Materialscientist (talk | contribs) |
Contaldo80 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
P.S. It should also be noted that [[User:Ezium23|Ezium23]] and [[User:Mean as custard|Mean as custard]] had used the direct quote as well before [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] modified it with his own wording. [[User:Cr7777777|Cr7777777]] ([[User talk:Cr7777777|talk]]) 16:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC) |
P.S. It should also be noted that [[User:Ezium23|Ezium23]] and [[User:Mean as custard|Mean as custard]] had used the direct quote as well before [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] modified it with his own wording. [[User:Cr7777777|Cr7777777]] ([[User talk:Cr7777777|talk]]) 16:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Agreed; [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] appears to be acting obtusely in continuing to revert this version. . . [[User:Mean as custard|Mean as custard]] ([[User talk:Mean as custard|talk]]) 16:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC) |
:Agreed; [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] appears to be acting obtusely in continuing to revert this version. . . [[User:Mean as custard|Mean as custard]] ([[User talk:Mean as custard|talk]]) 16:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
::In what sense have I been acting "obtusely". I have made the point that simply repeating a phrase made by Robert Sarah helps no-one. What does he mean by "western homosexual ideology"? What do you understand by it? Perhaps you can explain because frankly I'm struggling. Instead I've suggested that we try and make the phrasing more meaningful to readers. Sarah seems to be unhappy at the development of LGBT rights and which he sees - rightly or wrongly - as single-minded and aggressive. [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 08:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* {{AN3|w}} Certainly the editor has been edit-warring, but there was no attempt to explain to the editor that doing so is unacceptable before filing this report, as far as I can see. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) |
* {{AN3|w}} Certainly the editor has been edit-warring, but there was no attempt to explain to the editor that doing so is unacceptable before filing this report, as far as I can see. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
:I beg to differ. I advised the editor when reverting the changes and on their personal talk page. I also flagged the issue on the article talk page to which the editor has failed to respond. The editor has now reverted the material once again. I'm doing the responsible thing in avoiding this escalating to an edit-war. But if the editor fails sufficiently to engage then what is the approach?[[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 08:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Psychonaut]] reported by [[User:WikiBulova]] (Result: no violation) == |
== [[User:Psychonaut]] reported by [[User:WikiBulova]] (Result: no violation) == |
Revision as of 08:29, 3 November 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:Ken173324 reported by User:Zanhe (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- List of the world's busiest airports by passenger traffic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ken173324 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- 18:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- 29 October 2015
- 28 October 2015
- 9 October 2015
- 9 September 2015
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 02:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Hong Kong flag */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 15 September 2015 "Hong Kong: RFC has concluded"
- Comments:
I pointed him to the MOS guideline and the recent RfC consensus, but the user refuses to discuss and continues to revert Wolbo and myself. Zanhe (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours for long term edit warring. Ken173324 keeps replacing the China flag with the Hong Kong flag even after being warned by an admin. The use of the Hong Kong flag in this list is contrary to the advice of WP:MOSFLAG, which talks about usage of flags of subnational entities and is against a specific RfC on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Sakultah reported by User:Tradedia (Result: )
Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sakultah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Breaking 1RR:
- Edit 1 Revert 1 13:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Edit 2 Revert 2 07:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1] [2] [3] [4]
Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported had been placed on notice of the remedies in place. In addition, you can notice a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his unsourced edits. After a 72 hours block for edit warring, this user found nothing better than to come back and edit war some more on the same module with unsourced edits breaking 1RR. Tradediatalk 03:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
User:86.14.94.31 reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Principality of Sealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.14.94.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [5]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]
Comments:
They clearly don't intend to stop. Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN talk to me 22:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman reported by User:2605:E000:6009:9700:3448:B254:BF69:A47E (Result: No violation)
Page: Accreditation Service for International Colleges User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).
Previous version reverted to: [12]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Accreditation_Service_for_International_Colleges this]
Comments:
Hello This editor has reverted/changed this article over 30 different times. He also has been bullying other editors acting as if he is the owner of wikipedia. In a particular instance where he told user Markos200 that he has 24 hours and he will change the article back to his satisfaction. See this article talk page of bullying towards another editor. Another edit war between him and user (talk), see the previous edit war before User:DrFleischman deleted it from his talk page. See this.
It appears when someone makes an edit to an article and User:DrFleischman does not like the edit, he will check your IP or User Editing history to try to find issues on articles you have either created or edited and tag your article and cite that it is not Neutral and needs citations and or he would request that it be deleted. He has moved to get numerous articles deleted. One recently whereas he cited that an institution called Atlantic International University does not have any Notability in Wikipedia, see this article's deletion page. The AFD clearly states
- Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). This section is not a notability guideline, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are.
- Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. 'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion is anchored in policy.
- Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
- Schools that are being planned or built, except high schools reliably sourced to be opened within 12 months, are usually deleted.
There were sources provide that proved the institution exist.
Please review all User:DrFleischman's editing history as it seems that he has a lot of Bias opinions and a little over the top as to enforcing Wikipedia's procedures. He seems to be acting as a representative or some what an owner of Wikipedia. This article was created 7 years ago and as you can see, User:DrFleischman has chopped the article down to his personal liking. He will revert any meaningful edit with sources that someone makes on this article. This editor needs to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that provides extensive information as to organizations, so chopping the article down to predominately nothing seems to be a self-serving.
- No violation This is not the place to continue your content dispute with DrFleischman. Their reverts are few and far between. NeilN talk to me 22:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
User:2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD reported by User:Standardengineer (Result: Blocked 3 months)
- Page
- INS Vishal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Page
- Nuclear triad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ,
162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC) "According to Indian news the Tribune India: "The Indian fleet is grossly inadequate to match China.""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User is edit warring on pages Nuclear triad and INS Vishal. He was reported a few days back which led to semi-protection of INS Vishal and was also warned for using multiple IP's. He also uses the IP 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/162.74.52.147. He is acting against consensus by using multiple IP's . He is coming back after every few days and does the same thing again. standardengineer (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC) There was a big fight here User talk:162.74.52.147.
New info 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of 162.74.52.147 (talk · contribs) was reported as a sock of Shulinjiang (talk · contribs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shulinjiang/Archive . All the edit warring matches on topics. standardengineer (talk)
- Blocked – for a period of 3 months This really should be a SPI report. NeilN talk to me 07:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Signedzzz reported by User:McGeddon (Result: no violation)
- Page
- Astrology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 06:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ don't remove until issue is resolved"
- 08:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688494293 by Isambard Kingdom (talk) Don't remove until issue has been resolved"
- 09:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688495675 by Isambard Kingdom (talk)wrong again"
- 02:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ also contradicts the article"
- 03:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688630855 by Isambard Kingdom (talk)stop editwarring please"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Edit warring top-of-page "article contradicts itself and neutrality is disputed" maintenance tags over whether the word "pseudoscience" should go here or there in the lede sentence. Looks like they managed not-quite-3RR over the wording of that sentence last week, with five reverts in two days. Editor seems well aware of 3RR from previous blocks and is already discussing their concerns on the talk page. McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I self reverted 3 minutes after my last edit, [19]. As noted, I am discussing on talk. I don't agree with removing article tags while the issue is being discussed, but I apologise for not being more careful. The edit summary last time the tag was removed (just after another editor had helpfully fixed the tag [20]), "Deja vu all over again", was not constructive. I promise to steer well-clear of 3RR in future. I will only edit the same article on alternate days. In fact I won't edit the astrology article at all, at least until people start agreeing with me. zzz (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- "I am discussing on talk" is correct: Signedzzz has edited Talk:Astrology eight times in the last hour, since their last adjustment at 09:44 to the above comment. Switching from edit warring to overwhelming talk is not desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, I was editing my comment, which was a reply to another user who had replied to me. I don't know what you mean by "overwhelming". zzz (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I note the total length of additional material added in that hour isn't what I would call overwhelming talk either. I have commented myself on the talk page indicating that I see some reason to question the current structure of the lede, and I am not generally (I hope anyway) seen as an advocate of pseudoscientific theories, although, obviously, I would welcome correction on that point if I am found to be wrong in that assumption. John Carter (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should also mention that my original five separate edits spread throughout the lead and the body of the article were reverted en masse 6 days later (as can be seen in the edits listed above), along with edits by another user to the spelling of the word "medieval", with the edit summary "rv to last good version - article is EngVarB, i.e. not American; rv doubtful edits to lead" (apparently mistakenly asserting that "medieval", as opposed to the chiefly archaic "mediaeval", is an Americanism) and then again all reverted, along the spelling corrections: "Concur with previous revision, unconstructive lead changes". It only later transpired that it was the edit to the first sentence that was the main hurdle. I found this all very confusing at the time. zzz (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, my reversion you mentioned involved both the lead and spelling. There is a note about the spelling as well as talk page discussions about it. The lead changes are also heavily discussed in the talk page archives. The talk page "spamming" has made following any discussion virtually infeasable. Also offering to edit every other day is a blatent runaround of 3RR. (Also user delete my edit warring warning, see talk page history).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I was trying to convey with my previous message - my edits to the lead, and my other edits to the article, and the spelling edits by another user, were all combined into your single revert. (I believe my other edits apart from the first sentence have all been subsequently accepted). Your warning arrived 4 days ago, and related to these confusing combined reverts, and not the article tags. Also, I indicated, above, that I will not be editing the astrology article any more, unless there is a sudden, miraculous turn-around in the rather entrenched POV of users there. zzz (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, my reversion you mentioned involved both the lead and spelling. There is a note about the spelling as well as talk page discussions about it. The lead changes are also heavily discussed in the talk page archives. The talk page "spamming" has made following any discussion virtually infeasable. Also offering to edit every other day is a blatent runaround of 3RR. (Also user delete my edit warring warning, see talk page history).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should also mention that my original five separate edits spread throughout the lead and the body of the article were reverted en masse 6 days later (as can be seen in the edits listed above), along with edits by another user to the spelling of the word "medieval", with the edit summary "rv to last good version - article is EngVarB, i.e. not American; rv doubtful edits to lead" (apparently mistakenly asserting that "medieval", as opposed to the chiefly archaic "mediaeval", is an Americanism) and then again all reverted, along the spelling corrections: "Concur with previous revision, unconstructive lead changes". It only later transpired that it was the edit to the first sentence that was the main hurdle. I found this all very confusing at the time. zzz (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I note the total length of additional material added in that hour isn't what I would call overwhelming talk either. I have commented myself on the talk page indicating that I see some reason to question the current structure of the lede, and I am not generally (I hope anyway) seen as an advocate of pseudoscientific theories, although, obviously, I would welcome correction on that point if I am found to be wrong in that assumption. John Carter (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, I was editing my comment, which was a reply to another user who had replied to me. I don't know what you mean by "overwhelming". zzz (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- "I am discussing on talk" is correct: Signedzzz has edited Talk:Astrology eight times in the last hour, since their last adjustment at 09:44 to the above comment. Switching from edit warring to overwhelming talk is not desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- With the self revert, I am marking this as no violation, although both Signedzzz and Isambard Kingdom are getting close to 3RR. I will monitor the article and block at the first sign of trying to game the rules. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Cr7777777 reported by User:Contaldo80 (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Robert Sarah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Cr7777777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:27, 2 November 2015
- 02:34, 2 November 2015
- 22:45, 1 November 2015
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Have tried to suggest engage on talk but editor has refused to do so.
- Comments:
Cr7777777 has failed to engage on the wording in the lead and instead has aggressively reverted text repeatedly from both myself and other editors. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Response:
I'm not sure why Contaldo80 says that I failed to engage on the wording. I have stated my case multiple times to the few editors who insist on rephrasing the cardinal's words.
This is a clear cut case.
The few editors insist on rewording Cardinal Sarah's statement and inject their bias, which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
The few editors refuse to use the cardinal's direct quote, which the editors admittedly do not understand. Contaldo80 wrote "Isn't this rather meaningless? We don't really know what Sarah means as his terminilogy is odd and unhelpful." After admitting to not understanding, he insists on rephrasing the cardinal's words!
Understanding Catholic Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM) would help to understand the cardinal's meaning. Rather than using my phrasing, or the other editors misleading phrasing, it is only fair to use the cardinal's direct quote.
Cr7777777 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
P.S. It should also be noted that Ezium23 and Mean as custard had used the direct quote as well before Contaldo80 modified it with his own wording. Cr7777777 (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed; Contaldo80 appears to be acting obtusely in continuing to revert this version. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- In what sense have I been acting "obtusely". I have made the point that simply repeating a phrase made by Robert Sarah helps no-one. What does he mean by "western homosexual ideology"? What do you understand by it? Perhaps you can explain because frankly I'm struggling. Instead I've suggested that we try and make the phrasing more meaningful to readers. Sarah seems to be unhappy at the development of LGBT rights and which he sees - rightly or wrongly - as single-minded and aggressive. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Warned Certainly the editor has been edit-warring, but there was no attempt to explain to the editor that doing so is unacceptable before filing this report, as far as I can see. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. I advised the editor when reverting the changes and on their personal talk page. I also flagged the issue on the article talk page to which the editor has failed to respond. The editor has now reverted the material once again. I'm doing the responsible thing in avoiding this escalating to an edit-war. But if the editor fails sufficiently to engage then what is the approach?Contaldo80 (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Psychonaut reported by User:WikiBulova (Result: no violation)
- Page
- Qurat-ul-Ain Balouch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Page
- QB (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Psychonaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Qurat-ul-Ain Balouch is full name of the Pakistani singer/actress and she also uses QB as her name in English media only. She is a popular singer and is only known as Qurat-ul-Ain Balouch in Urdu and Pakistan. I changed the redirection from QB and restored full name page. Now User:Psychonaut is reverting my edits. Please advice. WikiBulova (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- User:WikiBulova, I have already advised you what the problem is both on your talk page [21] and on mine [22], and also in my edit summaries. If you don't understand the process for requesting a move over a redirect, just ask about what isn't clear and I would be happy to help. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't edit warring. There are set procedures for moving a page because the page history is needed for attribution. See WP:CUTPASTE. clpo13(talk) 18:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have moved the article in question. WikiBulova, in future please listen to what other editors tell you and ask if you not understand. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Reaganomics88 reported by User:Govindaharihari (Result: blocked)
Page: Hard left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reaganomics88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_left&diff=688348805&oldid=688308146]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_left&diff=prev&oldid=688497758]
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_left&diff=prev&oldid=688514478]
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_left&diff=prev&oldid=688595867]
- [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_left&diff=688719777&oldid=688659302]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hard_left#.22Labour_.5Bin_the_early_1980s.5D_was....22]
Comments:Editor was straight off a block for the same thing on the same page and continues in the same method
Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, 'same thing', are you referring to trying to stop the removal of well sourced and relevant article content? Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Reagonomics seems to be following a similar editing pattern at Thatcherism, four recent reverts of the same change there. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be getting the message. Blocked 72 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Marc87 reported by User:Uncleben85 (Result: )
Page: List of family relations in the NHL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marc87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [23]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]
Comments:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [30]
-Uncleben85 (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Mitchell443 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )
- Page
- Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Mitchell443 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 05:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC) to 05:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- 05:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688751672 by Moxy (talk) Fair use rationale Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the Arms of Canada. This image illustrates the use of traditional French and B"
- 05:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688812132 by Mitchell443 (talk)"
- 05:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688751672 by Moxy (talk) Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the Arms of Canada. This image designed by the Canadian Heraldic Authority"
- Consecutive edits made from 20:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC) to 20:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- 03:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Canada. (TW★TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Edit-warring disruption since 25 October 2014. Adding a flawed copy of the Canadian coat of arms against consensus. Will not discuss. See also disruption from 2014 on Discospinster's talk. Dr. K. 05:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Now he's edit warring on this edit warring notice. Besides being meta, it'll probably get him blocked for vandalism following a final warning. clpo13(talk) 06:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Recommend the editor-in-question be given a lengthy block, until he/she promises to stop. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)