No edit summary |
|||
Line 337: | Line 337: | ||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> |
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> |
||
There appears to be some edit warring here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baloch_people&action=history]--[[User:Orartu|Orartu]] ([[User talk:Orartu|talk]]) 04:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
There appears to be some edit warring here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baloch_people&action=history]--[[User:Orartu|Orartu]] ([[User talk:Orartu|talk]]) 04:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Alan Liefting<!-- Place name of the user you are reporting here -->]] reported by [[User:Aircorn]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Alan Liefting<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}} |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> |
|||
Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms&diff=next&oldid=460687373] |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> |
|||
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms&action=historysubmit&diff=460687373&oldid=459852338] |
|||
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms&diff=next&oldid=460688511] |
|||
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms&diff=next&oldid=460692050] |
|||
* 4th revert: [diff] |
|||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> |
|||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. --> |
|||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlan_Liefting&action=historysubmit&diff=460693996&oldid=460532436] |
|||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> |
|||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARegulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms&action=historysubmit&diff=460715955&oldid=446622071] |
|||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> |
|||
One revert away from breaking 3RR, but does not seem to understand that pushing strongly for their case is edit warring[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Liefting&diff=next&oldid=460693996]. Maybe someone other than me could leave a friendly message. [[User:Aircorn|AIR<font color="green">'''''corn'''''</font>]] [[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 04:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
Revision as of 04:58, 15 November 2011
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:Encyclotadd reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Voluntary restriction)
Page: Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Encyclotadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: (not needed, all 4 reverts below are clearly marked as such)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5] (by another user)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Concerns_about_some_recent_edits
Comments:
The edit war has grown, but I think only E has broken 3RR. Note that the page is a long-term source of conflict William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I would love it if anyone involved in the conversation would discuss the subject matter we are editing. Instead the conversation has been a back and forth about rules, instead of about truth. It would be so welcome if a member of the community would discuss plasticity, mirroring or any of the other parts of NLP, and it's sad that only discussion of rules comes up. --Encyclotadd (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is a lot of "control" at that article User:Snowded has a real life involvement and a website dedicated to the topic and is central to the control of the content - there was tag teaming against this user and then User:Snowded went to tell User:WMC on his userpage and User:WMC immediately reverted to the groups favored position and then created this report. Discussion is preferable to wiki lawyering and tag team reverting and reports. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- My web site has mentioned NLP just over ten times in seven years of nearly daily blogging and a previous COI case on this subject did not support your position. I went to WMC as a neutral party as it was obvious you were making this issue personal so I decided to back off --Snowded TALK 22:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that you are inserting material which you say provides empirical support for NLP, but that material does not mention NLP. That is original research and/or synthesis. It would be wrong for editors to discuss the subject matter as wikipedia relies on third party sources. --Snowded TALK 22:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW [6] shows Snowded soliciting assistance from Mr. Connolley WMC (emended per post therefrom). (Would you be prepared to have another look at the NLP article? Encyclotadd still doesn't get the principle of OR and is now in breech of 3rr. I could just make a 3rr report, but I am (for the umpteenth time) being accused of a COI and Offtoriorob has jumped in as well (any area of wikipedia where I am involved in any controversy he arrives). With Chuckfreyconsultant permanently banned after taking umbrage over NLP issues I think this needs a neutral perspective at 21:48 11/11/11 - shortly before this report was filed) so this report may be the result of a CANVASS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Where Off2riorob starts Collect follows. When are you guys going to get over the fact that the community did not support your position on the UAF article? I stepped back because my involvement with the NLP article was being used as part of that long running sore and asked an admin who had previously taken a neutral position to have a look. --Snowded TALK 23:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Where in hell did that come from? O2RR and I share some concerns on BLPs, but being called a tag team? Never - especially since we disagree on a lot of topics. Read WP:NPA again - I find your post here quite improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- User:William M. Connolley is not an administrator , he was de-sysopped for violations in his "expert" area. The UAF and the community position in relation to such is meaningless to me, just to clear that up. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know that (the desysop), will remember that in future. --Snowded TALK 23:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is puzzling that Encyclotadd will make no concessions whatever, since this looks like a plain vanilla case for a WP:3RR block. The fact that one or more parties could have real-world connection to the topic is irrelevant to the problem of reverting too many times. Encyclotadd cannot claim to have been reverting vandalism or BLP violations. Encyclotadd is reverting against four other people which ought to suggest to him that he does not have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- O2RR is wrong, as usual William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know that (the desysop), will remember that in future. --Snowded TALK 23:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Where Off2riorob starts Collect follows. When are you guys going to get over the fact that the community did not support your position on the UAF article? I stepped back because my involvement with the NLP article was being used as part of that long running sore and asked an admin who had previously taken a neutral position to have a look. --Snowded TALK 23:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I regret making the 3rr mistake, and also for neglecting to sign a few posts (thanks Signbot for helping me out), and I hope everyone understands that I'm a total newbie at editing Wikipedia. Believe me, my intentions are not only honorable but I'm very eager to contribute very positively.
I have been trying to add references to leading faculty at ivy league institutions. They have been removed on the grounds that the sources referenced do not specifically mention NLP. However, folks can agree the sources discuss ideas from NLP, because this is very easily verified by reading the sources I referenced along with the inclusion, or by doing simple Google searches..... For example, a search for "Mirroring" and "NLP" produces a million plus results. Anyone who has read substantially about the subject matter knows mirroring is part of NLP. Plasticity is the same-- dating back to the original writings by the founders, and showing up in a million search results since then. So I feel strongly that removal of references to leading faculty of ivy league institutions discussing these parts of NLP amounted to vandalism regardless as to whether it was intended as such by the editors. This isn't about expressing a particular viewpoint. This is about including the facts. Thanks. --Encyclotadd (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Voluntary restriction. Encyclotadd accepted this offer on his talk page: "if you will promise not to make any more edits to Neuro-linguistic programming in the month of November unless prior consensus is found on the talk page, you can avoid a block." EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
User:HotMAN0199 reported by User:The Bushranger (Result: Warned)
Page: Juan Pablo Montoya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HotMAN0199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [7]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13] [14] (as well as several edit-summary cautions re WP:NOT [15] [16] [17] and request to take it to the talk page re:WP:BRD [18], and early talk page caution re:WP:NOT#STATS [19])
Comments: This editor is edit-warring to include a large, WP:NOT#STATS-violating table of the driver's wins in major and minor racing series in the article. He has, so far, not responded even once to multiple requests on his talk page, edit summaries, and the article talk page to discuss his contributions, instead repeatedly reinserting the tables into the article without even so much as an edit summary. Is probably in violation of WP:3RR now (first revert restored one table from the first diff and added several others; remaining three, reversions of all tables in dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Warned. If the user restores the table again without getting consensus he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Feresias reported by User:62.56.98.173 (Result: Indef)
Page: Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Feresias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Feresias
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a
Comments:
User is adding his or her own opinionated commentary to the article, and will not allow reverts without adding back in said commentary. 62.56.98.173 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Blocked indef by User:Elockid as a vandalism-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
User appears to have returned as 4567treminater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), reverting to exactly the same thing. Pfainuk talk 16:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Thoughtfortheday reported by User:188.227.160.244 (Result: Proxy block of the IP)
Page: Joanne Nova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thoughtfortheday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Please note that I have raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing edit-warring and incivility by IP editor. Prioryman (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Both editors are in violation of 3RR. I don't think the fact that one is an IP should make any difference. Second opinion? Black Kite (t) 21:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Suggest 31 hours for Thoughtfortheday and semiprotection to stop the dynamic IP. If the question of who distributed her book in the US is considered important and if there is a risk that Heartland Institute is not actually involved, that material could be removed until consensus is found. This article is in the domain of WP:ARBCC, and the IP's edits appear to be devoted to that topic. A one week rangeblock of 188.227.160.0/18 might be considered. See the rangecontribs results. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think I've identified the person behind the IP - it's User:Marknutley, who was banned from the CC topic area in WP:ARBCC and was subsequently caught sockpuppeting in the same topic area and is currently indefinitely blocked. See this comment. Prioryman (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- (added) I've now raised this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley. Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Suggest 31 hours for Thoughtfortheday and semiprotection to stop the dynamic IP. If the question of who distributed her book in the US is considered important and if there is a risk that Heartland Institute is not actually involved, that material could be removed until consensus is found. This article is in the domain of WP:ARBCC, and the IP's edits appear to be devoted to that topic. A one week rangeblock of 188.227.160.0/18 might be considered. See the rangecontribs results. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Result: User:Alexandria has issued a two-year proxy block of 188.227.160.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) per the outcome of the SPI. Since the IP signs himself 'Mark' and it's probably Mark Nutley we shouldn't sanction Thoughtfortheday for reverting them, though breaking 3RR for any reason is risky. Extra credit to the sock for filing a 3RR report. Maybe he was checking to see if anyone was awake. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Lhb1239 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: 48h)
Page: Pan Am (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lhb1239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 04:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Previous version reverted to: 05:24, 13 November 2011
- 1st revert: 12:25, 13 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460424515 by B.Davis2003 (talk)revert per :WP:REDLINK - "wikipedia is not yet finished"")
- 2nd revert: 16:27, 13 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460433865 by AussieLegend (talk)rvt per WP:REDLINK - "...Wikipedia is not yet finished"")
- 3rd revert: 16:49, 13 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460460757 by AussieLegend (talk)why would you revert a wikilink?")
- 4th revert: 02:17, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "If I'm not mistaken, there's still an RfC in progress as well as a question on police re: this matter at a noticeboard. Formal consensus never was asked for nor did it occur - reverted.")
- 5th revert: 02:32, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Elizium23 (talk): When there's an active RfC and a noticeboard issues there is a reason for formal consensus. (TW)")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: 16:53, 13 November 2011
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing RfC
Comments:
Elizium23 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
With this edit I've taken the liberty of expanding the report submitted by Elizium23. Obviously, if anybody opposes this change I'm more than happy to undo the edit, or anyone else is more than welcome to. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I made the mistake of choosing to comment on an open RfC at this article a few days ago,[31] and have since done some work on the newly created episode list article, so both are in my watchlist. This edit summary caught my eye. User:Television fan had made some reasonable changes to the article earlier, explaining his reasons in his edit summary.[32] The changes were reverted by Lhb1239, who really didn't provide any justification.[33] A modified and "improved" version of the content was restored.[34] Lhb1239 then reverted[35] and left a warning on the editor's talk page.[36] Not content with that, he then continued to harass this editor about edit-warring.[37] The editor that he harassed had actually attempted to discuss the matter on Lhb1239's talk page,[38] but Lhb1239 deleted his post without replying.[39] He is still attempting to discuss.[40]
Later, at Pan Am (TV series), another editor removed a couple of red-links.[41] Lhb1239 restored one of these redlinks with the rationale that "wikipedia is not yet finished".1st revert As the article had been deleted at AfD and the subject still fails WP:NACTOR, I removed the link again, with a direction to WP:REDNOT.[42] Lhb1239 then reverted that.2nd revert I again pointed him to WP:REDNOT. A review of Lhb1239's recent contributions shows that he has been in conflict with numerous editors in just about every discussion that he has had, demonstrating incivility, ownership of articles and a general unwillingness to collaborate, so I chose to give him a 3RR warning at this point, rather than wait until his third revert.[43] He deleted the warning[44] before I had even had a chance to add some clarification,[45] and then made his third revert in the article.[46]
I've since discovered that he has made two further reverts in the article,[47][48] making his fifth revert only 14 hours after his first. While I do think that the last two reverts were appropriate (had somebody else made them), this still breaches 3RR. Lhb1239 is well aware of the requirements of 3RR, having been warned, and even blocked for 3RR breaches in the past, as recently two weeks ago.[49][50] --AussieLegend (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I've received no notification of this report being made and contrary to AussieLegend's claim above, I was not blocked for anything two weeks ago. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Still, you managed to find it, so all should be well. I didn't say that you were blocked 2 weeks ago. The diffs that I provided show that you were warned about making four reverts in 24 hours two weeks ago.[51][52] On 21 June you were blocked for 24 hours.[53] --AussieLegend (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- It was you who wrote above, "and even blocked for 3RR breaches in the past, as recently two weeks ago.", wasn't it? What's more, "Still you managed to find it, so all should be well" is not sufficient. Editors in good standing are to be notified of AN reports such as this when the report is about them. No exceptions. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if what I wrote was unclear to you. I thought the diffs would make it clear, which is why I provided them. The fact is, you now obviously know about this discussion and nothing can be done about not notifying you. Elizium23 may not have realised that he should contact you, but really, you should have been looking anyway because you know the ramifications of making so many reverts in a 24 hour period. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Taunting in the above response and accompanying edit summary ("no point crying over spilt milk - better to mount a defence") noted. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- My edit summary summarises the thrust of my post, which is what it's supposed to do on a talk page. We've discussed this sort of thing previously. You really would be better off mounting a defence instead of complaining that you hadn't been notified of a discussion that you found easily. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Taunting in the above response and accompanying edit summary ("no point crying over spilt milk - better to mount a defence") noted. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if what I wrote was unclear to you. I thought the diffs would make it clear, which is why I provided them. The fact is, you now obviously know about this discussion and nothing can be done about not notifying you. Elizium23 may not have realised that he should contact you, but really, you should have been looking anyway because you know the ramifications of making so many reverts in a 24 hour period. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- It was you who wrote above, "and even blocked for 3RR breaches in the past, as recently two weeks ago.", wasn't it? What's more, "Still you managed to find it, so all should be well" is not sufficient. Editors in good standing are to be notified of AN reports such as this when the report is about them. No exceptions. Lhb1239 (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Still, you managed to find it, so all should be well. I didn't say that you were blocked 2 weeks ago. The diffs that I provided show that you were warned about making four reverts in 24 hours two weeks ago.[51][52] On 21 June you were blocked for 24 hours.[53] --AussieLegend (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation. This is the user's second block for edit warring since June. He was warned for breaking 3RR at Hart of Dixie on 31 October. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Oldschooldsl reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 31h, semi)
Page: Invision Power Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oldschooldsl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [54]
- 1st revert: [55]
- 2nd revert: [56]
- 3rd revert: [57]
- 4th revert: [58]
- 5th revert: [59]
- 6th revert: [60]
- 7th revert: [61]
- 8th revert: [62]
- 9th revert: [63]
- 10th revert: [64]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]
Comments:
New editor, warned repeatedly, edit-warring over adding unreferenced content like there's no tomorrow. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Result: User was blocked 31 hours by another admin. An IP showed up immediately to make the same edit, so the article is semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Mar4d reported by User:NorthernPashtun (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours )
Page: Afghans in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [66]
- 1st revert: [67]
- 2nd revert: [68]
- 3rd revert: [69]
- 4th revert: [70]
- 5th revert: [71]
- 6th revert: [72]
- 7th revert: [73]
- 8th revert: [74]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]
Comments: Mar4d's edits in Afghans in Pakistan are all anti-Afghan, he's trying to make Afghan refugees living in Pakistan demonized or evil-doers by searching the internet to find only negative news about them, so that he makes them criminals and terrorists. Yet, he did not add one single positive thing about them. But in Pakistanis in Afghanistan, he's trying to make Pakistanis look good. He has some kind of anti-Afghan agenda in Wikipedia, going around labelling European porn stars as Afghans [77]. I notimated stolen images and he kept reverting my nomination and those stolen images all got deleted now.[78].--NorthernPashtun (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I would like to make it clear that NorthernPashtun started the edit warring and is solely responsible for initiating it too. I have been editing Afghans in Pakistan with neutrality and have expanded on the "Crime" section only with sources that meet WP:RS. Admins are welcome to check my contributions and confirm this. Yet, this user has constantly been tampering with information to suit his POV, making personal attacks and has continously removed content that I add from the article without discussion. This is vandalism and a clear-cut violation of the 3RR rule. I have already made a complaint elsewhere and asked NorthernPashtun to not edit the article, while I am working on it for a while, but he clearly has not listened.
I would like admins to give me some time for me to file my own report here which goes into detail into some of the content dispute. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict (sorry)) I checked here after being alerted by NorthernPashtun and Mar4d of the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Afghans in Pakistan. See there for evidence.
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
User:92.98.24.125 reported by Funandtrvl (talk) (Result: )
Page: Itinerant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.98.24.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 12:16, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "rvv- better before. If you have a disagreement here, please discuss it first.")
- 18:49, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "rv- the previous revision looks better. You were told this before, and you ignored it. Wiktionary explains the word, TOC on the right makes sense to make the page shorter, etc. Hope this helps.")
- 19:16, 14 November 2011 (edit summary: "rv- I just *gave* you an explanation that you've requested on the talk page in my previous edit summary. I assume you can read, which means your intent here is disruption, not help the article.")
- Diff of warning: here
—Funandtrvl (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
Please advise if I should rqst semi-protection for the page. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
To the administrators- I was only trying to keep the article's quality. I was also hoping to reach understanding through my edit summaries, obviously I have failed. If I am being in the wrong here, please let me know and I will stop editing it. Thanks. 92.98.24.125 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are indeed in the wrong, for failure to communicate after three separate requests. Please use the talk page: Talk:Itinerant. I also recommend undoing your most recent revert as a show of good faith while you discuss the issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Magog the Ogre? Is that from World of Warcraft? 187.33.225.150 (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Braindead2011 reported by User:MahavishnuChris (Result: )
Page: Pre-Certification Video (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Braindead2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [79]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User:Braindead2011
Comments:
The abuse is coming from a former user of the forums being slandered, this user has a great dislike for the website and has persisted with edit warring. I feel he should be barred from editing this wiki page for he has nothing positive to contribute.
MahavishnuChris (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are supposed to notify the user about WP:3RR on their talk page, not their user page. I have done so now. Let's wait to see if there is a response. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
User:210.50.83.33 reported by User:Jack Merridrew (Result: 24h)
Page: Name-dropping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 210.50.83.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 02:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 02:24, 15 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460598507 by Apparition11 (talk)can you stop?")
- 02:33, 15 November 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 460713431 by Rothorpe (talk)can you please stop?")
- Diff of warning: here
—Jack Merridrew (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Looks like plain vandalism. Blocked 24 hours by another admin. The submitter of this request is having some difficulties of his own, due to his choice of a user name similar to that of a well-known editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
User:علی ویکی reported by User:Orartu (Result: )
Page: Baloch people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: علی ویکی (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments:
There appears to be some edit warring here [80]--Orartu (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Alan Liefting reported by User:Aircorn (Result: )
Page: Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alan Liefting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [81]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]
Comments:
One revert away from breaking 3RR, but does not seem to understand that pushing strongly for their case is edit warring[87]. Maybe someone other than me could leave a friendly message. AIRcorn (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)