Tco03displays (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Aerecinski (talk | contribs) →User:Aerecinski reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ): response to biased allegations |
||
Line 249: | Line 249: | ||
*I just gave them a 3RR warning (not relying on the one from more than a month ago). If anyone (Aerecinski or an IP) reverts the content back in I'd be willing to block for edit warring. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 09:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC) |
*I just gave them a 3RR warning (not relying on the one from more than a month ago). If anyone (Aerecinski or an IP) reverts the content back in I'd be willing to block for edit warring. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 09:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
:*{{ec}} Thank you Callanecc. I just had an edit-conflict with you, as I was about to add that this edit-warring by the reported user has been going on for a long time: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_II,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans&diff=prev&oldid=580200851 November 2013], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_II,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans&diff=prev&oldid=565390527 July 2013] and extends to other articles as well: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Charlotte,_Princess_Palatine&diff=prev&oldid=501524369] including attacking edit-summaries: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Charlotte,_Princess_Palatine&diff=prev&oldid=500629074]. Overall [[WP:TEND|not a pretty picture]]. [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 09:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC) |
:*{{ec}} Thank you Callanecc. I just had an edit-conflict with you, as I was about to add that this edit-warring by the reported user has been going on for a long time: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_II,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans&diff=prev&oldid=580200851 November 2013], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_II,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans&diff=prev&oldid=565390527 July 2013] and extends to other articles as well: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Charlotte,_Princess_Palatine&diff=prev&oldid=501524369] including attacking edit-summaries: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Charlotte,_Princess_Palatine&diff=prev&oldid=500629074]. Overall [[WP:TEND|not a pretty picture]]. [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 09:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
I'm responding here to the agressive and false allegations that have just been brought to your attention about mya allegedly violating the WP.3RRN. The problem revolves around the systematic deletion of a paragraph I wrote over a year ago as part of Philippe II duke of Orleans' article. FactStraight and his wiki friend Kansas Bear seem bent on entirely deleting my edit although this paragraph is well referenced and relies on serious historical sources. |
|||
There has been no attempt of any kind of dialogue by FactStraight who merely keep deleting the paragraph every other month or so as the editing history clearly shows. Over the past days the party seem decided to upscale the problem into a full scale editing war but again without any dialogue. Kansas Bear merely left an agressive warning on my talk page, while deleting an edit I left on his page last night through the agency of a sock puppet (editWarrior) who merely justified his deletion by insulting comments. |
|||
A "new" editor has just surfaced: Dr.K again deleting my contribution to Philippe's biography and leaving an agressive title to his editing which I ask you to consider removing. Actually I start to wonder if Kansas Bear and FactStraight are not the same person... I do not understand the rites of agression that seem to characterize this editor's attitude in this after all very minor matter : we are talking about a long dead figure of French history (17th-18th centuries).[[User:Aerecinski|Aerecinski]] ([[User talk:Aerecinski|talk]]) 10:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Katcheic<!-- Place name of the user you are reporting here -->]] reported by [[User:Tco03displays]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Katcheic<!-- Place name of the user you are reporting here -->]] reported by [[User:Tco03displays]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 10:50, 15 December 2013
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:63.251.123.2 reported by User:14.198.220.253 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page: Category:Peer review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 63.251.123.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [2]
- [3]
- [4] (now 63.* tried to compromise with "science", notice that "scientific method" is removed as 63.* compromises.)
- [5]
- [6]
- [7]
- [8]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned on edit summaries
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Science#Is_peer_review_defining_characteristics_of_science.3F Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F
Comments:
The war begins with the lack of talk on 63.*'s first revert, "Peer review is a reasonable subcategory of scientific method." as stated by 63.*, while the initial edit precisely bases on the idea "Peer review is not a reasonable subcategory of scientific method.", so he/she negates an argument, i.e. "I say yes" "you say no", and it does not make his/her explanation. 63.* carefully evades the essence of revert trolling by stating a POV which looks like an explanation.
Consequently, I tried to prove the obvious that 63.* apparently refuses to understand, Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F. 63.* then tried to compromise with "science" in-place of "scientific method", which I disagree and thus consider controversial. On top of that, there is still no counterargument from 63.* against "scientific method" so far, without which he/she has yet to justify his/her revert trolling. Anyway, the consequence discussion over Talk:Science#Is_peer_review_defining_characteristics_of_science.3F is ongoing, that's why his/her proposed change has yet to pass. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to have additional users review the history of the interaction between 14.198.* and I. A few weeks ago, after 14.198.* accused me of "wikihounding", I wrote up an explanation of why I have been monitoring their edits here. 14.198.* appears to have a history of attempting to water down statements about the connection between science and peer review (and scientific consensus), presumably in relation to their views on Serge Lang's activity as an AIDS denialist, as that was where it started. They also consistently misunderstand WP:STATUSQUO. Nevertheless, if other folks here feel that my actions have been problematic, I'm happy to change them. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am glad that you are willing to link my talk page, as I explained to you that your POV "14.198.* appears to have a history of attempting to water down statements about the connection between science and peer review (and scientific consensus)"
- is just a matter of fact that peer review doesn't have to do with science, science doesn't have to do with peer review. If you disagree, then this is just opinion and you said right out that my edit is disrupt, did I say "you appear to have a history of attempting to obfuscate statements about the connection between science and peer review (and scientific consensus)" on you?
- It is just your imagination and your loaded tone "water down" "eliminate" that makes me your enemy, WP:AGF applies to you. If you disagree, then you just challenge my argument, so, you still insist that peer review is defining characteristics of scientific method? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh well, I have to clarify what you said is also largely inaccurate.
- My edit on Serge Lang only changes the word from "scientific consensus" to "argument", which I can understand and if you later find his book Challenges, I doubt he actually uses or even agrees with the word "scientific consensus" and "AIDS". The editor there basically puts up the arguments which he refuses to use or even interpret, thus this just makes the arguments in that article untrue and rude. Anyway, that is for Serg Lang's page, this should explain your trouble. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Page protected. I've semi-protected the category for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- So, my edit ends up being locked. Bbb23 I guess (with your lack of explanation) your reasoning is that while 63.* reverted my edit for 7 times I reverted his/her reverts for 6 times, and it cant be immaterialized.
- I understand but as you can see on Talk:Science#Is_peer_review_defining_characteristics_of_science.3F and Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F, not only I have done my part and 63.* has yet to explain his reasoning on his vandalism, that is, how does "peer_review" supposes to be the defining characteristics of scientific method, if he/she refuses to discuss or self-revert his/her edit disrupt, then what do you think a regular editor should do? After 2 weeks I end up see you on DRN. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Sasata reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Protected)
Page: Koala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sasata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [9]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]
Comments:
This user has been persistently, blindly reverting all my edits to this article for the past two days. As you can see he has already broken the 3RR for previous reversions, which I did not report. At this stage he is refusing to discuss anything on the talk page. This persistent and automatic reversion of every single edit I make, forcing me to spend days to add a simple tag to the article has made if effectively impossible to edit.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've protected for three days to allow discussion in talk. Hopefully that is all that is needed here. --John (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Vikram kumar84 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Baashha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Vikram kumar84 (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
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Kailash29792, next time please file the report correctly. Also, although the user's edits were so promotional as to be vandalistic, it would probably be better for you to report the problem earlier before edit warring yourself in the article. I've taken the unusual step of removing the material from the article in addition to blocking Vikram.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Artpop - volume 2 reported by User:IndianBio (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Beyoncé (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Artpop - volume 2 (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 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC) to 17:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- 17:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
- 17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
- 17:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
- 17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album)*/"
- 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album)*/"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- I had just warned this user about their potential edit-warring, especially after I opened a discussion in hopes of the user to involve themselves. However, it appears this user be have showing potential signs of *owning* the article to show their own point of view and may be considered for some kind of discipline. livelikemusic my talk page! 17:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Result: Warned. It's almost 24 hours since their last revert. If they continue to revert about hidden tracks, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Vanthorn reported by User:Frietjes (Result: )
Page: Template:Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Musical or Comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vanthorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [15]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]
Comments:
This user just want to change the template layout without providing any plausible reason for that and with any kind of discussion on the talk page. He just started to discuss it now after beeing alerted by me. Vanthorn msg ← 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's not correct. Another editor removed the decade split, and you restored it. There has then been a tug-of-war between you and that other editor + Frietjes--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
User:MrOllie reported by User:Fromthestretch (Result: Fromthestretch warned)
Page: Ripoff Report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MrOllie (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] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=next&oldid=585876136
- [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585825670
- [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585741102
- [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585739422
- [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585508821
- [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=582663346
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Fromthestretch (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest that you start by reading WP:YOUTUBE. Regardless of any other issues, we never link to YouTube and similar websites unless it is entirely clear that the video has been uploaded by the copyright holder - which is clearly not the case here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
User:65.95.122.31 reported by User:Bill william compton (Result: )
- Page
- India–United Kingdom relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 65.95.122.31 (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
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
I would have discussed the matter on the talk page but this IP seems to have already made up their mind that "[E]nglish people do not want to accept their responsibilities [during the British Raj]". Their edits clearly violate neutral point of view policy. — Bill william comptonTalk 16:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note. I agree the edits are disruptive but speculation about the outcome of a discussion is no reason not to attempt it. Also, with your experience at Wikipedia, you would think that you would notice that your report here is malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not looking for any kind of action to be taken against the IP, but rather an involvement of other user who could help them understand. Maybe, I haven't chosen the right platform. — Bill william comptonTalk 05:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Aerecinski reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )
- Page
- Philippe II, Duke of Orléans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Aerecinski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586128460 by FactStraight (talk) - Plse respect other editor's work and stop agression"
- 22:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 586097683 by Kansas Bear (talk) STOP contemptuous and antagonist reverting"
- 10:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 585966731 by FactStraight (talk) -plse stop harassing revert"
- 20:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 585820644 by FactStraight (talk) - stop harassing and senseless reverting - respect work of others"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User is not stopping despite 3RR warning. Edit-warring against two editors. Possible use of IP socks as well: [30] Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just gave them a 3RR warning (not relying on the one from more than a month ago). If anyone (Aerecinski or an IP) reverts the content back in I'd be willing to block for edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thank you Callanecc. I just had an edit-conflict with you, as I was about to add that this edit-warring by the reported user has been going on for a long time: November 2013, July 2013 and extends to other articles as well: [31] including attacking edit-summaries: [32]. Overall not a pretty picture. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm responding here to the agressive and false allegations that have just been brought to your attention about mya allegedly violating the WP.3RRN. The problem revolves around the systematic deletion of a paragraph I wrote over a year ago as part of Philippe II duke of Orleans' article. FactStraight and his wiki friend Kansas Bear seem bent on entirely deleting my edit although this paragraph is well referenced and relies on serious historical sources.
There has been no attempt of any kind of dialogue by FactStraight who merely keep deleting the paragraph every other month or so as the editing history clearly shows. Over the past days the party seem decided to upscale the problem into a full scale editing war but again without any dialogue. Kansas Bear merely left an agressive warning on my talk page, while deleting an edit I left on his page last night through the agency of a sock puppet (editWarrior) who merely justified his deletion by insulting comments. A "new" editor has just surfaced: Dr.K again deleting my contribution to Philippe's biography and leaving an agressive title to his editing which I ask you to consider removing. Actually I start to wonder if Kansas Bear and FactStraight are not the same person... I do not understand the rites of agression that seem to characterize this editor's attitude in this after all very minor matter : we are talking about a long dead figure of French history (17th-18th centuries).Aerecinski (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Katcheic reported by User:Tco03displays (Result: )
Page: Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Katcheic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: His whole talkwage is filled with warnings of various degrees and 2 bans.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office
Comments:
Please refer to the whole Talk:Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office to see warnings and attempts at discussion with user.
I can no longer deal with this user. For almost 2 weeks he constantly deletes my edits, and reverts my work. He does not engage in discussion. It has been stated by User:Callanecc that all changes in the article must be previously discussed due to edit wars. The user has received handful of warnings and 2 bans so far. After being unbanned he came right back to the page and removed material that stated opinions of known journalists, (well-referenced and used to achieve a NPOV, it had been discussed in the talkpage) and added new material with no discussion. This user ha been warned for weeks, he is the only editor causing trouble in the page, he clearly tries to promote a specific point of view (look at the discussion in the article talkpage as well as the warnings on his talkpage) and has also vandalized the page Murder of Pavlos Fyssas in the past to reduce the information in regards to the anti-Golden Dawn protests that took place after the murder, while he added biased and misrepresenting information based on unreliable sources on the reactions to the murders of the 2 Golden Dawn members; exaggerating the public response. The two events are interlinked in Greek politics. At the moment Golden Dawn is being prosecuted as a criminal organization in Greece, and what the user is doing is to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool to affect the views of non-Greek speaking readers on Golden Dawn. It is also interesting to note that we had agreed that the murders cannot be considered a terrorist attack, that the information on the executioners is disputed and controversial; and thus the article should not be merged with Terrorism in Greece, but the moment I added skeptical statements by known journalists in Greece in regards to the organization that claimed the attack, to balance the scale with the opinions of Golden Dawn (that the murderers were leftists) the user decided that it should be deleted without notice. I've been trying hard to reach a neutral point of view on this article and it is not difficult, if I did not have this editor constantly trying to propagate.
All of the editors and the admins have been very tolerant with this user and tried to find common ground. But there is no ground left. I follow Greek politics closely and I was very suspect of this article popping up because I was afraid pro-Golden Dawn people would pop up to attack Pavlos Fyssas' article, turn Wikipedia onto a political boxing arena and propagate against the Greek left and in favor of the far right. In my opinion there was enough toleration, too much to be honest. Wikipedia has no space for the slightest propaganda and intended misinformation,
Its not up to me to deal with this from now on, but I will suggest an indefinite ban on the user and semi-protection on the article from IPs and very new users. Do as you see fit.--Tco03displays (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)