Okurogluselo (talk | contribs) |
m Signing comment by Okurogluselo - "→User:TaivoLinguist reported by User:okurogluselo (Result: ): " |
||
Line 872: | Line 872: | ||
:There is no [[WP:3RR]] violation here in any of this. Okurogluselo still refuses to discuss the matter on the article Talk Page and has reverted a fifth time as well, despite being warned again by an uninvolved user (see 3RR report above this one). --[[User:TaivoLinguist|Taivo]] ([[User talk:TaivoLinguist|talk]]) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC) |
:There is no [[WP:3RR]] violation here in any of this. Okurogluselo still refuses to discuss the matter on the article Talk Page and has reverted a fifth time as well, despite being warned again by an uninvolved user (see 3RR report above this one). --[[User:TaivoLinguist|Taivo]] ([[User talk:TaivoLinguist|talk]]) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
: I have been discussing the matter about the issue, politely with supplying realibale new references about my point. However [[User:TaivoLinguist|Taivo]] refuses to give any references supporting his ideas. Meanwhile I have to tolarate his rude and ofensive manners against personality and against any opinion different from his ones.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Language_isolate&diff=prev&oldid=665357955 [101<nowiki>]</nowiki>] --Okurogluselo 19:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC) |
: I have been discussing the matter about the issue, politely with supplying realibale new references about my point. However [[User:TaivoLinguist|Taivo]] refuses to give any references supporting his ideas. Meanwhile I have to tolarate his rude and ofensive manners against personality and against any opinion different from his ones.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Language_isolate&diff=prev&oldid=665357955 [101<nowiki>]</nowiki>] --Okurogluselo 19:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Okurogluselo|Okurogluselo]] ([[User talk:Okurogluselo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Okurogluselo|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== [[User:212.178.255.32]] reported by [[User:IJA]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:212.178.255.32]] reported by [[User:IJA]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 19:22, 3 June 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:Erlbaeko reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: No action)
Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Erlbaeko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments: Pretty clear violation of 1RR on an article to which general sanctions apply on two consecutive days. Complicating matters somewhat is that one of the parties in this dispute appears to be a blocked editor "contributing" as an IP, although that is unconfirmed (and Erlbaeko has reverted other editors, myself included, as well during this whole dustup). This might be the wrong place to note it, but I do feel this article requires some attention from administrators, as this kind of unproductive editing has not been uncommon in the page's history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Admin EdJohnston has been addressing this issue here. -Darouet (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Imo, it is not a violation of the 1RR-restriction, nor is it a violation of usual 3RR-restriction.
- Revision as of 12:21, 23 May 2015, is an attempt to find a third version. It is also a revert of this IP-edit.
- Revision as of 20:05, 24 May 2015, is a revert of this IP-edit.
- Revision as of 18:07, 25 May 2015, is a revert of this IP-edit.
- Revision as of 09:36, 26 May 2015, is a revert of this edit.
- Yes, 2 reverts is made whithin a 24 hour period, but at least one of them are IP-edits. As EdJohnston have explained, reverts of IP editors doesn't count according to the 1RR-restriction on Syrian Civil War related pages, but are subject to usual rules on edit warring. Ref. General sanctions - Remedies. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Update: I like this to be formally closed. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Result: No action. Per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#Erlbaeko it appears that Erlbaeko did not violate the 1RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Is there a difference between No violation and No action? If not, I like it to be closed as No violation. If it is, what is the violation? Also. There is a question in that arbitration requests (by Sayerslle "contributing" as an IP-editor, ref. SPI) whether this revert is a revert of Kudzu1 or a revert of an ip. I am not sure. What is correct? Also, I do not agree with Kudzu1 that a revert to previous consensus is against policy, in a situation where there is no consensus for a BOLD edit/removal of info. Ref. WP:NOCON. Instead I believe he should have reverted to previous consensus himself or started a discussion on the talk page, instead of this revert diff. Fyi, there is also a discussion about this incident on the talk page of the article here: Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Edit warring on a 1RR restricted article.
- P.S. I notised that you see Kudzu1 as someone to ask for advice. Ref. diff. Nothing wrong with that, but if you feel that you is to close to him to judge his behaviour you may leave this to somebody else. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Erlbaeko, this report closed with no action against you. It's not clear how or why you would want to appeal it. 'No action' and 'No violation' are very similar results. If you aren't happy with my decision, you can appeal it to WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Libertarian12111971 reported by User:Epeefleche (Result:user warned)
Page: Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Libertarian12111971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: May 16
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- May 16 "An editor has now repeatedly ... in a slow-motion edit war ... deleted inlines to redirects."
- May 30 "You can't just edit war on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT. You have to give a cogent reason for your edit warring."
- May 30 "I ask you again, and warn you again, to stop edit warring."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Frustrating.
This editor has stopped just short of 4 reverts, but is edit warring. He is repeatedly overriding my contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Despite my efforts to engage him in discussion.
I've tried to engage the editor in meaningful discussion a number of times, on his talkpage, on the article talkpage, and in my edit summaries. I've received nothing helpful in response. The best has been along the lines of "I disagree". Followed by a series of reverts.
Sometimes -- a problem that has plagued many of this editor's edits (he doesn't seem to care, as he has been spoken to about it a number of times in the last 10 months, by at least 4 different editors), he doesn't at times leave an edit summary. As in his reverts 1 and 4, above. Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm noting other issues as well. This comment looks like trolling in response to your completely valid and universally accepted admonishment that inline links should not be deleted because they are helpful, the editor wrote, "No, they're not." This comes a few months after I encountered them inexplicably removing a reference from an unreleased film article. The editor never replied to my query about that. Their response of "That sucks" in response to yet another explanation that edit summaries are crucial leads me to wonder if they ever read up on any of the other notices about this, or if they understand that this is a community project, not a solo venture. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I have noticed similar problems -- though they go beyond this board. An example -- the inexplicable removal of a pertinent fact, and then ... in talk page discussion ... denying his removal, though the diff clearly evidenced it. See here. Not in keeping with the rebut-able AgF we start out with. And perhaps that is pertinent to this board. Frustrating. Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Attention to this would be appreciated. Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I have noticed similar problems -- though they go beyond this board. An example -- the inexplicable removal of a pertinent fact, and then ... in talk page discussion ... denying his removal, though the diff clearly evidenced it. See here. Not in keeping with the rebut-able AgF we start out with. And perhaps that is pertinent to this board. Frustrating. Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Warned, if they continue they are likely going to be blocked. Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Hclaricejohnson reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Warned )
Page: Maddie Ziegler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hclaricejohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Maddie Ziegler#Infobox
Comments:
An ongoing discussion is being ignored, and it is possible that the red mist has come down on these FIVE reverts, two of which have been after warnings have been left. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've already warned the editor, and I'll keep an eye on the page. Given that the article had an infobox since its creation, an RfC is probably the best way forward. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
How pointless. They were warned twice during their edit warring and they had ample opportunity to view those warnings, so it's laughable to leave a third (and weakly worded) "warning". So much for having a bright line rule if we don't actually bother to enforce it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Rebecca1990 reported by User:Dismas (Result: Move-Protected)
Page: Cytherea (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff of move
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rebecca1990#Edit_warring - They've actually warned each other!
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cytherea_(actress)#Requested_move_27_April_2015
Comments:
I'm filing two cases. One for Rebecca1990 and one for User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (It's an edit war and there are two combatants but this page seems more geared towards 3RR rather than edit wars) They both know they're warring as is evidenced by HW's warning to Rebecca to stop edit warring. The war has spilled over to other articles. Most of this is centered on if pornographic actors should have "(actor/actress)" or "(pornographic actor/actress)" as a disambiguator. Though they've carried the argument on with other things which can be seen in their contributions.
Another topic of theirs can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#CNBC's Dirty Dozen list. They've entered into a discussion but that hasn't stopped them from edit warring over that either. diff 1 of many, diff 2 of many.
For evidence of other move warring see:
Thank you for your time. Dismas|(talk) 03:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Dismas (Result: Move-Protected)
Page: Cytherea (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [19]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rebecca1990#Edit_warring - They've actually warned each other!
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cytherea_(actress)#Requested_move_27_April_2015
Comments:
I'm filing two cases. One for User:Rebecca1990 and one for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (It's an edit war and there are two combatants but this page seems more geared towards 3RR rather than edit wars) They both know they're warring as is evidenced by HW's warning to Rebecca to stop edit warring. The war has spilled over to other articles. Most of this is centered on if pornographic actors should have "(actor/actress)" or "(pornographic actor/actress)" as a disambiguator. Though they've carried the argument on with other things which can be seen in their contributions.
Another topic of theirs can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#CNBC's Dirty Dozen list. They've entered into a discussion but that hasn't stopped them from edit warring over that either. diff 1 of many, diff 2 of many.
For evidence of other move warring see:
Thank you for your time. Dismas|(talk) 03:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to be available to repond properly until tonight. For the record, I'll note that this began because "Rebecca" began closing contentious move discussions she initiated and implementing her desired outcome, which is plainly and grossly inappropriate. The other matters involve rather straightforward applications of BLP policy, where "Rebecca" refuses to abide by basic sourcing requirements. Note also, on Rebecca's talk page, that she was previously cautioned by another admin regarding her behavior about moves, and that she previously edit warred to make Brandon Lee (actor) the title of a porn actor bio rather than pointing to the far better known mainstream actor. "Rebecca1990" is an SPA, repeatedly described as a likely paid editot by several long-term contributors, whose behavior in other disputes was previously described by admins as "appalling" bad faith. I see a similar lack of good faith here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Vietg12 reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked)
Page: Koreans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vietg12 (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:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]
Comments:
I warned the user twice, to no avail. They make no sign they are going to stop edit-warring. Ogress smash! 06:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. This user filed a WP:3O, got an answer, then ignored it and continued to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Aalugobi reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: blocked indefinitely)
- Page
- Free web hosting service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Aalugobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- [34]
- [35] - edit summary accuses people of sockpuppetry
- [36]
- [37]
- 10:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665000136 by Joseph2302 (talk) Disallowing constructive citation"
- 10:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664979123 by Bonadea (talk) Not allowing constructive citations on false grounds. Please check talk with Bonadea. Overexercising power."
- 21:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664923594 by NeilN (talk) Citation is needed. What's wrong with Neil."
- 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664919949 by NeilN (talk) Unnecessary"
- 21:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664827889 by Bonadea (talk) Note: Unnecessary revert made (Little Extended knowledge is better than no knowledge))"
- 06:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Content added, few language structure corrected and citation provided."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 10:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* June 2015 */ reply"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeated addition of spam link to http://freedomainer.com/hosting/ , despite the fact that myself, @Bonadea: and @NeilN: have reverted them, and explained that it's a poor quality source. Their talkpage suggests unwillingness to cooperate with any other users, as their repsonses are always "You're wrong" or "You're overexercising your power". Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- They have also indicated they will not stop, despite 3 users explaining why the source is no good. On their talkpage, they wrote "And you talked about reverting it 3 times, I will do it as long as I feel I am right in my stand-view, and as long as you guys revert it back (I will stop if you guys stop). You can file the report if you want but I too have freedom of speech & opinion and to make contribution as long as I feel its constructive." Wikipedia needs good editing and collaboration, not poor sourcing and a righteous attitude. Joseph2302 (talk)@
Also edit warring at Civil engineering. Explanations seem to meet with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. [38] --NeilN talk to me 14:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've blocked this user indefinitely as they are clearly not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Graham87 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Clockback reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Peter Hitchens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Clockback (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 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC) to 13:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- 12:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 12:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 08:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC) to 08:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 12:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Peter Hitchens */ new section"
- 12:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Peter Hitchens */ reply"
- 13:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Peter Hitchens */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 12:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Badly need help reinstating legitimate picture= */ reply"
- Comments:
This user is trying to contest a picture deletion by adding complaints to the main article, despite multiple warnings not to do so. I've found who deleted it for them, so that they can discuss the issue, however they are refusing to talk to the deletor, instead demanding immediate reinstation of the image [39] that was deleted. Ignored warnings about vandalising the article by adding their pleas for help/frustrations about it being deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
This is SO unhelpful and also severely inaccurate. the person who deleted the picture says on his talk page that he has left Wikipedia, so I am not 'refusing to talk to him'. I am simply unable to do so (not that he gives the impression of being anxious to help, or explain himself. he could have done that before deleting the picture which a) was placed therewith the personal written permission of the photographer and b) was properly submitted to wikimedia commons, hence the designation [40] which I could only have obtained from them. ) . Nor am I 'demanding' instant reinstatement. This is plain untrue. I am asking for someone with more web skills than I possess to help me reinstate the picture. the person who removed the picture also deleted the image, so I will have to trudge all the way through the process again, which i believe I had done correctly. I do not wish to do this unless I have advice on where, if at all, I went wrong. I have very limited web skills,. It took me a great deal of trouble to get this picture posted in the first place, and I believe I did it entirely within the rules and in good faith. Yet it was arbitrarily removed *and* needlessly deleted (so making reinstatement twice as hard) , without so much as an attempt to contact me. I am asking for help, and all I get is rigid, inflexible bureaucracy. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is the plea for help which I posted and which the above contributor deleted. : A CRY FOR HELP. HELP! I AM SEEKING A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR PREPARED TO HELP REINSTATE A PHOTOGRAPH, LEGITIMATELY UPLOADED PROPERLY REGISTERED AT WIKIMEDIA THE USE OF WHICH HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN PERSON, WHICH WAS POINTLESSLY AND OFFICIOUSLY DELETED FROM THIS PAGE. DETAILS ON TALK PAGE. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS APPEAL UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO HELP. I AM SURE THERE ARE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS WHO SEE IT AS THEIR DUTY TO HELP RATHER THAN JUST INTERFERE. IF YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM, PLEASE JUST LEAVE THIS HERE UNTIL SUCH A HELPFUL PERSON COMES ALONG. IT WON'T BE LONG, THEN THEY CAN DELETE IT AND WE CAN REINSTATE THE PICTURE.
Note the absence of any 'demand' for 'instant reinstatement'
PH signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is nowhere that says they have left Wikipedia, see their commons page and their English Wiki page. Also, the issue I'm actually having is that you're vandalising the main article repeatedly to complain about it being deleted, despite the fact you've been warned not to. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong yet again. The user concerned is 'Magog the Ogre'. If you visit his page you will find he has indeed left. I am trying to get help from someone who understands this needlessly complex system. I have a perfectly legitimate photograph which would add to the entry. I have the photographer's permission to use it. I have put it through wikimedia's own procedures, hence the file name (see above) . I have no idea how I could have been more scrupulous or careful. I just want some HELP! Please, someone. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, according to [41], it was deleted by Didym. Also, stop posting your replies to my talkpage, I've already banned you from using my talkpage for using it as a vehicle to complain about me/Wikipedia image policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Warned User:Clockback. I've posted at commons:User talk:Didym to see if he has advice about the next step in restoring the image. Clockback is confirmed by OTRS to be the article subject, Peter Hitchens. But if he does revert the article again he may be blocked. There is also an available image at File:Peterhitchens.jpg and I wonder why we couldn't use that one until the deletion issue with the other one is resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for nothing, bureaucrats. I think you will find that the former picture has real copyright problems, since it was taken by a Mail on Sunday staff photographer and used for years without any permission and in violation of copyright, which is one of the many reasons I took the opportunity to replace it with a picture that had the photographer's direct personal permission, no copyright probs and having been put properky through the wikimedia process.How odd that the previous one, which should have been removed years ago, officious interference. In any case it's ancient and out of date.Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:GMORocks reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page: March Against Monsanto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GMORocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: here
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Background discussion
Comments:
New user. First edit was aggressive changes (+ 2,239) to a controversial article, changing many things at once. Some of it OK per policy and guidelines, much of it not OK. Doesn't understand that you don't make sweeping changes to a controversial article all at once, and apparently doesn't understand content policies and guidelines. Please protect the article for a few days to drive discussion, and warn the user to slow down, make changes slowly, and discuss things. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- we also have WP:COPYVIO as well from here per this comment,.
- all copyright violation has been fixed as the sentences have been re-worded. GMORocks (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- after being reverted by a third party, GMORocks
- edit wars again
- and again (that is now 6 RR) :: ::: And no. The content about the IARC report on glyphosate is a valid ref that we worked into the glyphosate article back when it came out. Your personal attack is another newbie mistake. You are heading for a block instead of a warning. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- after being reverted by a third party, GMORocks
- all copyright violation has been fixed as the sentences have been re-worded. GMORocks (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
GMORocks has continued edit warring even as this ANEW discussion has been taking place. Addtional edit warring diffs below:
The editor has not engaged at Talk and is apparently unwilling to attempt to understand or engage in the WP:BRD process. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Considering the user continued to edit war after commenting here, there wasn't much choice but for a short block. SmartSE (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Jytdog
I wish to report that Jytdog has been reverting my edits with incorrect reasons from the 1st edit onwards.
- diff - reason : "remove unsourced content; changes to well sourced content", invalid reason since inline citations with every line
- diff - reason : "please do not edit war, but discuss on Talk per WP:BRD - please make changes in smaller bites, too. Thanks" - demonstrates WP:OWN and no errors mentioned
- diff - reason : "Please stop edit warring. please discuss on Talk. Thanks", again, demonstrates WP:OWN and no errors mentioned even on talk page
User:Jytdog has been showing significant bias against the content I have added in, specifically the section mentioning the recent IARC classifying glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic". Every statement I added has reliable references and inline citations (NYT and Huffington Post). GMORocks (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- right, i didn't violate 3RR. You did. Above I asked for page protection and a warning but due to your violation of our content policies and your aggression I am asking for a block now. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Capitalismojo has also been showing bias against my additions with the statement "This vast change is not an improvement".[1] He/she has been reverting my edits citing copyright violations (which there are none) and "bold" (which it is not) and most recently "vast changes".
- I am indeed biased against edit warring, so should all wikipedians. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Follow up: Now despite knowing better, the filer did not follow their own advice and has broken 3RR himself with this 4th revert.--TMCk (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- thanks for pointing that out. self-reverted, with apologies. perhaps you will remove the COPYVIO, TMCK. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Don't ask if you have bad faith and a deadline in mind. I do have other things to do, too, yah know?! And no courtesy ping for you next time :P --TMCk (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
References
User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )
- Page
- Baruch Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "wikipedia: overcat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality)"
- 19:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "reason? It's precedent."
- Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC) to 18:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "already in category"
- 18:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- [44]
- Comments:
Previously blocked for violation of 1RR; my edit summary at Goldstein reminded the editor of this rule, but the editor ignored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- That was two reverts. The third was completely justified. It's blatant overcat. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry all. I thought it was 3RR, not 1. I self-reverted. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Two weeks after you were blocked for violating 1RR, you thought the rule for Israel/Palestine material was 3RR?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't the general rule for Israel/Palestine 3RR? --Monochrome_Monitor 22:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction. Baruch Goldstein's article is obviously related to the conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:Monochrome Monitor do not just jump into articles and edit. Read all the appropriate banners that you will find on the article and talk pages, so you get an idea of the current "DEFCON" state of the articles. It was decided a long time ago now that all I/P related works are 1RR's. Please read around articles before you begin to edit. I really don't want to see you here again, MM. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Nomoskedasticity I would have appreciated a ping from you on this. Simon Irondome (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- MM, This is for your own good. I propose a 1-2 week topic ban for all I/P and Jewish - related subjects for you. I urgently need to know whether you can function in other subject areas, as many of us do, in a constructive way. You have a great interest in retro technology, and there is masses of articles that would interest you. I am proposing this for your own good, as your mentor. Your supporter's patience (of which there are many) is not inexhaustable. It would do your reputation an immense amount of good if you voluntarily refrained from editing these areas yourself for a one or two week period, and stated this yourself. Kind regards Simon Irondome (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Nomoskedasticity I would have appreciated a ping from you on this. Simon Irondome (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:Monochrome Monitor do not just jump into articles and edit. Read all the appropriate banners that you will find on the article and talk pages, so you get an idea of the current "DEFCON" state of the articles. It was decided a long time ago now that all I/P related works are 1RR's. Please read around articles before you begin to edit. I really don't want to see you here again, MM. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction. Baruch Goldstein's article is obviously related to the conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't the general rule for Israel/Palestine 3RR? --Monochrome_Monitor 22:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Two weeks after you were blocked for violating 1RR, you thought the rule for Israel/Palestine material was 3RR?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I went ahead and added Template:Editnotices/Page/Baruch Goldstein, though it does look like the user's previously been DS alerted in the area, albeit 11 months ago. --slakr\ talk / 02:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can definitely commit to that. Can I edit non-controversial Israel-related articles? Ie, I was thinking of uploading the Hebrew Teva logo. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- MM, are you capable of leaving Jewish-related subjects entirely for a short period? Analytical Engine. Have a look at that. WP is sooo big Georgia! Simon Irondome (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Irondome: the answer to your question appears to be no. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- MM, are you capable of leaving Jewish-related subjects entirely for a short period? Analytical Engine. Have a look at that. WP is sooo big Georgia! Simon Irondome (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can definitely commit to that. Can I edit non-controversial Israel-related articles? Ie, I was thinking of uploading the Hebrew Teva logo. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Blaue Max reported by User:Zeevjabotinski (Result: blocks all around)
Page: Quenelle (gesture) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blaue Max (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=664960648
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665001759
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665043574
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665045337
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665047052
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665053852
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665054583
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665055360
- [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665055708
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blaue_Max
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blaue_Max
Comments:
there is also on his page, a link to a "neo nazi" blog.
User:Zeevjabotinski User:Jetur and User:Obvie [45] are obviously sockpuppets who are trying to push Original research. They were created today, they have full knowledge of Wikipedia policies and push the same POV... Blaue Max (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: It is surprising that an account less than 24 hours old (Zeevjabotinski) knows how to file at 3RR and has nice userboxes on their user page. Some admins would do a duck block of all three accounts. Also, Zeev names himself after a Jewish hero while writing about a salute that is said to be antisemitic. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked + the socks/meats, since it's clear that the nominated editor (only blocked 24 hours; compared to inciting account 72 + socks indef) has recently been warned about edit warring and was also technically edit warring here before this descended into a full-on sockfest. --slakr\ talk / 03:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Solntsa90 reported by User:All Rows4 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Har Nof (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solntsa90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [46]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Page is subject to a 1RR, like all pages that are part of the Arab-Israel conflict topic area.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User:Solntsa90 is well aware of the restriction , and of the arbitration remedies related to the topic area, (see his own admission: [50]). He was duly warned and given a chance to self-revert, but chose to pretend that he is reverting "vandalism" - for an edit that clearly does not fall under that definition , per WP:VANDALISM. User:Solntsa90 has been blocked before for edit warring.
There is a well-established precedent in both Wiki arbitration and international law that Jerusalem is neither legally part of Israel OR Palestine (Take a good notice that most articles on Jerusalem inconspicuously don't mention Israel [i]or[/i] Palestine in regards to the position on ownership of Jerusalem? Israel [i]de facto[/i] controls Jerusalem, but the claim that Jerusalem is in Israel, or is the capital of Israel, is not a position even Israel's chief patron The United States recognises, and I've told you many, *many* times to familiarise yourself with the wiki arbitration on Jerusalem, because it is a fringe position that is not recognised at wikipedia either.
With that said--I was not violating the 1 RR rule, as I was merely reverting your insistent vandalism of every page related to Jerusalem. I am a member of wikiprojects related to Palestine and Israel, so reverting vandalism is of interest to me. Please familiarise yourself with the arbitration and international law on this subject before reporting me in a rage.
With that said, I actually suggest that the user above who reported me be blocked themselves, as they have acted in poor faith,rudely rebuked me when I suggested they read the talk-page on Jerusalem and Jerusalem-related articles, and refuses to understand that what they do constitutes vandalism. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
...And before you say it, what you are doing clearly constitutes vandalism because, even after I asked you in good faith to review the Jerusalem talk page for arbitration on the article and related page, you told me you didn't want to hear '[my] opinion'. You continue editing articles according to your own views, rather than what constitutes factual reality and the views and positions of international law (as well as the USA). Solntsa90 (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Solnts90, if you check WP:3RRNO you won't find an exemption for reverts about the status of Jerusalem. You have indeed broken the WP:1RR rule. Your claim about vandalism has no credibility since this is a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree; saying that Jerusalem is in Israel, despite all the arbitration, international law, and wiki talk page discussions, is vandalism, especially the way he approached it, acting in poor faith. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Result: 72 hours for violation of the ARBPIA 1RR rule. User was previously blocked for edit warring in 2014. The question of whether neighborhoods of Jerusalem are in Israel or not is up to editor consensus and is not foreclosed by any Arbcom decisions. In his response to the complaint, Solntsa90 didn't link to any words of Arbcom putting Jerusalem in Israel (or not) because the committee has never decided that. Thanks to some 2013 discussions we got a decision on one paragraph in the lead of Jerusalem which is in the result section of WP:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. EdJohnston (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think this decision is correct. However, it is easy for editors unfamiliar with the "1RR" rule on certain subjects to fall afoul of it. I could have, very easily. I suggest that a notice be posted on the talk page or some other location indicating that there is such a restriction. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done. (see [51]). I would add that the user was warned that he violated 1RR (as you would have, had you inadvertently run afoul of 1RR), and given a chance to undo his edit, but chose to pretend he was reverting vandalism (and continues to do so on his talk page where he is asking to be unblocked, despite the very clear message by the admin above that the "claim about vandalism has no credibility since this is a content dispute." All Rows4 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:76.88.86.113 reported by User:HillMountain (Result: Blocked)
Page: Art history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.88.86.113 (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: [56]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: This user has been warned about his disruptive editing.
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Skyerise reported by User:Bozzio (Result: Warned)
Page: Caitlyn Jenner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [57]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments: High-profile article, quite a lot of transphobic vandalism at the moment, quick action would be appreciated. ¡Bozzio! 17:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is a WP:BLP issue, which is exempted from edit-warring penalties. Overemphasis of a trans subject's birth name is considered extremely offensive in the trans community. Normally the birth name is completely omitted from the lead, and mentioned only in the infobox and early life section. See media guides etc. for verification of offensiveness. I will not revert the article again today. Here are the sources: Skyerise (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- "Always use a transgender person's chosen name." - GLAAD Media Reference
- " Do not ask what the person’s birth name was." - Trans Etiquette 101
- "calling someone by their birth name is not only offensive to that person, but in some cases, puts them at risk." - Watching Our Language In Reporting Transgender Stories (NPR)
- "it may be rude to ask what their "real" name or birth name was -- they consider the name they have chosen to suit their gender (if they have done so) to be their real name, and they want you to think of them that way." - How to Respect a Transgender Person (WikiHow)
- Fully endorse Skyerise's actions as a BLP enforcement measure. Bozio's attitude around it is utterly improper. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Crying "BLP" doesn't excuse five separate reversions of five different editors (within a day) over a content dispute, which this is – not "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)", which is exempted, per WP:3RRBLP. ¡Bozzio! 18:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: This edit-summary, "enjoy your block," which accopanied Bozzio's notification at Skyerise's talkpage for this thread, is entirely inproper.
- Result: User:Skyerise is warned not to test the limits of the BLP exception, which technically doesn't apply here. That exception is intended for the urgent removal of bad material, which this is not. The reverting has stopped for now, and the general issue about how to identify a transgender subject is being discussed at WP:VPP. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: or anyone else, sorry to bug you, but Skyerise has resumed edit-warring even while the topic is under discussion (a discussion to which they have contributed), as shown by their recent contributions. ¡Bozzio! 16:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Stop violating MOS:IDENTITY which you have been informed of. Per MOS:IDENTITY, we use the transgender subject's chosen name everywhere on Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:37.231.165.51 reported by User:Anders Feder (Result: Semi)
Page: Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.231.165.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [58]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The material was inserted by an IP editor in a similar range in these edits: [65][66][67]. The material was then removed by another user, O mnp11, because of questionable reliability. It was re-instated by 37.231.165.51 multiple times with no attempt by the editor to lift their burden to demonstrate the reliability of the material. The user is also keeps posting a message to my user talk page as can be seen from their contribs.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sign your comment in my talk page. Second, go to Wiki:RSN if you're questioning reliability. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- The info you keep removing was in the article for many days. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Go to Wiki:RSN yourself, or even better, use the talk page like everybody else.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- And why aren't you using the talk page? You're the one objecting to its reliability, you should be the one going to Wiki:RSN. The admins told you that the last time. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- The material became part of the article. It was there for almost a month. It was removed today and the edit was reverted. So the person who made the most recent change to the article should explain why he wants to make the change in the talk page. I'm reverting the article to how it was before. Admins told you on another occasion that if you object to the reliability of something that's already in the article (not recently added), you should be taking it to Wiki:RSN. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- What would you know about what "admins told me on another occasion"? Are you a sockpuppet? When the material was added is completely irrelevant. The rules are clear: the burden is on you to demonstrate the reliability of the challenged material.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is no consensus to allow the use of Yemeni state media on this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The editor has now reverted both O mnp11[68], myself[69], and Kudzu1[70].--Anders Feder (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two months. There were five reverts by the IP named in this report, whose first edit was on June 2, and lots of edits by IPs who aren't participating on talk. If there are questions about usability of sources it looks better if those interested will make a request at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Pfk102 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Western Illinois University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Pfk102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- [71]
- [72]
- [73]
- 20:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665224952 by Joseph2302 (talk) Sourced by western Courier"
- 20:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665224556 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
- 20:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665224018 by Drmies (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC) to 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* IFC Fraternities */"
- 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* IFC Fraternities */"
- 19:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 631841702 by Drmies (talk)"
- 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 631841599 by Drmies (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Western Illinois University */ reply"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User previous blocked for edit warring. They are repeatedly adding poorly sourced, promotional content, and show no evidence of wanting to collaborate, see [74], where they called be an imbecile. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
User is also claiming employment by the university and asserting WP:OWN as a result. This one needs to be indeffed quickly. As I type, he has re-reverted yet again. John from Idegon (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – Indef per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: )
- Page
- Manchester United F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665226347 by SLBedit (talk) this is unnecessary"
- 22:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "no, it's just unnecessary whitespace"
- 23:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "loans are all as good as over now that the season is over"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */ new section"
- 22:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
- 22:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
- 22:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
- 22:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
- 23:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Minor editing */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
PeeJay2K3 is ignoring MOS:HEADINGS. SLBedit (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- SLBedit is making unnecessary edits. Why would you even go into an article's code just to add two lines of whitespace that isn't even required by the Wikipedia software? It's recommended to help editors, but it's not mandatory. – PeeJay 23:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Now you admit the minor edits were helpful (to help editors). It's not mandatory to revert other people just because. SLBedit (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is just childish. No offence has occurred here. Not to suggest that edit warring only occurs when more than three reverts have occurred, but there are only three reverts here, and one of them was by accident; I started making my edit about the end of the loans before SLBedit re-reverted me, so when I saved it, it went back to a version before his re-revert. – PeeJay 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Now you admit the minor edits were helpful (to help editors). It's not mandatory to revert other people just because. SLBedit (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Teamdopefreshnationforlife reported by User:Winner 42 (Result: Blocked )
- Page
- America's Got Talent (season 10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Teamdopefreshnationforlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 00:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 23:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 23:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 20:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- 12:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on America's Got Talent (season 10). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Blocked 48 hoursd, see below. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Teamdopefreshnationforlife reported by User:HillMountain (Result: Blocked)
Page: America's Got Talent (season 10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Teamdopefreshnationforlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [75]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]
This user engaged in an edit war on America's Got Talent (season 10) and ignored a request by the editor he was feuding with to resolve the edit war. He ignored that user. After that, he was warned about the consequences of edit warring on his talk page. He evidently ignored that as well, and reverted again. As I was typing this, he just made another revert. He has reverted five times in less than 24 hours. Hence, he should be blocked.:
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Palma.palash.yandex. reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: )
Page: Buk missile system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Palma.palash.yandex. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Subscript text
Here user introduced unclear language to article (also apparent WP:NPOV): [83],
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88], [89]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90], [91]
Comments:The article has a pattern of such edit warring, from IPs with similar geolocation and from newly registered accounts such as this. Best solution is to semi-protect the article again - whenever PP expires, this pattern of behavior re-emerges.
JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Narbit reported by User:Number 57 (Result: )
Page: Israeli legislative election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Narbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [92] (this diff in itself was a violation of 3RR (other 3 are here: [93][94][95]), but the report here at WP:3RRN was not responded to quickly, and was later marked stale)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User talk:Narbit#Israeli legislative election, 2015, where there is an escalating series of requests to stop.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Issue has been discussed at Talk:Israeli legislative election, 2015#Zionist Union leader (further participation in this debate was sought via the notice posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel#Israeli legislative election, 2015).
Comments:
Narbit was edit warring on this article on 19 May, but avoided being blocked for violating 3RR as the report was not responded to promptly. Subsequent discussion on the talk page showed no support for Narbit's position, so I restored the version prior to the original outbreak, which was supported by the other three discussion participants (one of which was myself). Narbit has now reappeared after not editing for a week, solely to start edit warring again. Although Narbit has not yet broken 3RR again, he has stated on the talk page that he is "not moving on this", so I have no reason to doubt that he will not continue to revert endlessly unless action is taken, and I do not want to continue reverting him until he reaches 3RR again. Number 57 13:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Narbit is also now trying to insert text into my comments above ([99]). Number 57 13:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to defend myself because you are mischaracterizing the events that have occurred to suit your false narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 13:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just restored the article (again?). I will add: I tried to mediate a period to allow possible interested parties to address the subject, and the consensus was in opposition to Narbit's preference. I also gave Narbit a very appropriate remedy within the article: address the question in the body text of the article. I don't think anyone here would have argued with the idea of including Narbit's main idea—characterization of the leadership of the Zionist Union party as a dual leadership—within the body of the article in the right place. It was a material issue in the election, and entirely appropriate to address in the text. Narbit is edit-warring over the contents of the infobox, as if that is the whole article.
- Speaking personally, I wonder how much Narbit cares about the rules here. After all this time, he has not figured out how to do something as simple as signing his posts on talk pages. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Update: This was archived without action. However, since then Narbit has started reverting again. Can someone actually do something about this? Number 57 08:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is also pertinent that Narbit has also been edit warring over this on other Wikipedias (see the page histories of the Hebrew and Spanish versions). Number 57 08:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are substantial discussions about this on both the article talk page and on the reported user's talk page.
- I would add that this has taken large amounts of time and energy from several editors here. Narbit stopped reverting for a time so as not to run afoul of the 3RR rule technically. However, he has explicitly said more than once that he will not rest until this is changed to his satisfaction, notwithstanding consensus of other editors to the contrary. I would humbly but strongly request administrators to be fair to the rest of us and put a stop to this. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Okurogluselo reported by User:Taivo (Result: )
Page: Language isolate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Okurogluselo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [100]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Rather than discussing on Talk Page, Okurogluselo has reverted again, even after being warned again here:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107] and [108]
Comments:
User:Okurogluselo is pushing a WP:FRINGE edit that violates WP:WEIGHT. His editing is disruptive and tendentious. While he made a brief attempt to discuss the issue on my own Talk Page, he ignored the issues I raised. While he has not violated WP:3RR there, his disruptive editing also affects Sumerian language. --Taivo (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:TaivoLinguist reported by User:okurogluselo (Result: )
Page: Language Isolate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Talk:Language isolate. Thank you.
Previous version reverted to: [94]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Thank to CorinneSD wrote about the issue 01:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC). As I wrote him, I am glad that impartial approach will be applied to the article. Also, you may look at the answers of TavioLinguist to other members about similar issues. I only think that roots of languages like Summerian can be still explored and now, some politically abused theories of past now can be useful with a new point of view, fortunately we have saved from the political campaigns of 20th century. Now, we can study about the problems peacefuly. Whay dont we give a change to new ideas? Anyway, I am respectful to your decisions, about the articles and about this unfortunate case.
Patiently, I tried to help development of an article and I trired to be respectful even in case of the member's offenses against my personal rights, as human and wiki member.
Until yesterday (tuesday), the article had a warning title above, expressing its orphanage, i.e. all the information was written without any references. Not at all.
I am the first one who added references to the article. However, the user TaivoLinguist, assumes himself only one who has got the right to write and edit the article. In minutes, he/she reverts anyting and any refernces about the issue. This behaviour is completely offensive and not only excluding recent studies about the issue but also excluding and harressing the member who love wiki and who love to contribute. Before my addings, the manner of speech, which TavioLinguist made dominant through the article, was deterministic and completely subjective. Just I changed some modals like "must" and "do" with "can". I gave a change to the other members, to know about new scientific considerations and competing theories. Most of my editions consists giving references from Zolyomi (1996) [1] and Bomhard (2008) [2]. Supported with these references, just I proposed that being categorized of an extinct language as Language Isolate is disputable and can be a temporary situtaion in case of lack of necessary proofs. Anyway, the references I added shows that nothing can be unvariable or dogmatic. Always studies continue, and will continue forever. But the user is extremely biased against some theories about Sumerian Language, yet he is very closed to listen anyone about Language Isolates.
Another unfortunate dispute continued about the Sumerian Language, connected to this. I have politely ask him the cause of his insistence about keep articles stable or permanent, closed to all new references or contributions, via sending a talk message to him at 23:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC).
" This term is (can be) controversial. Mostly signes a temporary situtation caused by insufficient research. In fact, any human languages could not be isolated. Other way of thinking gives way to idea of isolated languages, races and, racism. It is obvious, because you cannot give any references for your (subjective) ideas. However, I supply the article with reliable references. You may do the same, or you should not any more editions. We dont argue about the political side-effects of Ural-Altaic theories but, still we may learn about linguistic studies. There are tangible proofs about the roots of Sumerian language. And you cannot hide these from the wiki members.The article is lack of references and a caution message is above it. Why dont you try to fix it, if you really concern wiki and knowledge of humanity? Otherwise, I dont even want to think about your intentions. Please abide the principles of wiki. Or just take a look at them in policy pages, if you havent done yet."
In case of politeness, he accused me with not reading or incapable of understanding. Seems he is the only one who can understand. TavioLinguist wrote me at 23:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC):
"You don't understand what it actually means. An "language isolate" is a language that has had enough research conducted on it to prove that it isn't related to anything else. You are thinking of an "unclassified language". You need to get your terms straight. Your claims about Sumerian have been utterly rejected by virtually every reputable scholar and there are plenty of references on the pages in question if you only bothered to read them"
Still I insist, there is nothing suh as "enough research" or a final end in science. Despite his manner, I was trying to be polite and even I thanked to him. At 01:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC) I wrote:
"I understand it well, you can be sure, "unclassified" is another issue. Consequently, there are a serious lack of references in the article about "isolated language". Researches can never be considered as "enough" if a problem exists. This is science, or we should live in stone ages harmony still. I propose it should be the term for a temporary reconciliation about unsolved issue, i.e. roots of language, just means, further research are needed,or there are no sufficient proofs until now. There are many theories about the relatives of Sumerian, and Ural-Altaic approach is only one of these. Once, it was dominant theory, now it is not. But it doesnt mean it is completely useless, anymore. Still the theory survives, because it is relased from the political campaigns in 19th and 20th centuries. So it is worth to be expressed in the pages. Anyway, I like your some contributions to the article, you have done really well. I will not use the term "controversial". Thank you."
Again he wrote in a rude and accusing manner at 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC).
"There is no controversy. The Ural-Altaic material violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. It is universally rejected by historical linguists and therefore is not "controversial". The article is quite adequately referenced. You are the only editor who thinks otherwise and the only reason you think that is because you want to create room for your rejected Ural-Altaic nonsense".
The user should give support and evidences for his opinions. People perceive all others, in the way that they perceive about themselves. I didnt see any references supporting the article, before I added. Despite his subjective anti-Ural-Altaic opinions, I dont favor any theory above others. I am not a fanatic and I dont want to create room for any one. Just I think, the issue 'Language Isolates' need to be studied more and a revived theory is worth to be expressed.
Then he signed my editions with WR:Fringe. A revived and currenntly studied theory cannot be fringe. The opinion of the user obsolutely subjective and nothing here conforms with the explanation of fringe, in the wiki policy page. I read twice. Violation of WR:WEIGHT claim, is also an other offence from him. However, İt is obvious that the manners of the member and the editions he constructed is violations of WP:STRUCTURE, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALASPS and WP:IMPARTIAL. The former situation of the article and the mber's offensive sentences are evidences.
Just take a look TavioLinguist's other correpondences with wiki members about the issue. You may see the same manner again. Okurogluselo 16:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is no WP:3RR violation here in any of this. Okurogluselo still refuses to discuss the matter on the article Talk Page and has reverted a fifth time as well, despite being warned again by an uninvolved user (see 3RR report above this one). --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have been discussing the matter about the issue, politely with supplying realibale new references about my point. However Taivo refuses to give any references supporting his ideas. Meanwhile I have to tolarate his rude and ofensive manners against personality and against any opinion different from his ones.[101] --Okurogluselo 19:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)
User:212.178.255.32 reported by User:IJA (Result: )
Page: Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.178.255.32 (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:
Evidence of Warning the IP User
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
This IP user keeps removing referenced content without any explanation whatsoever. It is worth noting that the IP address is located in Belgrade, Serbia therefore it is likely that they are sensitive to this article's subject content. I warned the IP user on their talk page but they instantly blanked their talk page. This user doesn't appear to want to talk and is just reverting my reverts. It is likely that this IP is also a sock. I have also contemplated requesting the article for semi-protection, but I don't think that is necessary just yet. Kind regards IJA (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Gábor Zólyomi (1996). Genitive Constructions in Sumerian. Journal of Cuneiform Studies Vol. 48, pp. 31-47 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Article DOI: 10.2307/1359768 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1359768
- ^ Bomhard, Allan R. (2008). Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary, 2 volumes. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-16853-4