EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 418: | Line 418: | ||
*'''Result:''' The page [[Disappearance of Sky Metalwala]] has been fully protected for a week by [[User:CambridgeBayWeather]]. He has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Sky_Metalwala&diff=755481110&oldid=755478958 reverted the article] to a version prior to the current edit war, which is within admin discretion. (In other words he took out the disputed See Also entry to [[Disappearance of Ayla Reynolds]]). If you want further changes made, use the {{tl|Edit fully protected}} template. There has already been a discussion with the protecting admnistrator at [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Disappearance of Sky Metalwala]] but you opened the further report here, which is not entirely logical. If you think the protection was a mistake, use [[WP:ANI]] to appeal it. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Result:''' The page [[Disappearance of Sky Metalwala]] has been fully protected for a week by [[User:CambridgeBayWeather]]. He has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Sky_Metalwala&diff=755481110&oldid=755478958 reverted the article] to a version prior to the current edit war, which is within admin discretion. (In other words he took out the disputed See Also entry to [[Disappearance of Ayla Reynolds]]). If you want further changes made, use the {{tl|Edit fully protected}} template. There has already been a discussion with the protecting admnistrator at [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Disappearance of Sky Metalwala]] but you opened the further report here, which is not entirely logical. If you think the protection was a mistake, use [[WP:ANI]] to appeal it. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Balki Chalkidiki]] reported by [[User:2A1ZA]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Balki Chalkidiki]] reported by [[User:2A1ZA]] (Result: Both blocked) == |
||
;Page: {{pagelinks|Turkey}} |
;Page: {{pagelinks|Turkey}} |
||
Line 454: | Line 454: | ||
There now appears to be a need for decisive action to protect that decentralization paragraph in the Turkey article, for which now a clear and unanimous consensus version exists, from future disruptive POV edits and edit warring by the reported User. -- [[User:2A1ZA|2A1ZA]] ([[User talk:2A1ZA|talk]]) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
There now appears to be a need for decisive action to protect that decentralization paragraph in the Turkey article, for which now a clear and unanimous consensus version exists, from future disruptive POV edits and edit warring by the reported User. -- [[User:2A1ZA|2A1ZA]] ([[User talk:2A1ZA|talk]]) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
:{{AN3|bb}} - 1 week. 2A1ZA is claiming that his version enjoys talk page consensus, but he is the person who declared the consensus so the result is questionable. In any case, reverting to enforce an apparent consensus is not listed as an exception to the edit warring rules in [[WP:3RRNO]]. It looks like both parties are prepared to keep on reverting forever. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 06:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:69.116.254.187]] reported by [[User:Loriendrew]] (Result: Blocked) == |
== [[User:69.116.254.187]] reported by [[User:Loriendrew]] (Result: Blocked) == |
Revision as of 06:09, 19 December 2016
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:185.3.147.77 reported by User:Hanay (Result: Semi)
User being reported: 185.3.147.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Michel, 14th Prince of Ligne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Israel–Turkey relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
See also edits of User:185.3.147.93 here and User:185.3.147.194 and also here
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This are the edits of Hebrew Wikipedia troll User: יעל י, Her name is Yael Weiler Israel, and after she vandalised on Commons, see on Commonse User:יעל י also on Wikidata and German Wikipedia, she came here. All her edits need to be undo. I am not doing it by myself, because she will undo them as she did before. I need more eyes to pay attention to her vandalism. See also Category:Sockpuppets of יעל י on Commons. She was blocked globally on Meta. I thing you need to do range blocking as thay did in Commons. I am not expert in reporting here, It is more complicated than in Hebrew wikipedia, but I hope that my request is clear. Thanks Hanay (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to add to Hanay's request that this troll is known to replace IP quickly and we had to block the IP range on hewiki. I'm suggesting to either range block or define some AbuseFilter on IP ranges + patterns that appear similar to those edits. Eran (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Two pages semiprotected. If this editor continues to hop within the same range then a /24 rangeblock of 185.3.147.0/24 might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, This troll came back see 141.226.218.4 (talk · contribs) She is vandalise consistently my edits and User:Geagea edits. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I know she is edits also from the range 5.22.134.0/24 and 141.226.218.0/24. Pay attention she also removed my previous edit here. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- User:Zzuuzz has blocked 141.226.218.4 (talk · contribs) for 72 hours for long-term abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I know she is edits also from the range 5.22.134.0/24 and 141.226.218.0/24. Pay attention she also removed my previous edit here. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, This troll came back see 141.226.218.4 (talk · contribs) She is vandalise consistently my edits and User:Geagea edits. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
User:213.74.186.109 reported by User:2003:77:4F41:7727:D94C:F64A:76EB:5C86 (Result: Semiprotections)
Page: Rojava conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), People's Protection Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Rojava conflict: [3], [4], [5], [6]
People's Protection Units: [7], [8],
User 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows a pattern of long term disruptive editing and edit warring, presently on the two articles Rojava conflict, People's Protection Units with the aim to include poorly sourced content (usually his only source is the Turkish Daily Sabah, the mouthpiece of the Turkish AKP gouvernment which considers People's Protection Units and PYD as terrorist organisations whereas the international community does not, therefore for this topic the most biased source one can imagine). This user tries persistently to add this content violating NPOV and without ever trying to explain why this content should be added and whether it is reliable. In the article People's Protection Units, in addition it is not even clear how the content is related to the People's Protection Units (however the aim is clear: to smear this group following the Turkish AKP gouvernment narrative: 'they are all terrorists').
The behaviour of user 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows a long term plan to target articles related to Rojava. Before, this user in the same way targeted the articles Syrian Democratic Forces (see [9]), Salih Muslim Muhammad (in addition violating BLP, see [10]) and Rojava (see [11]). If the above two pages were protected, it is very likely that this user will just start to target the next best page related to Rojava by the very same methods.
In addition, the behaviour of user 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows severe violations of WP:CIV: [12]: "Where did this sock puppet come from? Are you good at yakking too?" [13]: "mouthpiece of a terrorist"
The user 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly "cleaned" his talk page which shows a history of edit warring, disruptive editing and other problematic behaviour: old versions with the "cleaned" content: [14], [15], [16] 2003:77:4F41:7727:D94C:F64A:76EB:5C86 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments:
- Result: Semiprotected Rojava conflict, People's Protection Units and Syrian Democratic Forces for three months each. People are making very little use of the respective talk pages. It would be time-consuming for admins to figure out what is happening when people don't give their rationales. At worst we have some kind of complex POV-pushing that doesn't rely on neutral sources. Judging from WP:GS/SCW it seems that all these articles are under a WP:1RR restriction. Given the shortage of admin time, I'm predicting that we will wind up having to semiprotect any articles related to Rojava where disputes break out. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
User:69.29.25.12 reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Semi)
Page: LaVoy Finicum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.29.25.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [17] (This is from November, in the diffs below I omitted two other reverted IP diffs, one of which was from this IP also)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Bold edit 22:40, December 15, 2016 69.29.25.12 (talk) . . (39,604 bytes) (+19) . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
- First revert (2nd of 2 edits) 22:55, December 15, 2016 69.29.25.12 (talk) . . (39,456 bytes) (-211) . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, references removed, Visual edit)
- Second revert 16:39, December 16, 2016 69.29.25.12 (talk) . . (39,859 bytes) (+274) . . (The text contained numerous lies and distortions authored by LaVoy Finicum's murderers.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
- Third revert 16:55, December 16, 2016 69.29.25.12 (talk) . . (39,587 bytes) (+2) . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
- Fourth revert 17:02, December 16, 2016 69.29.25.12 (talk) . . (39,741 bytes) (+156) . . (rollback: 1 cedit | undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
Warnings and efforts at engaging talk
- 22:41, December 15, 2016, note at IP's talk page from DrStrauss (talk · contribs) Edit sum - General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on LaVoy Finicum
- 22:56, December 15, 2016 note at IP's talk page from John "Hannibal" Smith (talk · contribs) Edit sum - Level 2 warning re. LaVoy Finicum (HG) (3.1.22))
Comments:
The user is deleting RSs but not adding any, and is changing text to make unsourced claims in WP:Wikivoice
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
User:OkIGetIt20 reported by User:Karst (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Never Say Never (Brandy album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- OkIGetIt20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755289292 by PassenzaT (talk)"
- 02:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 754514583 by PassenzaT (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 14:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Never Say Never (Brandy album). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
I have started a section on the Talk page of the album to resolve the dispute.
- Comments:
Asked for page protection of the Brandy page. Karst (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
User:PassenzaT reported by User:Karst (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Never Say Never (Brandy album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- PassenzaT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 14:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Never Say Never (Brandy album). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
I have started a section on the Talk page of the album to resolve the dispute.
- Comments:
Asked for page protection. This has been going on since the 9 December tallying up around 11 reverts so far. Karst (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
User:100.35.194.25 reported by User:Pauciloquence (Result: Protected)
Page: Charlie Zeleny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:100.35.194.25 100.35.194.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]
Collapsed to save space. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Comments:
These drummers have similar complete lists of gear that Pauciloquence claims to be promotional but has been shown in the Talk Page of how it can be perceived as informational like all the pages below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Adler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinnie_Paul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zonder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Young https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Yeung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Vannucci_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ulrich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Theodore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zak_Starkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questlove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Rockenfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Roddy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Rose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Royster_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Rubin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Rudd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Pennie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pridgen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Laboriel_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Larkin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Luzier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Lucas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jojo_Mayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Mullen_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jordan_%28musician%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kollias_%28drummer%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomas_Haake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Robert_Promi%C5%84ski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Erlandsson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zac_Farro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Fishman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Beauford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Donati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dolmayan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brann_Dailor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Copeland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Cobham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damon_Che https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Bozzio
This was spoken about earlier on the Talk page. There is no conflict of interest regarding the subject Charlie Zeleny. The drummer community on a whole seems to be under-serviced with many prominent and famous drummers and musicians that have incomplete, under-sourced pages that have not been fixed or updated for many years. This is one of the drummers on the list that needs to be cleaned up and fixed significantly and is being fixed with a variety of editors. These editors includ Bythebooklibrary and Voceditenore who are not just massively editing the article but bringing up points on the talk page and having us all go back and forth on as a community to fix this page. There are many more drummer and musician pages that we must all tackle after this to have the Wikipedia drummer community hold more weight. Thank you very much. 100.35.194.25 (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Usage of unreliable sources in article I have removed a reference to linkedin as unreliable. References to facebook, social sites and youtube are also considered unreliable and should not be used within the article. Pauciloquence (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Understood on LinkedIn as unreliable or other social sites. Will find better sources for those particular links. But I must respectfully disagree on YouTube not being a valid source since that is the actual Video material in the Discography section. If you check all the current new sources on the Videos in the References, the references linked are the actual videos of the subject performing with the selected artists. It is clearly stated that YouTube is a valid source in the Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove or edits these links. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.194.25 (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see this excerpt from the reliable sources noticeboard: "YouTube as a source I have been the primary editor of Justine Ezarik for some time and have consistently tried to eliminate use of YouTube as a source. This includes, citing its pageview statistics as a source for popularity. I have recently been involved in a pair of popular viral videos (Kony 2012 and Cat Daddy) and am now wondering if it is Kosher to cite YouTube for number of pageviews and upload date.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Nope. It is a "primary source" for what you seem to wish to use it - and the only value of the stats is in the area of what WP fondly calls "original research." If and only if a reliable third party source publishes the data does Wikipedia like to see it used. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)" located here:[1] Pauciloquence (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC) From the same article link you provided: Yes and no. YouTube is fine to cite for number of page views and upload date. Primary sources can be used to make straightforward statements of facts that any educated person will be able to verify. So, yes, it's perfectly fine to cite YouTube for the number of times a video is watched or when it was uploaded. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC) The issue here is verifiability, whether a reader can go to the appropriate YouTube page and verify that the video was uploaded on a particular day and has X number of views without performing any interpretation or analysis. The answer to that question is yes. Not technically, yes, but absolutely yes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Youtube is an acceptable source. Drawing any conclusion from those numbers is not ok. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 01:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 11:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
We do not agree. Please cite where the guidelines state that youtube is a reliable source. Pauciloquence (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The information provided is found directly underneath the comment you provided here: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.194.25 (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
3) YouTube videos showing the subject playing with the said parties should be okay as a source, no? That would be a primary source and show that he has actually performed with the artists and musicians claimed. Let me know your thoughts on the matter. I've seen many other pages successfully list YouTube as a source also. This seems to be just as valid as an actual website and I've seen YouTube claimed as a valid source for court cases even.
|
- Page protected Protected before I saw this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
User:24.7.14.87 reported by User:7&6=thirteen (Result: Protected)
User being reported24.7.14.87
Page:
Shinola (shoe polish)
Previous version reverted to
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinola_(shoe_polish)&oldid=754378089
Diffs of the user's reverts
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinola_(shoe_polish)&oldid=755388384
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinola_(shoe_polish)&oldid=755237665
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinola_(shoe_polish)&oldid=755116747
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinola_(shoe_polish)&oldid=754721396
7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- I refer the admin to the article talk page, where I have specified the consensus regarding IPC material on which my edits are based, and now answered objections. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Leaving the fact of four reverts within 24 hours uncontested. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Page protected Already protected by KrakatoaKatie CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
User:ERSPW reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- SM City Marilao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- ERSPW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755429917 by Chris troutman (talk)"
- 23:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755429486 by Chris troutman (talk)"
- 23:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 754175230 by Chris troutman (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on SM City Marilao. (TW)"
- 23:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Last warning */ new section"
- 00:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
I've tried repeatedly to get ERSPW to stop and discuss including at Talk:SM Supermalls. The last revert was done by an IP which I've reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ERSPW. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Cadmus90 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- List of Islamist terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Cadmus90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755463179 by MrX (talk) Have you seen the video on YouTube in which el-Sisi said what is exactly written in the source ?in"
- 04:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755461447 by Malik Shabazz (talk) How about that you stop being a smart ass with these subjective reliable source nonsense, what do the media report about Trump?"
- 04:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755458126 by Malik Shabazz (talk) I wonder what should we consider a terrorist attack perpetrated by a Muslim !"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. (TW)"
- 05:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "/* December 2016 */ question"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on
articleeditor's talk page
- 04:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "/* List of Islamist terrorist attacks */ new section"
- 04:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "/* List of Islamist terrorist attacks */ replies"
- Comments:
While Cadmus90 has not violated 3RR (yet), she/he made three reverts in little more than a half-hour. She/he was invited to join the lengthy discussion at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks about the Nice attack, but prefers to communicate via edit summary and personal attack. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- HAHAHA .. That is funny ! it seems that we are in a kindergarten so a pupil is asking that I should be banned from contributing in a freely-editing environment like Wikipedia ! if the edits dont satisfy certain people here so why do you let anyone to edit?
- This is not my first edit on Wikipedia, but it seems that this platform has some kind of a lobby of not reporting anything about Islam. Cadmus90 (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's just a place where rules—such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Edit warring—matter, and you can't run roughshod over them because you think you're right. I warned you after two reverts, but you went ahead and reverted another editor. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Malik Shabazz: HAHAHA .. you are the one who reverted my original edits TWICE !!!!
Can anyone please tell who had the final decision of not including 2016 Nice attacks in the list of terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims ? Cadmus90 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Cadmus90, The community did. After a lengthy one month long discussion closed by an admin, the community had achieved the consensus that reporting the 2016 Nice Attack as an act of islamic terrorism was an act of reading the crystal ball and deriving a conclusion not yet accepted by the French investigative authorities or reported in a significant number of reliable sources. The evidence points towards it, but, the investigative authorities have not drawn the absolute conclusion that this is in fact what has happend only that this may be what has happened. There is a difference between speculation - which is what we have - and a fact. The difference being one is simply guessing and one simply is. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Mr rnddude: OK .. fair enough, now they caught 3 people were helping that Muslim in his terrorist act ! Let us wait their decision ! I still wonder which of the sources are considered reliable, you should make a list of them !
I hope that the admin who had the final decision for 2016 Nice attack was NOT Malik Shabazz !
Anyway, Thank you Sir Mr rnddude for your reply, much appreciated !
Regarding the last edit of what happened in Cairo, you can check this article of 2011 Alexandria bombing, where it is mentioned that there was blame on both the Egyptian Interior Ministry and Army of Islam (Gaza Strip) !! so if we include the Botroseya Church bombing in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks on Wikipedia, it would be a good thing to do for at least the families of the victims that I know some personally ! Cadmus90 (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Believe me when I say I haven't the foggiest clue which sources are definitively reliable these days. New York Times and Washington Post seem to be generally accepted. BBC is as well, but, I don't have any affection for them myself. You'll notice very quickly that left/liberal (I am left and slight liberal myself, so I have no bias against these sources in this regard) sources are more generally accepted. This is not only the view of Wikipedia but mainstream media and often society at large. As far as I'm aware the French police have arrested five people to date on terrorism charges but nobody's yet been tried or prosecuted. News on this front has somewhat died down. A similar discussion was held on the Nice article and the same conclusion was drawn; wait for the investigation to be completed. As for the Cairo bombing, I'm aware of what happened (Coptic church bombed with 25 fatalities), but, don't have any details regarding it and can confer no opinion on the matter for the time being. Best to check the article dealing with it Botroseya Church bombing and see what discussions (if any) are being held in the talk and also what content is available on the main article. Often times the sources used on other articles in Wikipedia can be screened for valuable insight. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Rebound55 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)
- Page
- U2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Rebound55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 02:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC) "Exposure for those members on the infobox and then labeling as "past members," when the article labels them as "early" members makes it look contradicting. This isn't your usual band that contains past members."
- Consecutive edits made from 20:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC) to 20:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- 20:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755390967 by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) If it seems too generous to call "him" a member, then why give him some exposure on the infobox?"
- 20:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "U2 was built by Bono, The Edge, Larry, and Adam. Ever since their first recording and earliest media exposure only the 4 of them appeared. Find me a recording of them that gives credit to other members, then we can have the infobox in placed."
- 18:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "This isn't up for debate, Martin left after the band's first practice, subsequently followed by McCormick who left a few weeks later. Then, Evans left when they were "The Hype." So who left after the band was named U2 and recorded their first material?"
- 14:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Woah? Hold up? Past members? As in members that quit the band after their first recording in 1979, I don't think so."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 23:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "/* "Past Members On The Infobox Dispute" */ reply"
- Comments:
- Result: User:Rebound55 is warned for edit warring on the U2 article. They broke the 3RR on 17 and 18 December. They may be blocked if they make any more reverts at U2 unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Daniel Case reported by User:Calton (Result: Already protected)
Page: Disappearance of Sky Metalwala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daniel Case (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29] Daniel Case is an admin AND he warned the other party about edit-warring, so he certainly should know better.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Disappearance_of_Sky_Metalwala#Stop_connecting_entirely_different_disappearances_based_on_personally_observed_similarities
Comments:
Editor -- an administrator, no less -- is edit-warring to include an unconnected article, on the basis of, well, he feels like it. Instead of explaining how the two articles are connected -- such as by a reliable source connecting the two -- editor is proclaiming that the WP:MOS pretty much lets him do what he feels like. So Daniel Case is edit-warring and including material BEFORE consensus, as well as engaging in original research and (arguably but not unambiguously) BLP violations, since inclusion of the second case implies the two disappearences are connected, with potential damaging effects on either families if they find out.
Admin CambridgeBayWeather has -- for reasons I don't understand -- protected the page on the wrong version. Not the WP:WRONG version, the actually wrong version. I request that the page be unprotected and User:Daniel Case -- again, an administrator -- be sanctioned, by block if necessary. Calton | Talk 08:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Result: The page Disappearance of Sky Metalwala has been fully protected for a week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. He has reverted the article to a version prior to the current edit war, which is within admin discretion. (In other words he took out the disputed See Also entry to Disappearance of Ayla Reynolds). If you want further changes made, use the {{Edit fully protected}} template. There has already been a discussion with the protecting admnistrator at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Disappearance of Sky Metalwala but you opened the further report here, which is not entirely logical. If you think the protection was a mistake, use WP:ANI to appeal it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Balki Chalkidiki reported by User:2A1ZA (Result: Both blocked)
- Page
- Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Balki Chalkidiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- 11:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- 12:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- 12:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- 3RR warning
- Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Talk:Turkey#Stop_deleting_the_decentralization_issue_from_the_article
- Talk:Turkey#Seeking consensus for restoring proper paragraph on decentralization
- Comments:
The reported User by now has a lengthy history of edit warring against the decentralization paragraph in the Turkey article. He has been breaking numerous Wikipedia rules (including 3RR, now for the second time) and policies in the process, displaying an extreme attitude of WP:OWN. The version he is attacking now with his disruptive edits is a clear and unanimous talk page consensus version. Among the motivation of the reported User appears to be a personally held fringe political POV. A constant feature of his conduct are deliberately misleading edit summaries.
- He started the edit warring against the decentralization paragraph on 12 December. On 13 December I filed an edit-warring complaint with this noticeboard, which ended on 14 December with an Admin warning him (and me) not to do any further edits in the paragraph without prior talk page consensus. (Link to the file with all information here)
- However, few hours later, the reported User resumed disruptive editing of the paragraph. (link) As a consequence, on 14 December his account was blocked for 24 hours. (link) After his block expired, he audaciously resumed disruptive edits against the paragraph concerned. (link)
- Meanwhile I had started, also on 14 December, a talk page consensus finding on the decentralization paragraph with a comprehensive presentation on the article talk page. The reported User, pinged by me, even briefly participated after his block expired, however without offering any contribution to the discussion in substance. Other users did. Some days later, a clear and unanimous consensus version for the decentralization paragraph was found.
- Early this morning 18 December, I implemented that clear and unanimous consensus version of the decentralization paragraph into the article. (link)
- Few hours later, the reported User started edit warring against the decentralization paragraph again.
There now appears to be a need for decisive action to protect that decentralization paragraph in the Turkey article, for which now a clear and unanimous consensus version exists, from future disruptive POV edits and edit warring by the reported User. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked - 1 week. 2A1ZA is claiming that his version enjoys talk page consensus, but he is the person who declared the consensus so the result is questionable. In any case, reverting to enforce an apparent consensus is not listed as an exception to the edit warring rules in WP:3RRNO. It looks like both parties are prepared to keep on reverting forever. EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
User:69.116.254.187 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Belarusian National Technical University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 69.116.254.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755427075 by Eric-Wester (talk)"
- 23:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755389880 by Loriendrew (talk)"
- 18:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 755363012 by Loriendrew (talk)"
- 04:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 754340630 by Loriendrew (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Badlist3. (TW)"
- 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Belarusian National Technical University. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeatedly adding non-notable to alumni list, WP:ALUMNI and WP:WTAF apply. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
User:82.132.229.150 reported by User:Marbe166 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Princess Benedikte of Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.132.229.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), other IP:s used: 82.132.212.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 82.132.239.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [30]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
Thsi IP user is by moving the Vatican in the list of honours trying to impose that the Vatican is a part of Italy - which it isn't, it is a soverign state. No defense of his/her actions or replies to my comments. Bringing this issue here in order not to break 3RR myself. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's a sock puppet of indefinitely blocked User:Qais13. DrKay (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
User:71.81.58.55 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )
Page: Captain America: Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:71.81.58.55
Previous version reverted to: [36]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [37] Revision as of 17:36, 17 December 2016]
- [38] Revision as of 19:08, 17 December 2016]
- [39] Revision as of 04:32, 18 December 2016]
- [40] Revision as of 19:13, 18 December 2016]
- [41] Latest revision as of 19:31, 18 December 2016
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page :Talk:Captain America: Civil War# Billion Dollar source
Comments:
Two veteran editors, myself and User:Favre1fan93 reverted the anon IP with explanations both in edit-summary and, later, on the talk page and on his own page that his edit was WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. He ignored that discussion and insisted he had sourcing, which is irrelevant since sourced fannish trivia is still fannish trivia. He similarly appears to be trying to game the system by making his two reverts just a little over the 24-hour mark. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, since he removed the 3RR notice on his talk page, here is a diff showing that the required notice of this discussion was placed on his page: [43] --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- And continuing to ignore the issue for which two editors reverted him, he left a nasty, uncivil note on my talk page: [44]. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Tenebrae was the one being nasty. I wasn't violating the page. I was giving useful information about a film reaching $1 billion and he took it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk • contribs)
- Regardless, he continues to deliberately not respond to the WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue and he's got five reverts. He's clearly an edit-warrior disrupting Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am not a edit-warrior disrupting Wikipedia. Tenebrae is turning away useful information. He's being the negative one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- The material you are adding is an exact copy of the source—that is a copyright violation (policy) and fails WP:Non-free content (guideline). When engaging in a dispute about content on Wikpedia it is best to maintain a mild manner—and be open to other views and to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In this case you picked a low-hanging fruit (copying the sentence rather than using your own words), made an intemperant response to reversion, and didn't engage in discussion on the article talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project that anyone can edit. It would be impossible without the policies and guidelines for so many people to work together. You can turn this into a good learning experience and pathway to helping build the world's largest and most consulted encyclopedia. — Neonorange (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am not a edit-warrior disrupting Wikipedia. Tenebrae is turning away useful information. He's being the negative one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)