|
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
||
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. |
||||
|
||||
Definition of edit warring | ||||
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than 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. | ||||
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) | ||||
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 the 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. | ||||
Noticeboard archives |
Contents
- 1 User:Jerry121 reported by User:P199 (Result: Both blocked)
- 2 User:Panam2014 reported by User:K!lluminati (Result: Restriction in lieu of block)
- 3 User:201.146.245.86 reported by User:DVdm (Result: )
- 4 User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Alansohn (Result: No action)
- 5 User:217.248.22.214 reported by User:Nyuszika7H (Result: Semi)
- 6 User:Shadow4dark reported by User:Ferakp (Result: Declined)
- 7 User:SWF88 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Both warned)
- 8 User:Maruru~enwiki reported by User:Ronz (Result: Indef)
- 9 User:94.12.159.22 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked 72 hours)
- 10 User:2602:306:ce42:4d30:41de:1ada:1451:cd4f & User:2602:306:CE42:4D30:CDE:865A:8AD5:5ECE reported by User:carptrash (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
- 11 User:2602:252:d0c:b9f0:ddcf:c12d:b856:2e3d reported by User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- 12 User:PuliMurugan reported by User:Rebbing (Result: No action)
- 13 User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: indef block)
- 14 User:TalhaZubairButt reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 60 hours)
- 15 User:MjolnirPants reported by User:FL or Atlanta (Result: Protected)
- 16 User:Depauldem reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
- 17 User:Muvendar reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: )
- 18 User:94.254.225.161 and User:153.19.171.18 reported by User:Scolaire (Result: Semi)
- 19 User:5.29.102.252 reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: )
- 20 User:Knowledgebattle reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)
User:Jerry121 reported by User:P199 (Result: Both blocked)
Page: L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jerry121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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:
Attempts to resolve this I did first through the edit summary, then I tried to talk to this user, either on the article talk page or user talk page, but so far completely ignored. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- It takes two to tango, though one of the two at least made an effort--but edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Yes it takes two to tango, and I tried to follow WP:BRD which requires at least 1 reversal. After that, I made an attempt to either explain each edit or contact the other editor to discuss. Why would you block me "even if you're right"? What recourse do you suggest I could have taken??? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 11:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, P199, and I hate to state the obvious--any recourse but reverting! Call on an admin. Warn and report to AIV. Start an ANI thread, claiming there's disruption with unexplained reverts. I mean, you can say "per talk page" all you like, but if you're the only one on the talk page then you're saying "because I said so"--there is no consensus on that talk page to point at. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Point taken, but respectfully, do you really expect me (or everyone else for that matter) to involve admins, AIV, or ANI after 1 revert? That would likely not result in any action, especially if the other editor keeps on ignoring it. Even this Edit War notice was ignored until I restored it from the archive... -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- P199, this isn't about my expectations, except for one: that editors don't edit war (even if they're right). I don't know why you want to hypothesize about what needs to be done after one revert, since you reverted seven times, if I'm counting correctly. Your opponent was worse, but unless it's vandalism, you just can't go there. After two or three, yeah, I'd call in the cavalry, unless you're willing to let it go--like I'm doing right here, right now. Have a little faith in the system and in the good sense of your fellow editors, even if you can't rely on the good sense and cooperation of that particular editor. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Point taken, but respectfully, do you really expect me (or everyone else for that matter) to involve admins, AIV, or ANI after 1 revert? That would likely not result in any action, especially if the other editor keeps on ignoring it. Even this Edit War notice was ignored until I restored it from the archive... -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, P199, and I hate to state the obvious--any recourse but reverting! Call on an admin. Warn and report to AIV. Start an ANI thread, claiming there's disruption with unexplained reverts. I mean, you can say "per talk page" all you like, but if you're the only one on the talk page then you're saying "because I said so"--there is no consensus on that talk page to point at. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Yes it takes two to tango, and I tried to follow WP:BRD which requires at least 1 reversal. After that, I made an attempt to either explain each edit or contact the other editor to discuss. Why would you block me "even if you're right"? What recourse do you suggest I could have taken??? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 11:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Panam2014 reported by User:K!lluminati (Result: Restriction in lieu of block)
Page: Template:Yemeni Civil War detailed map ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Panam2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [9] "After 24 hours, I could have 2 reverts. Biased source."
- [10] "Undid revision 712165758 by 5.50.66.71 (talk) my ip adress"
- [11] "Contribution with my account"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13] and [14] and partially [15],[16],[17] and few others.
Comments:
This user breaches of 1RR restriction that was one of the rules page.
Basically, he does editing on map without mention any sources/web links/documents. and when be asked to him about providing of source he replies your source is invalid, unreliable, biased and with hard sell tries to impose own-views to others that it's an example of WP:POVPUSH and his action is exactly contrary to purpose of Wikipedia and free circulation of information. even he refuses requests for discussion on talk page! (all of them are available on talk page).
It should be noted that he has been warned one time by admins in Syrian Civil War Map due to infringement [18],[19],[20] (2014 notices), and earlier was taken notice because violation of law WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR in Yemen civil War Map at here K!lluminati (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are no 1RR for Yemen. Kiluminati is a Pov Pusher. Now, he used biased sources such as Saba News Agency which is the official agency of the Houthis, which are a belligerant of the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present). Also, he edited the module without consensus as he knows that the other vendors do not want mdofications with these non-neutral sources. [21], [22], [23] and [24]. He had been warned here and here. In the past, he also used biased sources such as Al Masirah (TV Channel of the Houthi) that he claimed it is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh (Houthi allie). Also, he provoked edit warring : here, here, here. For that, @LightandDark2000: could be a witness. Also, there are others requets here and here. @Ymblanter:. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Always you have difficult to perception and cognition of WP:RELIABLE source, should bear in mind all of text and articles must "be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" but you choke most opposition comments. this matter been done repeated over and over again in throughout of your-edits (be found here).
-
- Accord to WP:SOURCES definition, the word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:
- The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
- The creator of the work (for example, the writer)
- The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)
- Accord to WP:SOURCES definition, the word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:
-
- that from your point not source! E.G. Saba News Agency that's a member of the Federation of Arab News Agencies (FANA) and quote from it mainstream media such as Reuters (Paragraph 9) not a source! or rest of source.
-
- The problem starts from misunderstand Arabic language and unfortunately due to lacking of international reporters and weakness in news coverage at yemen The majority of sources about yemen are written in Arabic and for this reason, sources (from 2 between sides) nominate invalid! it's problem. K!lluminati (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Amazing!! he removed Regulations Page of documentation! [25],[26],[27] is there any admin here ? :| K!lluminati (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Killuminati is a liar. SABA News is not a member of FANA since the beginning of the war. In reality, Saba is now divided into two branches: one pro-Houthi and the other pro-Hadi each with a website. And each agency contradicts the other. So that source is unusable.
For topic ban, I have removed anything. This is Greyshark09 who added without consensus and while it is not admin. Also, ISIS is present in Libya but with that, there is no topic ban. Donc It was logical to remove the ban visionary topic. There are no RR1 for Yemen. Reuters quoted the agency Houthi saba does not prove it is reliable time. It's just that it is sometimes cited when the information is verified by Reuters.--Panam2014 (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- you called me "Liar" in event that WP:PA and using of inappropriate language & ugly words that it's prohibited! i hope admins take action in relation to this case.
-
- About Saba; we not dealt with fakes domain. official main domain is Sabanews.net which has gained ISBN code and Whois tool shows this is older than other one. not real issue but also that's sources and being of validation those. you dont accept to hear voices of dissent & not tolerate opposing viewpoints and tring to impose your opinion to everyone as minutes ago you revert my edit [28] without inserting source just due to having radical ideas. Cool!
- I point out once again per Wikipedia guidelines "mainstraem" or "POV" sources are not a criteria for being reliable. POV sources can be reliable and mainstream sources can be unreliable - the question is whether the source shows WP:RELIABLE:
-
- “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”
-
- What counts as a reliable source? to answer this question i refer you to WP:SOURCES, any sources have those conditions are RELIABLE and can get loan them for content development so as it turns out controversy is going on around WP:POVPUSH.
- Comment: To admins, he continues reverting on the page regardless of laws and at the same time 2 diff reverted by him.
- [29] "Undid revision 712312659 by Panam2014 (talk)" at time "15:12, 28 March 2016"
- [30] "Undid revision 712332455 by K!lluminati (talk) Unreliable source." at time "15:05, 28 March 2016"
K!lluminati (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@NJA: so sorry for tagging. take a peek, may help to resolve this matter?! K!lluminati (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is strange for a POV Pusher to cry to WP:PA when wrongly accused his opponents of vandalism. Furthermore, claim that sabanews.net is the real estate is a lie because the Houthi took control of Sanaa and the news agency. This is why the Yemeni government has created a new domain. The sources do not say that only the pro-Houthi faction Saba is a member of FANA. It does not delete the points of dissidents view, this is just not using biased sources. Sabanew.net therefore also should not be used. I have not continued cancellations, it's just the start, I accidentally deleted all the information, even the ones I had not deleted. I have therefore delivered. Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. SABA is a member of FANA not the Saba agency controlled by the Houthis. Reuters says well "Saba controlled by the Houthis." Can you stop this pov pusher? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've suggested that User:Panam2014 can avoid a block if they will agree not to edit any maps (Yemeni, Syrian or whatever) or the talk pages of those maps until May 1. This user was given a final warning by User:NJA on 4 February, pursuant to an earlier 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Kiluminati is a notorious POV-pusher . I gave diffs to prove he is the POV pushing . Why it is not notified too? I agree not to modify the module if he too is not allowed to do , especially as seen different request , it is more to complain about his behavior. In February , Kiluminati was also warned. Finally, I have heeded the warnings and when I cancel changes Kiluminati , I expect 24 not to cancel three times. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Panam2014: The deal is being offered to you not K!lluminati. Your answer is what matters. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: My answer is yes . Why you permit him to continue his actions ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Panam2014: The deal is being offered to you not K!lluminati. Your answer is what matters. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Kiluminati is a notorious POV-pusher . I gave diffs to prove he is the POV pushing . Why it is not notified too? I agree not to modify the module if he too is not allowed to do , especially as seen different request , it is more to complain about his behavior. In February , Kiluminati was also warned. Finally, I have heeded the warnings and when I cancel changes Kiluminati , I expect 24 not to cancel three times. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've suggested that User:Panam2014 can avoid a block if they will agree not to edit any maps (Yemeni, Syrian or whatever) or the talk pages of those maps until May 1. This user was given a final warning by User:NJA on 4 February, pursuant to an earlier 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Result: User:Panam2014 has accepted a restriction in lieu of a block. They will not edit any maps (Yemeni, Syrian or whatever) or the talk pages of those maps until May 1. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that User:Kiluminati is the one who initiates the vast majority of edit wars on the Yemen module. Most of his recent edits (stretching back to December 2015) have all been POV edits, since he has often altered the map module in favor of the Houthi combatant side, using unreliable or very biased sources. Since he has refused to stop, and since this has continued after a failed attempt at mediation on another noticeboard, I would like to request a 1-month article ban on User:Kiluminati, extending until May 1, 2016, in order to stop the edit warring on the Yemeni map module. If he is not blocked or banned, the edit wars will probably continue or worsen, given this user's battleground mentality and his history of POV-pushing. This case should have been listed in a reported below, but since it was redirected to this one (by another user), I have decided to make this request here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
User:201.146.245.86 reported by User:DVdm (Result: )
Page: Religulous ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 201.146.245.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [31], reverted by Cannolis
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [32], reverted by Xenophrenic
- [33], reverted by Xenophrenic
- [34], reverted by Binksternet, I think with the wrong Twinkle warning message: I guess 3RR was meant here?
- [35] with edit summary "sorry dudes, it's the academic consensus", reverted per no consensus, with invitation to go to talk page to find consensus. 3RR warning user talk
- [36], again "sorry dudes, it's the academic consensus"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] User never responds to talk page messages and warnings. Tenditious editing on other religion related articles.
Comments:
Moot note: I think this report is moot now: as soon as this was created and user was notified, they stopped contributing and article has stabilized. Removing this from watchlist. - DVdm (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Alansohn (Result: No action)
Page: The Cloisters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 27 March 2016
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:34, 27 March 2016
- 20:36, 27 March 2016
- 12:34, 28 March 2016
- 12:40, 28 March 2016
- 15:54, 28 March 2016 "The fucking fact that these fucking facts are *sourced*, are about the Clooisters, and cannot be removed without consensus)" Note: First communication at talk page took place at 15:57, 28 March 2016, minutes after the fifth revert and just before the sixth
- 15:58, 28 March 2016
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just look at any of the dozens upon dozens of 3RR warnings on BMK's talk page
Comments:
Beyond My Ken is back to his usual belligerent edit warring, this time facing off against Ceoil, Victoriaearle and Kafka Liz in his insistence that his popular culture section must stay in the article, per his demands, despite rather clear consensus to the contrary. Regardless of any ex post facto discussions at the article's talk page, BMK has a rather clear obligation to step back at (or before) the 3RR mark, but has persisted in battling well past this point. Is 6RR enough to justify a block? Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that (a) this is already being discussed at WP:ANI, and (b) there's a special place in hell reserved for people who pounce on disputes that they see their "enemies" having with other people. I expect 75% of Wikipedians will end up in that section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Didn't see the ANI, but I did see the edit warring on an article on my watchlist. There is a special VIP lounge in the Tenth Circle of Hell reserved for admins who aid and abet our most aggressive edit warriors, going out of their way to give a 37th slap-on-the-wrist warning to
fiveseven time losers who are then allowed to violate the bright line 3RR rule with impunity. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Didn't see the ANI, but I did see the edit warring on an article on my watchlist. There is a special VIP lounge in the Tenth Circle of Hell reserved for admins who aid and abet our most aggressive edit warriors, going out of their way to give a 37th slap-on-the-wrist warning to
- Block log highlights (see here) listing BMK's 3RR / edit warring blocks (7 so far by 7 different admins; 4 since 1/2015)
- 09:32, 16 January 2016 UkPaolo (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule)
- 22:59, 15 October 2015 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)
- 13:50, 28 July 2015 The ed17 (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: long-term pattern, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=673506396#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Staszek_Lem_.28Result:_Declined.29)
- 02:21, 10 March 2015 Swarm (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on Little Syria, Manhattan -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=650725160)
- 10:02, 22 January 2014 Dpmuk (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on No Other Woman (1933 film))
- 21:30, 5 December 2010 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on The Limelight)
- 10:28, 15 November 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)
- 3RR noticeboard violations where BMK received a warning / page protected / no action (13 so far by 12 different editors;
76 times since 1/2015)
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive135#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Miami33139_.28Result:_Not_blocked.29 - Closed July 2010
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive201#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_Yworo_.28talk.29_.28Result:_Page_protected.29 - Closed November 2012
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive214#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Tenebrae_.28Result:_Declined_.28amicable_resolution.2C_I_hope.21.29.29 - Closed May 2013
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive228#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Cky2250_.28Result:_Protected.29 - Closed November 2013
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive232#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:JHunterJ_.28Result:_Protected.29 - Closed January 2014
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive234#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Robsinden_.28Result:_Voluntary_restriction.29 - Closed January 2014
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Lugnuts_.28Result:_No_blocks.29 - Closed September 2014
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Padenton_.28Result:No_action_at_this_time.29 - Closed April 2015
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive279#User:Robynthehode_and_User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Lugnuts_.28Result:_Two_parties_warned.29 - Closed April 2015
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Alansohn_.28Result:_No_action.29 - Closed May 2015
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive283#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Ibadibam_.28Result:_protected.29 - Closed June 2015
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive286#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Skyerise_.28Result:_Page_protected.29 - Closed June 2015
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive294#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Volunteer_Marek_.28Result:_Protected.29 - Closed September 2015
Floquenbeam, BMK has been blocked by seven different admins for edit warring. He's received no less than 13 non-blocks (warning / page protected / no action are included; no violation and blocked are excluded) and slaps on the wrist after edit warring reports by 12 different editors. These blocks and warnings have only become more frequent since January 2015. As usual, he's resorted to his "Aw, shucks. I guess I should have gone to the talk page sooner. I've got a bad temper." after being caught violating WP:3RR (or in this case, 6RR). As a bright-line rule, and one that Beyond My Ken has violated dozens of times, a block of increasing duration would be the most appropriate way to prevent slap on the wrist 37, 38 and 39. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Alansohn's block log BMK (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, thanks for pointing out how an editor can be reformed (and how you haven't). I've been clean, sober and unblocked for six years and eleven months, as of today. And how's your track record, my little churchmouse? Alansohn (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Uninvolved party. Alansohn, now would be a very good time for you to shut up. You made your point, and are only making yourself look bad. Shut up and walk away. My unsolicited advice. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- As another uninvolved party, I would suggest that oknazevad follow his own "advice". - theWOLFchild 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Uninvolved party. Alansohn, now would be a very good time for you to shut up. You made your point, and are only making yourself look bad. Shut up and walk away. My unsolicited advice. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, thanks for pointing out how an editor can be reformed (and how you haven't). I've been clean, sober and unblocked for six years and eleven months, as of today. And how's your track record, my little churchmouse? Alansohn (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose any action per discussion at WP:ANI. This is stale, and so attenuated from previous incidents that we can't credibly link it back to any previous pattern of disruption. Action on this report would certainly be punitive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Result: No action. This matter was extensively discussed at ANI; that should be sufficient. A few people said some really undiplomatic things. Anybody who messed up this time around has hopefully learned something that will keep this problem from recurring soon. I share User:Floquenbeam's surprise that Alansohn has been so active in this complaint since he is not one of the people involved in the article dispute. He did answer my question and says he edited the article in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The actual result: BMK will be further enabled on his path of edit warring. An editor who has been blocked no less than nine times for edit warring (I hadn't seen the two blocks listed under his Before My Ken block log; I'll add them to the list for the next case), and has been warned no less than 13 times previously without a block, will be given a free pass on a 6RR bright-line rule violation and a free pass to continue his chronic pattern of edit warring. Without a consistent string of admins as enablers, each one buying the bullshit that BMK "has hopefully learned something that will keep this problem from recurring soon", this wouldn't keep on recurring every few weeks, with toothless warning after toothless warning handed out and then ignored by the perpetrator. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- What can you say? He's been here a while and chats to admins. Content and conduct don't really matter when you're buddies with the admins, who are equally guilty of disruption by ignoring shit like this, as the person is who breaks 6RR. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
User:217.248.22.214 reported by User:Nyuszika7H (Result: Semi)
- Page
- Talk:Blindspot (TV series) ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 217.248.22.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "rv rearranging of an archived discussion"
- 12:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "Stop mucking around with other editor's comments."
- 10:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "Leave other's comments alone."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Talk:Blindspot (TV series). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
IP keeps making WP:POINTy edits taking the word of the relevant policies/guidelines too literally, and reverting perfectly legitimate edits to add missing signatures and indentation changes to make the discussion more readable. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- (What would the POINT I'm trying to make?)
- The edits are resorting an archived discussion, changing the meaning of comments by placing them at various other places. It is also utterly unnecessary. My changes reverted talk page vandalism, thus 3RR and similar do not apply.-217.248.22.214 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I may also note my belief that of some sockpuppetry being involved, as three different but similar IPs have contributed on this particular issue (217.248.20.109, 217.248.0.219, 217.248.22.214). This is supported by WP:SOCK, which states Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy, meaning that sockpuppetry is not just account-only, as the IP editor seems to believe. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- So what's your reason to assume "deception"?-217.248.22.214 (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I may also note my belief that of some sockpuppetry being involved, as three different but similar IPs have contributed on this particular issue (217.248.20.109, 217.248.0.219, 217.248.22.214). This is supported by WP:SOCK, which states Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy, meaning that sockpuppetry is not just account-only, as the IP editor seems to believe. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I strongly suspect this user is the same one who tried to force through their changes on the Shannara Chronicles page and made an extensive amount of topics on the talkpage. They used over a dozen IPs which seemed to change almost daily and had a habit of posting on peoples talk pages who disagreed with them. See [39] the users IPs such as 217.248.0.149, 217.248.29.18, 217.248.32.212, 217.248.2.44, 217.248.63.96, 217.248.29.218, and a ton of others all seem to geolocate to the same area as this user.81.106.156.18 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- You "strongly suspect"? Well that sounds ominous.-217.248.10.121 (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merely an observation of your past behavior as you were quite active on the Shannara Chronicles page not so long ago. I do find it highly unusual that you seem to be editing under a new IP daily, what do you have to hide exactly? This report seems almost pointless because your IP keeps changing. I suggest you make an account to be accountable for your actions on here.81.106.156.18 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- An observation that implies that something is fishy, or you wouldn't make it. What exactly is it that I did wrong?-217.248.11.96 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merely an observation of your past behavior as you were quite active on the Shannara Chronicles page not so long ago. I do find it highly unusual that you seem to be editing under a new IP daily, what do you have to hide exactly? This report seems almost pointless because your IP keeps changing. I suggest you make an account to be accountable for your actions on here.81.106.156.18 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Can please someone comment on Wikipedia policy's position on changing other editors' comments on talk pages? Thanks.-217.248.10.121 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The editor has continued their 3RR violation with yet another revert, claiming it is vandalism yet failing to cite how. They falsely accuse of modifying the content of the comments while all that has been done is a combination of indentation, usages of {{unsigned}}, and placing the comments into chronological order; the meaning of the entire discussion remains the same, as does the meaning of every comment. The editor cannot be discussed with in any format, as they believe that they are completely in the right, even claiming that 3RR does not pertain to them though nothing at WP:3RRNO pertains to them. They have also furthered their sockpuppetry by editing from yet another IP - this is conclusive from the post before mine. Alex|The|Whovian? 09:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whovian has a very, very precise understanding of how talk page comments should look like, and he is willing to enforce this even for other people's comments, and even on archived discussions. He was blocked for this before, and promised to leave it be in his unblock request ("I will leave the discussion page as-is for the span of a week, and attempt to fix it once more if the other editor does not persist. If they do, then I will cease any further edits on the talk page itself."). Well, that promise turned out to be false.
- This whole matter is puzzling to me. First of all, I am not used to see someone making changes to other's talk page comments. There were no insults, no BLP stuff, no libel, not threats of any kind, just Whovian's hurt sense of perfection. Even cosmetic changes would be unacceptable, but while making his changes, he re-arranged my comments in a way that changes the flow of the discussion.
- Unless you have a sound reason to do it (like the one I listed above), changes to someone's comments is considered vandalism. 3RR does not apply.
- This is the second case of Whovian haphazardly editing talk pages (I know of). He is wasting enormous amounts of effort and energy.-217.248.10.121 (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please read the actual policy. Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk page vandalism says: "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. [...] It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment." As for the reordering, the policy is not clear on this, but I can't see any problem with moving a comment to be in chronological order. The issue was even pointed out to you. You can hardly call that "vandalism", and it doesn't make it harder to follow, quite the opposite. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your point? Of course repeated re-ordering, shuffling comments and disrupting the flow of the conversation is illegitimate. Doing that against the repeated expressed wishes of the author is at the very least rude and disruptive on top of that. Also my comments were signed before you shuffled them all over the page.
- In what possible way can comments be made clearer by shuffling them around?
- What is to gain? The conversation was ARCHIVED. Were there any complaints except from one very active participant? At best you can achieve a very minor increase in clarity in an archived discussion. Please explain in what way this mess is worth that.-217.248.10.121 (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please read the actual policy. Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk page vandalism says: "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. [...] It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment." As for the reordering, the policy is not clear on this, but I can't see any problem with moving a comment to be in chronological order. The issue was even pointed out to you. You can hardly call that "vandalism", and it doesn't make it harder to follow, quite the opposite. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The editor in question has now reverted a total of five times under different IPs at Talk:Blindspot (TV series), which they have admitted to using; no matter of their intention and personal beliefs, this is a clear violation of 3RR. However, I believe that when action is taken against them, they will continue to partake in their sockpuppetry and continue their actions. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I "admitted" nothing of the sort, I simply confirmed it. You sockpuppet allegations are a red herring, stop it.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- You confirmed that you are editing under different IPs. That's confirming that you are a sockpuppet. Story, end of. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Read the rules again.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- You confirmed that you are editing under different IPs. That's confirming that you are a sockpuppet. Story, end of. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Recap
Here is what happened:
- On 2016-03-09, we had a short but heated discussion about a term in the lede of Blindspot (TV series). During this discussion, Whovian took it upon himself to referee details of the talk page format for at least seven times ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]), against my express and very clear objections, and changing the content of my comments at least once.
- During the proceedings, Whovian also tried to archive the discussion once with so much disregard that he again changed my comments.
- For this mess, we were both blocked, I for 24 hours, Whovian for 48 hours.
- I took the opportunity to take a break, while Whovian asked for a lift. In his unblock request, he said this: "I will leave the discussion page as-is for the span of a week, and attempt to fix it once more if the other editor does not persist. If they do, then I will cease any further edits on the talk page itself."
- The matter was resolved during my block, and I archived the discussion a day later.
- On 2016-03-19, Whovian changed the archived discussion again, resorting my comments extensively, merging paragraphs and adding autosigs where none were needed (or only needed due to his own resort). I reverted him, and this is what brought on this report.
Changing talk page comments is rare, and only acceptable when some serious fault can be found in the content (BLP, threats, &c; not claimed to be the case here) or when some clear faults can be found in the formatting, to the point of impeding the discussion. We don't go around fixing spelling errors (which would increase readability, dramatically in some cases) or fix other minor errors in other's contributions. We certainly don't do that after being told to stop, literally dozens of times. It's impolite and disruptive. In this particular instance, and after so many requests to stop, it's simply vandalism.
Are my comments hard to understand due to their formatting? You be the judge, but I don't see how resorting them in a haphazard way could possibly improve that.
Then there is the matter of my alleged sockpuppetry. Whovian brings it up again and again, but fails to respond to the one pertinent question: What would be suspicious about my changing of IPs? Did I ever abuse it? Did I ever deny it? The simply fact is that my IP address is changed daily by my Internet provider. There is nothing I could do about is, even if I would like to. There is also not the slightest bit of policy disallowing this.
This is a colossal waste of time, for the second time. Whovian should respect talk page comments written by other editors, and should abstain from ever making such changes again.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Result: The talk page is semiprotected for two weeks. Conducting an edit war with a fluctuating IP is disruptive, on any page. I have no opinion on who is right about the talk page formatting. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Semiprotection after a dispute between an IP and a named editor is clearly taking sides, are you aware of that?
- Where can the core matter (Whovian's talk page edits) be addressed? Which forum would be the best?-217.248.11.96 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect, the admin made the correct decision. You show remarkable edit war tendancies on pages like here [48] but as your IP address changes so rapidly you can never be held accountable for your actions as you seemingly refuse to make an account on here. Although I wasn't involved in the Blindspot stuff, I feel your behavior in the Shannara Chronicles page is entirely relevant in this discussion. Let this go, surely it can only end with a range ban to prevent you from socking your way out of a ban. 81.106.156.18 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- "With all due respect, the admin made the correct decision." - The admin ended the dispute in a way that clearly favors one side, without giving any rationale. Do you agree that should happen in more cases brought here? If not, what is it that you agree to?
- Stop the sock allegations. You have no basis for this.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have a history of disputes with multiple editors, and have reverted people under multiple IP addresses to further your agenda. That by all accounts is the very definition of sock puppetry. The admin has simply put a stop to your behavior by protecting the page as you seem unable to be reasoned with. Anyway, this will be my last post on this subject as a resolution has been found. I just think you need to take a step back and let this go. 81.106.156.18 (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- You are very mistaken on what sockpuppetry is.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have a history of disputes with multiple editors, and have reverted people under multiple IP addresses to further your agenda. That by all accounts is the very definition of sock puppetry. The admin has simply put a stop to your behavior by protecting the page as you seem unable to be reasoned with. Anyway, this will be my last post on this subject as a resolution has been found. I just think you need to take a step back and let this go. 81.106.156.18 (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect, the admin made the correct decision. You show remarkable edit war tendancies on pages like here [48] but as your IP address changes so rapidly you can never be held accountable for your actions as you seemingly refuse to make an account on here. Although I wasn't involved in the Blindspot stuff, I feel your behavior in the Shannara Chronicles page is entirely relevant in this discussion. Let this go, surely it can only end with a range ban to prevent you from socking your way out of a ban. 81.106.156.18 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Semiprotection after a dispute between an IP and a named editor is clearly taking sides, are you aware of that? Seriously? If the admin took any sort of different action, you probably would have still accused them of taking sides. They admin doesn't need to give any rationale - they read this discussion, they thought about the best course of action from the experience they've received over years of training, and they took it. Easy done. If you really want anything done, recommend a ban against your IP range 217.248.*.* so you can't edit war over a range anymore. You continue to say that this is a waste of time, and yet you're the one wanting to take it further and keep the whole thing going - make up your mind and give it a rest. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Shadow4dark reported by User:Ferakp (Result: Declined)
Page: Category:Kurdish terrorism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shadow4dark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [49]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: This user has added Kurdish terrorism category to every single pages it has visited. I didn't add his reverts, because there is more than 20 same reverts about the same thing: added link to Category:Kurdish article so you can see his changes.
Declined – It is not clear enough what the problem is here. There is no 3RR violation. If you believe that Category:Kurdish terrorism should not exist, you could try nominating it for deletion via WP:CFD. A complaint about edits by the filer of this report is now at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User:SWF88 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Both warned)
Page: United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SWF88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [51]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]
User notified: Diff
Comments:
Straight 4RR vio. 4 consecutive reverts in 9 hours. Two different editors asking him to stop. Instead he resorts to personal attacks like accusations of page ownership against me, and again against a different, uninvolved editor. And then another blatant attack: "blanked the stupid threat of a self important moron". Not only a block, but a mandatory apology to that editor (BilCat) is in order. - theWOLFchild 05:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment now you bring the issue to the notice board? after I told you i take myself out of it? find yourself some other form of amusement. like i said, take ownership of the article if you want, i will not involve myself in it any more. SWF88 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- and now a third accusation of ownership right here in his response. - theWOLFchild 05:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- nice attitude... no remorse at all. - theWOLFchild 05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- like you care, if bitcat or whatever his name takes issue with it, i'll take it up with him.SWF88 (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If the community or an admin takes "issue" with it, they will be taking it up with you. - theWOLFchild 05:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground. If said user is offended of what i wrote blanking my own page, he should take it up with me and we'll respolve anything that needs resolving. we're all adults here wolfchild. SWF88 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions. You think that if BilCat doesn't say anything then you get a free pass for posting such a terrible insult? It doesn't work that way. While I'm glad you're finally aware of WP:BATTLE, there is nothing in WP:WWIN that prevents the community or an admin from holding you accountable for your actions. Now, why don't you let this go, and let the process take it's course... - theWOLFchild 06:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground. If said user is offended of what i wrote blanking my own page, he should take it up with me and we'll respolve anything that needs resolving. we're all adults here wolfchild. SWF88 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. If the community or an admin takes "issue" with it, they will be taking it up with you. - theWOLFchild 05:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- like you care, if bitcat or whatever his name takes issue with it, i'll take it up with him.SWF88 (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- nice attitude... no remorse at all. - theWOLFchild 05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Further comment. looking at user:thWolfchild's past interactions and the number of edit warring warnings he got and dished out, he seems to relish personal conflict. I don't and like I said, I will not indulge him any further. SWF88 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- So again, your attack others instead of addressing your own appalling behaviour. Have you apologized to BilCat yet for calling him "stupid" and a "self important moron"...? Have you apologized to optakeover yet for accusing him of page ownership when he wasn't even involved in the dispute? The only "personal conflict" that needs to be addressed here is coming from you. Even after you've been warned (4 times!) and reported, and even after you repeatedly claimed you would stop... you just keep going. - theWOLFchild 05:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- and again with the provocation. i'm not falling for it. like i said, i'm done with the page, whichever user can do whatever they want with it. even take over. SWF88 (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you're done, then... be done. - theWOLFchild 05:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- and again with the provocation. i'm not falling for it. like i said, i'm done with the page, whichever user can do whatever they want with it. even take over. SWF88 (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- So again, your attack others instead of addressing your own appalling behaviour. Have you apologized to BilCat yet for calling him "stupid" and a "self important moron"...? Have you apologized to optakeover yet for accusing him of page ownership when he wasn't even involved in the dispute? The only "personal conflict" that needs to be addressed here is coming from you. Even after you've been warned (4 times!) and reported, and even after you repeatedly claimed you would stop... you just keep going. - theWOLFchild 05:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I may be new but i know this Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. you behavior is very aggressive and antagonistic. SWF88 (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, at least you learned something in the 6 days/80 edits that you've been here. But with all the attacks, insults and edit-warring, I would say that you're the aggressive antagonist here. Plus you keep saying you're "done", but then you keep posting here again, and again, again... - theWOLFchild 05:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I may be new but i know this Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. you behavior is very aggressive and antagonistic. SWF88 (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
Plus you keep saying you're "done", but then you keep posting here again, and again, again.. <- this comment says it all. you're more preoccupied with getting the last word, in other words winning, then resolving an issue(that's already been resolve btw, since i said i will not be further involved in the page). SWF88 (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- oh, the irony... - theWOLFchild 06:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Both warned. Let's be optimistic and accept User:SWF88's above statement as a promise to stop editing the article. That will save us the trouble of blocking both parties for 3RR violation. SWF88 made a a personal attack against User:BilCat. Let's hope that the edit warring and the attacking don't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Maruru~enwiki reported by User:Ronz (Result: Indef)
Page: Vani Hari ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maruru~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Maruru~enwiki's first two reverts were over the amount of coverage of criticism in the lede. Starting 10 Jan, the reverts included content about Hari's affiliate marketing:
- 18:34, 27 October 2015 editor misrepresented the edit by saying the content was moved rather than deleted
- 18:42, 27 October 2015
- 03:26, 10 January 2016
- 19:41, 21 February 2016
- 03:07, 22 February 2016
- 21:52, 21 March 2016 edit summary: "This does not belong in her bio - If you continue to add this, user will be reported."
- 15:09, 30 March 2016
- 18:47, 30 March 2016
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:00, 10 January 2016 16:21, 24 March 2016
Some of the relevant discussions on talk page: Note that Maruru~enwiki has made no contributions to any of the discussions:
- Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_3#Lede_as_summary 15 August 2015
- Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_6#Kraft_-_did_Hari_cause_the_changes.3F. 3 November 2015 - 9 November 2015
- Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_7#Lede 23 December 2015 - 8 January 2016
- Talk:Vani_Hari#Affiliate_marketer Started 22:38, 21 March 2016.
Comments:
Maruru~enwiki has now joined the discussion, but continues to edit-war. --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have submitted an investigation request for Omnipum and Maruru~enwiki as they are confusingly similar, here. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely – per the SPI report by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User:94.12.159.22 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked 72 hours)
- Page
- New religious movement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 94.12.159.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712666085 by Gongwool (talk)m Please stop removing this."
- 11:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712567627 by JimRenge (talk) I'm not promoting anything. It's an example of what the paragraph is talking about. Read it before reverting again."
- 20:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712504572 by Gongwool (talk)"
- 09:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "Re-adding example of cybersectarianism that was removed."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Four reverts in less than 24-hours. Rather a slow burning edit-war (purely to insert unsourced WP:OR, it must be said), but has ignored warnings, and accused other editors of being the edit-warriors. Seems to be only here to promote the Australian faction of the subject organisation. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
User:2602:306:ce42:4d30:41de:1ada:1451:cd4f & User:2602:306:CE42:4D30:CDE:865A:8AD5:5ECE reported by User:carptrash (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
- Page
- National Statuary Hall Collection ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2602:306:CE42:4D30:CDE:865A:8AD5:5ECE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
2602:306:ce42:4d30:41de:1ada:1451:cd4f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Confederates */"
- 21:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Confederates */"
- 20:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Confederates */"
- 20:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Confederates */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on National Statuary Hall Collection. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Attempt at discussion at Talk:National Statuary Hall Collection
- Comments:
- I believe that this editor has passed the three revert rule at National Statuary Hall Collection. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Probably the same user as both IPs. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- And he (probably not a she) is still at it. Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. It's obviously the same individual. It's quite normal that individuals are assigned a whole /64 IPv6 range by their ISP. They're certainly edit warring, and I've blocked the 2602:306:ce42:4d30::/64 range. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Bishonen: Can you also block User:2602:306:ce42:4d30:e007:6d10:2e57:442c? They're continuing the edit war. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: Also User:2602:306:ce42:4d30:e007:6d10:2e57:442c. Looks like they're changing IP very quickly, can we have semi-protection?
Joseph2302 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- They're in that range, too, Joseph2302, in other words they're already blocked. No IP has edited the article after I blocked the range at 18:26 UTC. We shouldn't need semi. Bishonen | talk 19:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC).
-
User:2602:252:d0c:b9f0:ddcf:c12d:b856:2e3d reported by User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: John C. McAdams ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2602:252:d0c:b9f0:ddcf:c12d:b856:2e3d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [58]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]
Diffs of direct attempts to contact user and notify them of policy: [70] [71]
Comments: User has been inserting spurious material into John C. McAdams; has finally admitted that his/her major source is a blog. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User:PuliMurugan reported by User:Rebbing (Result: No action)
- Page
- List of Malayalam films of 2016 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- PuliMurugan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 20:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712907761 by Rebbing (talk) Same with you... When you undo or delete some thing from a wikipedia page, you need to ask the main editor first. For now, please don't mess this page up."
- 19:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712894783 by Rebbing (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User isn't interested in discussing his promotional edits and refuses to follow WP:BRD. He claims I need to ask his permission before reverting his changes. As he's already given me a "Non-helpful Wikipedian" barnstar in protest of my nominating his spam articles for deletion, I fear further attempts by me to work things out would be needlessly provoking matters. I'm not looking for a block, just a firm warning from someone other than myself. Rebbing 20:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see where you invited the editor for discussion; all I see is a talk page full of warnings you placed there. Also, we are a long ways away from edit warring, and we're certainly not at 3R. Plus, I don't know how those edits are promotional, and other things in that list seem poorly sourced as well. I will not deny that the user shouldn't have reverted and should have discussed on the talk page--but that goes for you as well. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- My invitation would have been the suggestion that the editor discuss his changes at the talk page. They were his changes, so I assumed it was his burden to discuss them, not mine. I stand corrected, and I apologize for my behavior on that article and for making this report. Rebbing 02:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Listef (klat) 10:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Stifle: I withdraw my report, and I have no desire to be difficult about this, but, in my defense, this is the edit warring noticeboard, not the three-revert rule noticeboard. In the instructions at the top, it states: "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule"; the text "active edit warriors" links to WP:EDITWAR, which explains that: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Rebbing 11:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: indef block)
Page: Football records in Spain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SupernovaeIA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:SupernovaeIA#January 2016
Comments:
The first edit this editor made after coming off a month long block for their involvement in a protracted edit war at Football records in Spain was revert the page to their preferred version. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive307#User:Suitcivil133 and User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result:Both blocked, article semi-protected) for previous diffs. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User:TalhaZubairButt reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 60 hours)
Page: Bangladesh Liberation War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TalhaZubairButt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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: [76]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77] (and later discussions)
Comments:
User is under a 1RR restriction (imposed as a result of continuous edit warring) on anything related to India or Pakistan [78] but nevermind 1RR, here they broke 3RR straight up. Their initial defense was that they "didn't revert" only "restored". Then that changed to that it was a "new edit", hence not a revert. Not sure how the "I only restored" and "it was a new edit" are being reconciled here but regardless, it's a pretty clear case of blatant disregard of both the policy and the restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:MjolnirPants reported by User:FL or Atlanta (Result: Protected)
Page: Argument from authority ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [79]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]
Lots and lots of discussion on the Talk
Comments:
MjolnirPants is also not following WP:NOCONSENSUS, which says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", instead removing material they dislike and insisting it not be re-added despite the absence of a consensus to do so. Attempts have been made to resolve the issues on the page through mediation, but MjolnirPants has pulled out of two mediation attempts before they were able to get off the ground. They have also stated that they refuse to speak to me further on the article's Talk page. All of this makes solving the current disagreement on the page extremely difficult. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Page protected for a week. It was either that or block both of you.
Note that the purpose of giving a warning is after a second or third revert to encourage the other party to discuss rather than revert. Giving a warning three hours after a fourth revert, and reporting 12 minutes later, is not useful. Listef (klat) 10:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Depauldem reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
User being reported: Depauldem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Avengers: Age of Ultron ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [85]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Page: Thor: The Dark World ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [89]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]
Comments:
The case is essentially a continuation of the case filed above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive312#User:Depauldem reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Withdrawn/no action, issue resolved) where the editor is perpetuating the same type of edits at other articles. The editor hasn't violated 3RR but is perpetuating the earlier problem at other articles. The case was closed after he stopped reverting and started discussing the issue at the talk page, but now the disruptive activity has resumd his actions need to be re-examined. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User Betty Logan is guilty of the exact same thing. A simple review of both the reversions and the talk pages shows that I have been trying to engage in a discussion, but have been met with reversions and unwarranted reporting.Depauldem (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that four unconnected editors have reverted you across three separate articles and nobody actually supports your position should probably tell you something. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Cut it out. Listef (klat) 10:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Muvendar reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: )
Page: Naga people (Lanka) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muvendar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [94]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff diff diff diff.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
User:94.254.225.161 and User:153.19.171.18 reported by User:Scolaire (Result: Semi)
Page: Irish War of Independence ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.254.225.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 153.19.171.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a user working out of two IPs.
Previous version reverted to: [99]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111], [112]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no discussion, as this is obvious vandalism.
Scolaire (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Page semiprotected for one year. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:5.29.102.252 reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: )
- Page
- Fedor Emelianenko ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 5.29.102.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "I've already made the case in the talk page. You're telling me to "discuss it" whilst you are dodging the talk page yourself. Who's edit warring?"
- 13:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713026453 by MBlaze Lightning (talk)I did though, I provided two different sources - one of them is a large magazine, and the other one is a video of that interview."
- 13:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "So you're slandering me to push your own agenda, lovely. I'm neither a nationalist nor pushing a POV. There's no "POV" in him being of Russian ethnicity. Is it POV to state in de Niro's article he's of Irish and Italian ethnicity?"
- 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC) ""Edit warring"? No one is edit warring. Emelianenko stated that his of Russian ethnicity in an interview, are you saying that's irrelevant to his early life? I've referenced it, so you really have no leg to stand on."
- 20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712819075 by Spacecowboy420 (talk)Surely his ancestry is relevant? And surely you can't tag him in "Russians of Ukrainian descent" when he has stated that he's Russian?"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Can be seen here
- Comments:
Far more then 3 reverts. At Least two different editors asking him to stop but he kept on doing blatant reverts. I highly recommend a short block for this IP. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- You are a very active member, which is respectable, but you seem to be so active that you don't have the time to actually learn the situation when butting in. Once again, I referenced the information I added. Where's the dispute, and where's the POV? Surely you should be more concerned with whoever accused me of "nationalistic POV"? 5.29.102.252 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I tried resolving it on the talk page. Ironically, those who shout the loudest "use the talk page" seem to ignore it the most.
Secondly, here's what the dispute is about. Emelianenko stated in an interview that he's of Russian ethnicity, when asked. I have added it to his "early life" section, with two references. However, the next thing is that it gets removed, and I get accused of "nationalistic POV." I'm not a nationalist, and I fail to see the "POV" in him stating that he's of Russian ethnicity?
Was the person who wrote in de Niro's article that he's of Irish and Italian ethnicity accused of a "nationalistic POV"? 5.29.102.252 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Note: There's actually an admin monitoring the page, User talk:Davey2010. I think his advice should be asked first and foremost. 5.29.102.252 (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well, you violated 3RR. In fact, You've made far more then 3 reverts. You should follow BRD. At least 2 editors asked you to stop Edit Warring and discuss the matter at talk but you kept on doing blatant reverts. Beside, It was Spacecowboy420 who actually started talk page discussion can be seen here. You should refrain from adding YT Videos/Interviews or Non-English primary sources to add controversial contents instead you should add secondary sources to back your claims. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I told the IP editor " I suggest you go to the talk page, and attempt to gain consensus, rather than continuing to edit war." when he had already made multiple reverts, and he proceeded to make more. He doesn't seem to listen to anything regarding edit warring/talk pages/consensus - a short editing block might reinforce what is being said to him.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Initially, I felt sorry for the IP editor. He must be new, he doesn't have an account yet and he is making good faith edits.
- Then I looked at his edit history. It's full of the same crap that he is trying on the above article. He isn't here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to push a lot of nationalistic crap related to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Not exactly an editor with the best of intentions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- And more meaningless words. I've provided a source for the information added. He stated he's of Russian ethnicity, that's relevant to "early life." Period.
- "It's full of the same crap that he is trying on the above article." - I think you're suffering from paranoia ;-) My edits are mostly about the community which I came from, Russians in the Ukraine. You know, like some are Irish Americans? Or to add information about the stance taken by Russian celebrities about the Crimea crisis (once again, referenced).
- However, I fail to see how any of my edits are relevant to this article. So you're removing a sourced piece of information which is no doubt relevant (once again, since when do we remove information on ancestry), because you didn't like my other edits?
- "he's here to push a lot of nationalistic crap related to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia." - And another lie ;-) Show me at least one revert I made in an article actually connected to the conflict? I avoid them on purpose. I have been adding information about the stances taken by celebrities on the conflict (referenced), plus (unrelated to the conflict) expanded information on the Russian community in Ukraine. 5.29.102.252 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since the IP has broken 3RR they qualify for a block regardless of who is right about Emelianenko's nationality. This block might be avoided if the IP will promise to make no more changes to the article unless they first get consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Not really. If you have a look at the talk page of the admin who reverted me originally, he also acknowledged that he didn't realise that the piece of information was referenced: [113] So that doesn't really count.
- Judging by that fact, Spacecowboy420 had actually broken the three revert rule before me, and therefore, should be blocked before me?
- And last, yet not least, I was accused of a nationalistic POV simply because I added a (referenced!) peace of information about his ethnicity. So...?
- EdJohnston I don't think he/she is going to stop. You should block him now for a short period. Thank you. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 19:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
User:Knowledgebattle reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Anti-Zionism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Knowledgebattle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC) to 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edits by Nishidani (talk): Sorry Nishi, disruptive edit by Galassi. (TW)"
- 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713028461 by Galassi (talk) Stop disruptive editing."
- 13:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 713009927 by Doug Weller (talk)"
- 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712993776 by Doug Weller (talk)"
- 06:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712933836 by Galassi (talk) Wth? I had it all organized. If you want to clean it up, there's definitely too much, but keep it organized."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 11:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (full discussion is more useful, actually) "/* French Prime Minister's opinion in the introduction - Israeli Minister of Education's opinion is not */ r"
- Comments:
Blocked for edit-warring before Doug Weller talk 15:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
^ Whoopdeedoo.
- User:Galassi had rolled back my edits. If you look at the page revert differences, I had made some large, substantive edits aimed at reorganizing a whole section, which was previously all jumbled and mixed together. Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism versus antisemitism. To figure out how to classify them, and then to ensure that views were accurately classified, I followed up on all of their sources.
- I was doing them pieces at a time, at first; but because Galassi didn't approve of the very last contribution – the quote by Shulamit Aloni – he went ahead and rolled back the entire thing. All of my edits. Since his rollback was bundled into one action, I was able to revert it. And frankly, after spending all that time and effort to accurately label their positions, I'm not okay with him going in and messing it up. That's why I rolled back.
- I'll say the same thing here that I told them both... if you want to make specific changes, then you do so. But I had made other, substantive changes, which both User:Galassi and User:Doug Weller were made aware of, and still chose to revert, anyway. (Probably so that we'd end up here – Hi.) You happy now, Doug? Edit appropriately and specifically, and we won't have to meet on this battlefield. You were reverting for the wrong reason.
- KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 15:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is obvious KB edit-warred, and lack of sleep is no excuse. One desists, naps, and thinks things over. Thus a sanction is appropriate. But it should note noted that This edit by User:Galassi, which started KB's editwarring, was clearly faulty. Knowledgebattle confused who Shulamit Aloni was, and should not have left the statement in the text, as opposed to a footnote. But his addition did balance a section that patently violated WP:LEDE by giving a multi-sourced statement suggesting widespread cross-sectarian support for the equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, without a balancing statement noting that the opposite is also true, that many believe conflating the two is a silencing tactic. I tried to balance that some time ago, and it was reverted out, editors, like Galassi preferring to have the lead espouse one of two POVs, rather than taking the trouble to try and fix it as KB did. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- A sanction isn't a good idea. (Just being honest.) And yes, the majority of my editing has been to clean up and organize the article. As for adding the balance – I'm surprised you've addressed it in this article in the past, too. So I'm not the only one who noticed that. Well, I would just expect that anyone making a decision takes a look at the edits I made.
- KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- And for the second time you've deleted a post of mine on a talk page (a different one), this time reverting others as well.[114] And you may have been trying to get balance, I don't know. I should be upfront and say that I am concerned about your userpages. User:Knowledgebattle/projects/Christian Republican corruption looks to have BLP issues, and another, well, you know what I mean. I very much like some of your edits and voted to delete an article you brought to AfD, but I'm not sure you should be working on religious issues, even though I'm also an atheist. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- A sanction isn't a good idea. (Just being honest.) And yes, the majority of my editing has been to clean up and organize the article. As for adding the balance – I'm surprised you've addressed it in this article in the past, too. So I'm not the only one who noticed that. Well, I would just expect that anyone making a decision takes a look at the edits I made.
- It is obvious KB edit-warred, and lack of sleep is no excuse. One desists, naps, and thinks things over. Thus a sanction is appropriate. But it should note noted that This edit by User:Galassi, which started KB's editwarring, was clearly faulty. Knowledgebattle confused who Shulamit Aloni was, and should not have left the statement in the text, as opposed to a footnote. But his addition did balance a section that patently violated WP:LEDE by giving a multi-sourced statement suggesting widespread cross-sectarian support for the equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, without a balancing statement noting that the opposite is also true, that many believe conflating the two is a silencing tactic. I tried to balance that some time ago, and it was reverted out, editors, like Galassi preferring to have the lead espouse one of two POVs, rather than taking the trouble to try and fix it as KB did. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Oh no, you're concerned about my userpages? Oh no! I would just delete your comment, but you'd probably cry about it. So instead of deleting your comment, I'll just say this... IDGAF. They're not your userpages. They're subpages, dummy, not official articles. If you don't like the subpages, then don't make similar ones for yourself. Problem solved. KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 17:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no dog in this fight. I don't know the editors involved. In general, I think blocks are a bit too freely handed out. But this comment, aside from containing a personal attack, shows that the editor in question is either unaware of, or unwilling to abide by some of Wikipedia's basic rules, both substantive (BLP) and procedural (don't remove others' comments). Some kind of action is called for. Dumuzid (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- And now I'm "Doug Weener"? Lovely. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: You sound like what they call a "regressive", or to use an older term, a pansy. Every chance you can, you snitch about stupid little things, you complain when you get offended instead of just screwing off, and you go around stalking people who offend you. Grow a pair of balls, man the fuck up, and fuck off. Then we'll be cool.
- @Dumuzid: I've got a suggestion – Doug grows a pair and goes his way, and I go my way. User:Wikidemon stepped in and implemented their own opinion, and other people can, too. Boom. It's like magic.
- KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 17:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- And now I'm "Doug Weener"? Lovely. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no dog in this fight. I don't know the editors involved. In general, I think blocks are a bit too freely handed out. But this comment, aside from containing a personal attack, shows that the editor in question is either unaware of, or unwilling to abide by some of Wikipedia's basic rules, both substantive (BLP) and procedural (don't remove others' comments). Some kind of action is called for. Dumuzid (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 15:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I posted this at 15:40 UTC, Knowledgebattle did another revert[115] at 17:17, including removing an overquotation tag, which clearly should be left in until the issue is resolved (and seems appropriate). Nishidani placed a DS notice on the talk page before that edit, making the article a 1RR article. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Blocked – 72 hours. Edit warring; removing article talk posts by other users; personal attacks on the noticeboard. The user had one previous edit-warring block in 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)