thought I was being careful by editing at slow time of the day, but I will endeavor to check the page history after each edit in the future. - MrX 🖋 00:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- yes, actually you do sanction for these types of violation (another one MrX was involved in) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 23:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- You need to be more specific. Which sanction did I apply and when? El_C 00:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- The second person plural "you". I was not referring to the 2nd person singular "you". As the link shows it was a collective "y'all" responding to your
we don't usually sanction...
when it's pretty clear you do. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 00:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- The second person plural "you". I was not referring to the 2nd person singular "you". As the link shows it was a collective "y'all" responding to your
- Anyway, you got a break after being reported by him about violating restrictions in this article — he got a break after being reported by you about violating restrictions in this article. What about that reciprocity confuses you? El_C 00:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- That you wrote "Result:no violation" in the header for MrX and not for me. You should correct the header since you have twice now said they were warned, IMO.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 00:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The way to show intractable problems is to document them. That is what I have done. MrX is watching, if they feel like reverting I'm sure they will. WMSR is watching too. I'm sure they'll be quick to respond.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 00:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The way to show intractable problems is to document them. That is what I have done. MrX is watching, if they feel like reverting I'm sure they will. WMSR is watching too. I'm sure they'll be quick to respond.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 00:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Am I somehow implicated in this complaint? I don't know what Sashi is talking about, and I was not given notice on my talk page (or even pinged). --WMSR (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Your name is not in the bolded User being reported or in the header. [Tell us about your involvement] with MrX's causes, WMSR. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 01:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)