EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
:{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC) |
:{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Avatar9n]] reported by [[User:Thomas.W]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Avatar9n]] reported by [[User:Thomas.W]] (Result: Blocked) == |
||
;Page: {{pagelinks|T-72}} |
;Page: {{pagelinks|T-72}} |
||
Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
Is "a very dangerous threat" not evoking terrified military personnel? You can replace it with the exact line, but it won't change the meaning. I (or the '''old''' statement) didnt say that ''it was a more dangerous threat than other tanks were''. '''To performed well against''' does not necessarily mean "to destroy", it has various meanings, such as disabling. [[User:Avatar9n|<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="red">Avatar</font>]]<sup><font color="#CC0033" size="1">[[User talk:Avatar9n|<font size="4" face="Bold" color="grey">9n</font>]]</font></sup> 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC) |
Is "a very dangerous threat" not evoking terrified military personnel? You can replace it with the exact line, but it won't change the meaning. I (or the '''old''' statement) didnt say that ''it was a more dangerous threat than other tanks were''. '''To performed well against''' does not necessarily mean "to destroy", it has various meanings, such as disabling. [[User:Avatar9n|<font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="red">Avatar</font>]]<sup><font color="#CC0033" size="1">[[User talk:Avatar9n|<font size="4" face="Bold" color="grey">9n</font>]]</font></sup> 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
*{{AN3|b}} – 31 hours. I don't know who is right about the fighting power of the T-72 but you can't break 3RR with impunity. The steps of [[WP:Dispute resolution]] are open to you. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Iaof2017]] reported by [[User:Dr.K.]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Iaof2017]] reported by [[User:Dr.K.]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 04:59, 11 December 2016
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:213.74.186.109 reported by User:2A1ZA (Result: Semi)
- Page
- Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The reported IP User, who has been involved in previous edit-warring on the article concerned, on a daily basis deletes a "citation needed" template with passive-aggressive edit summaries. His timing is playing the 1RR rule for the article, does not engage in any meaningful discussion on the matter.
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:27, 6 December 2016 "Undid revision 753126939 by 2A1ZA (talk) I'll let you do all the work. Thank you."
- 06:55, 5 December 2016 "no need for a reference of a commonly known thing, if need be, any user can provide a dozen sources, especially 2A1ZA)"
The reported IP User is fully aware of the 1RR rule and of the problems associated with disruptive editing, on his blanketed talk page are diverse discussions on the topic (see [1], [2]), and he has been involved in numerous cases of edit warring on the article concerned, see article history. I would not know how to deal now with this persistent removal of a "citation needed" template on a sentence he inserted into the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't recall adding the sentence but you must surely know that it is a commonly known fact. Please stop personally attacking me and do something to contribute to Wikipedia. You might also take joy in blaming me with "blanketing" but I refer to it as cleaning. Good luck, -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comments:
- I just observed that user 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again has vandalised the page Salih Muslim Muhammad and called other users "mouthpiece of a terrorist" [3]. 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Let me also add the uncivil behaviour of user 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at [4]. 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Let us not forget to mention that 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (talk) is the only vandalizer in this scenario. They keep removing other users' contributions with a myriad list of excuses in hope of hitting the target with one, whichever one it may be. Keep on complaining in vain. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at the edit history of user 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on several pages, it seems that nobody takes the edits of this user seriously. These unconstructive edits are usually quickly reverted and everybody tries to ignore this user as far as possible. This user then sometimes reacts with uncivil behaviour as described above.
- This user 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly "cleaned" his talk page which shows a history of edit warring, disruptive editing and other problematic behaviour: [5], [6], [7].
- The behaviour of user 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should not be tolerated. 2003:77:4F19:1A82:91D0:A27B:A2E5:7343 (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Article semiprotected one month. Some IPs have been steadily reverting each other since mid-November. The closest thing to a real talk page discussion is at Talk:Rojava#Issues with the last paragraph of the article. The IP named in this report made an especially ironic comment at this link: "You said it, PKK=DAESH=YPG=Terror". This suggests the POV of someone who is not going to be able to edit this article neutrally. Some of the IPs evidently have knowledge (as well as POVs) but the right place to work out corrections for the article is on the talk page. You need to get consensus there and evaluate the quality of sources, not just keep repeating your personal opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
User:2001:8003:314C:3C00:6819:3BC1:CBF0:72DC reported by User:Marbe166 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page: Burj Khalifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:8003:314C:3C00:6819:3BC1:CBF0:72DC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]
Comments:
Failure to provide source justifying the removal of the word "allegedly". Note that all reverts have been done by a slighlty changed IP which is identical in the first three parts of the IP - hence the same person. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- This IP's reverting continues, I am not reverting him because that would cause me to break the 3RR rule myself. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
User: Rajivkilanashrestha reported by User:Damien2016 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Madhesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rajivkilanashrestha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Repeated edit warring on the article Madhesh and removal of sourced content.
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madhesh&diff=753836898&oldid=753730029
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madhesh&diff=753837026&oldid=753836898
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madhesh&diff=753870933&oldid=753863762
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madhesh&diff=753884638&oldid=753884334
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
I have warned him repeatedly not to keep reverting and to provide sources however he keeps responding in broken English.
Comments:
- You did not include any diffs to show that there is any edit warring going on. Please add diffs to indicate this to this report above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- General note: Rajivkilanashrestha added a fake block notice to Damien2016's talk page here. I have sternly warned Rajivkilanashrestha that this is not to be tolerated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
No sure if it's relevant here but on my talk page he referred to me as a "fool", insulted my character and then assumed me to be an Indian.Damien2016 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Avatar9n reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- T-72 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Avatar9n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 753854592 by Thomas.W (talk) removal of sourced content may be considered as vandalism"
- 15:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 753848916 by Thomas.W (talk)"
- 14:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC) "the essay is about deletion of the articles, not about their content. for unsourced statement citation needed tag is used. add info instead of deleting it"
- 12:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC) "half of the article will be deleted if we keep on doing this"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on T-72."
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User repeatedly restoring material that has been removed for being unsourced, first just reverting the removal and then adding "sources" that not in any way support the claim made in the text, even after being told that the text isn't supported by the sources (see this discussion on my talk page). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- The edit clearly states what sources say. The "Globalsecurity" says that it was considered a big thread: "T-72 was a very dangerous threat to us.", while the russian source says that M47 (M47 Patton) suffered losses againts T-62s and T-72s. This is not an edit war, but a "reputation war" - Avatar9n 16:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- What the sources say isn't at all what you say in the text you have repeatedly added, where you first claimed that "According to both Iranians and Iraqis,the T-72 was the most feared tank in the war.", and then slightly modified it to "According to Iranians, the T-72 was one of the most feared tank in the war.". The Gobalsecurity source only says that the T-72 was "a dangerous threat", as all tanks are, it doesn't compare the T-72 to other tanks used in the conflict, and say that the T-72 was "a more dangerous threat than other tanks were", as you do. Making even your latest version unsourced/OR/SYNTH. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- You took what i have written out of context. As i said before, that passage is rather old. I cited sources in order to prevent its deletion. The sources may not be literally supporting what was written, as you kept crying, i changed them. What is written now can be verified by the sources. Avatar9n 16:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- It (the source) does compare the T-72 with the other tank (Chieftain):
- "...one of the highest Iranian officers Afzali in June 1981 praised the Soviet T-72 tank: "'The T-72 has the maneuverability and firepower that British tanks" Chieftain "do not go to any comparison with it. Iran has no effective means of dealing with the T-72'. "
- In particular, a war veteran and commander of a tank company (tanks "Chieftain") Adar Forouzan, recalls that in this period tankers of the regular army could not say anything good about the "Chieftain" tank . Iranian officer writes: "The more I learned about the tank" Chieftain", the more I agree with them." He further said that the most dangerous weapons in Iraq were T-72 tanks, "the Iraqis were partially equipped with the new T-72 tanks. They had good speed and firepower, and their armor protects against RPGs our infantry. T-72 was a very dangerous threat to us."
- Then he tells the story of the first clashes with T-72 tanks during the onset of Iran in the region near the Dasht Abbas Dizful in spring 1982. Iraq threw a counter-offensive of T-72 tanks, and the "Chieftain" of Adar Forouzana was immediately shot down: "In my tank hit the MTO exploded fuel vapors, the shock wave blew off the headset. We all jumped out of the tank and fled on foot." This military officer says other cases T-72 superiority over the US and British armored vehicles."
Is "a very dangerous threat" not evoking terrified military personnel? You can replace it with the exact line, but it won't change the meaning. I (or the old statement) didnt say that it was a more dangerous threat than other tanks were. To performed well against does not necessarily mean "to destroy", it has various meanings, such as disabling. Avatar9n 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – 31 hours. I don't know who is right about the fighting power of the T-72 but you can't break 3RR with impunity. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Iaof2017 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )
- Page
- Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Iaof2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Edit-warring picture uploaded by master Igaalbania 17:24, 10 December 2016: File:Lake komani 2016 Albania.jpg
- Consecutive edits made from 17:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC) to 17:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- 17:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC) ""
- 17:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Transport */"
- 17:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Middle Ages */"
- Consecutive edits made from 13:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC) to 16:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- 13:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Transport */"
- 13:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Government and Politics */"
- 13:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
- 13:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
- 13:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Government and Politics */"
- 14:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Economy */"
- 14:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Geography */"
- 14:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Ottoman Albania */"
- 14:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Era of nationalism and League of Prizren */"
- 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Tourism */"
- 14:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Republic and monarchy */"
- 14:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Communist Albania */"
- 14:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Post-Communist Albania */"
- 14:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
- 15:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC) ""
- 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC) ""
- 15:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Cuisine */"
- 15:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Media */"
- 15:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Cuisine */"
- 16:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC) ""
- 16:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Cuisine */"
- 16:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Tourism */"
- 13:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "/* Transport */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Albania. (TW★TW)"
- 17:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- 17:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tourism in Albania. (TW★TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Block evasion. Sock of Igaalbania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Following my recent ANI report regarding IP socks of the master, this named account takes over where the master left. Large-scale edit-warring, Looks like a duck to me. Dr. K. 17:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to add the copyvios, a hallmark of the master. Please check this copyvio: verbatim from the source (archived): An important gateway to the Balkan Peninsula, Albania’s ever-growing road network provides juncture to reach its neighbors in north south, east, and west. Albania is within close proximity to all the major European capitals with short two or three hour flights that are available daily. Tourists can see and experience Albania’s ancient past and traditional culture.
Dr. K. 21:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)