|
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:95.135.111.186 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Stale)
- 2 User:Daithidebarra reported by User:Wikijan2016 (Result: Filer warned)
- 3 User:Zoupan reported by User:Crovata (Result: both sanctioned)
- 4 User:87.254.64.8 reported by User:Olowe2011 (Result: Withdrawn)
- 5 User:Rachman227 reported by User:Crisco 1492 (Result: Blocked)
- 6 User:Listofpeople reported by User:79.177.137.186 (Result: Blocked)
- 7 User:Tbacon143 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)
- 8 [[User:]] reported by User:Tbacon143 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
- 9 User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: page protected)
- 10 User:Navyiconer reported by User:IndianBio (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
- 11 User:IndianBio reported by User:Navyiconer (Result: Declined – malformed report)
- 12 User:2600:8800:FF04:C00:E53C:D908:2301:35CB reported by User:Baking Soda (Result:Blocked 24h)
- 13 User:ThatPerson903 reported by User:LL212W (Result: Declined – malformed report)
- 14 User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: Sock puppet indeffed)
- 15 User:58.147.172.251 reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Blocked 1 week)
- 16 User:Subtropical-man reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Warnings)
- 17 User:185.97.214.100 reported by User:Qpalzmmzlapq (Result: Both blocked, semi-protected)
- 18 User:Optimus edit reported by User:Terrorist96 (Result: )
User:95.135.111.186 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Stale)
Page: List of world snooker champions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.135.111.186 (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: [7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Comments:
The IP has reverted two editors, myself and Nigej. The number of reverts isn't excessive—he has only violated 3RR by one edit which ordinarily I wouldn't consider block-worthy. However, the IP originates from the Ukraine and so does 46.211.253.152 (who conveninetly jumped in for the 4th revert), so there is a strong suggestion of IP hopping (to potentially circumvent a potential 3RR violation) or meat-puppetry. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. User Betty Logan want to take an advantage over ip user using this request. Steve Davies retired, see [9]. This is a fact. Another user confirm this fact. User Betty Logan removed this sourced fact from the article, I don't understand why. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. Only three reverts were done by me (btw, Betty Logan did also three). "Fifth" edit was about related category only (there are no any descriptions from Betty about the reasons of removing the category)! 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Two experienced editors have reverted the edits by this editor with clear explanations for their actions. Are we really expected to believe another editor from the Ukraine just happened along and took the IP's side when he was on the brink of hitting 3RR? The snooker articles aren't exactly swamped by editors from the Ukraine. I don't regard the number of reverts to be a particular problem; however I do consider socking to be a problem when it used to bypass 3RR restrictions. Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Very experienced editor" BettyLogan many times removed the related category Category:World Snooker Championships from the article List of world snooker champions without any descriptions. "Very experienced editor" BettyLogan removed the fact that Steve Davis is retired from the snooker tour. Very-very good-good. Block him please for the war against ip user. The root of his problems is in the article World Open (snooker) and reverting of my correct edits there, I think. His requested move proposition is without any consensus. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed the category in accordance with WP:SUBCAT. The article is already a member of Category:World snooker champions which in turn is a sub-category of Category:World Snooker Championships so the parent category is not required. There is a clear competence issue here. The IP has also broken a couple of hundred links across the snooker articles by manually splitting content out of an article as I outline at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#World Open (snooker). There is so much damage to repair I don't know where to start. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Try to read WP:EPON first (before Subcat rule). 95.135.111.186 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am already familiar with the guideline, but since the catgeory is not an eponym for a list of people who have won the world championship (that would be World Champions) then it is not applicable. Anyway, this report is not about me remvoing a catgeory it is about you using a sock to avoid a 3RR violation. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Try to read WP:EPON first (before Subcat rule). 95.135.111.186 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed the category in accordance with WP:SUBCAT. The article is already a member of Category:World snooker champions which in turn is a sub-category of Category:World Snooker Championships so the parent category is not required. There is a clear competence issue here. The IP has also broken a couple of hundred links across the snooker articles by manually splitting content out of an article as I outline at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#World Open (snooker). There is so much damage to repair I don't know where to start. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Very experienced editor" BettyLogan many times removed the related category Category:World Snooker Championships from the article List of world snooker champions without any descriptions. "Very experienced editor" BettyLogan removed the fact that Steve Davis is retired from the snooker tour. Very-very good-good. Block him please for the war against ip user. The root of his problems is in the article World Open (snooker) and reverting of my correct edits there, I think. His requested move proposition is without any consensus. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Two experienced editors have reverted the edits by this editor with clear explanations for their actions. Are we really expected to believe another editor from the Ukraine just happened along and took the IP's side when he was on the brink of hitting 3RR? The snooker articles aren't exactly swamped by editors from the Ukraine. I don't regard the number of reverts to be a particular problem; however I do consider socking to be a problem when it used to bypass 3RR restrictions. Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Stale — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Daithidebarra reported by User:Wikijan2016 (Result: Filer warned)
Page: Bellevue Education ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daithidebarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
The user has a political agenda to make it appear as if the Bellevue Group has a financial stake in the separate entity Bellevue Place Education Trust (organisation has separate wikipedia page) and has more involvement than is the case, through an aggressive use of tone and language. It is inaccurate and there is a clear and non-objective agenda in the user's tone and language. There is also links to a source who has published unproven allegations against the group, and have broken UK media law in publishing these and based the blog on stolen material with no links to the group. I would urge wikipedia not to encourage such behaviour and allow this user to again post inaccurate and illegal allegations with a clearly aggressive tone and language.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [Daithidebarra:An3-notice/doc] Template:Daithidebarra:an3-notice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellevue_Education&action=history
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User:Wikijan2016 has removed an allegation made in the Sarawak Report (referenced to http://www.sarawakreport.org/2016/04/how-1mdbs-stolen-money-funded-top-uk-private-schools/ and based in turn on the Panama Papers}, that money from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal was used to fund Bellevue Education. There is an obvious disagreement with another user, but no violation of 3RR.
Wikijan2016 has also added the comment that "Bellevue Education has no financial stake in the Bellevue Education Trust" which is not obvious in the reference, http://www.bpet.co.uk. Especially in view of the rather complicated ownership structure of these organizations, this specific comment would not be directly relevant to the allegation made.
Wikijan2016's other contributions also suggest a singularity of purpose in editing the articles of other Bellevue schools. I hope that User:Wikijan2016 can confirm that they have no conflict of interest in editing pages either about Bellevue or about the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, or, if we are discussing the Sarawak Report, about dishonest financial transactions in general.
I find Wikijan2016's edit summaries, and remarks above, to be somewhat chilling in nature.
I note that to date Wikijan2016 has not posted on the talk page.
In addition to any administrative actions that may be required, it would be useful to have comments on the reliability of the Sarawak Report as a source for us. Personally I rate it reliable in this case. Hunc (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I propose to sit this out for a bit and await other people's comments. However I would point out that the material under dispute, together with the associated use of the Sarawak Report as a source was not mine but originally drafted by another editor. I am just the latest to get involved. Also, for what its worth I am not aware of breaching 3RR.Daithidebarra (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Result: The filer is warned not to make statements that could appear to be legal threats: "the applicable processes will be taken with wikipedia to ensure wikipedia is not misused to promote incorrect information". There was no 3RR violation by Daithidibarra. Since the filer, Wikijan2016, does 'exhibit a singularity of purpose' and has no edits outside this topic it's possible that a posting at WP:COIN would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Zoupan reported by User:Crovata (Result: both sanctioned)
Page: Tribes of Old Montenegro, Brda, Old Herzegovina and Primorje ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zoupan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [19]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]
Comments:Editor Zoupan continues to remove sourced and related information to the article's section now titled "Ethnic origin", renaming it "Anthropology", with sub-section named "Vlachs", which by article style and correctness is wrong. Also previously by his will renamed the article title, ignoring the discussion (as well the one previously held). As seen the talk page, he has a specific personal POV which affects his neutrality in editing (denies ethnic origin of the Vlachs, or twists the terms making them specifically the focus and not the tribes). I started the discussion to see his arguments, but think he did not bring one valid for the removal of sourced and related information. He calls upon NPOV, yet there's no such rule to call for. The discussion was not over, there's no intention from his side to correctly (neutrally) accept the scholarship viewpoint, and continued to revert by his will and "arguments", resulting in edit-war from both sides.--Crovata (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Goes both ways. BRD failed. Crovata synthesizes subsets of anthropological studies and unconnected biological studies to push his POV, that all tribes are ethnically Vlach (which is what I am "denying"). The subject is not "ethnic origin of the Vlachs" (which has become the focus "thanks" to the user). This is in line with Croatian nationalist scholarship of depreciating Serb ethnogenesis, which the user also maintains on other articles. By placing a section named "ethnic origin" at the top of the article (which is not about an ethnic group), adding one-sided arguments, the user has made it clear that he follows these views. By origin, it is meant to comment on the origin of the social/geo-political units, overall, not of individual tribes, nor "genetic origin" of the modern population. He has transformed the article into an ethnic battleground, far away from WP:NPOV. If I was to follow his example, the article would only get infinite and farther away from the subject (which the user neglects). I kindly ask users to read the comments at the talk page.--Zoupan 19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Typical Straw man - twists and puts his words in my mouth and mind to direct the issue to editor and Croatian nationalism with which the topic has nothing to do. What he talks about can be read at Vlachs of Croatia#Legacy. His "denying" is viewpoint mainly held by Serbian scholarship (but still not all Serbian scholars), influenced by historical-cultural-political ideologies among South Slavs. The topic is discussed by international scholars and our job as editors is to cite them without personal interference of some "denying". Again, every group of people, including a tribe, makes a group with specific ethnic identity. The user "denies" this by twisting the meaning of the word "origin" to only "social/geo-political". This is already argued in "Organization" and "Culture", and needs to be further. The article is not "ethnic battleground", the topic is controversial in the Balkan due to Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Montenegro, but that is not an argument for censorship, and discriminatory viewpoint towards notable scholars sources and studies which are mutually connected as talk about the origin of the Montenegrin people from both historiographical (cultural) and paleo-anthropological-genetical (biological) standpoint.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Both editors sanctioned due to repeated edit warring within an ACDS area. --slakr\ talk / 04:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:87.254.64.8 reported by User:Olowe2011 (Result: Withdrawn)
- Page
- Samsung Galaxy S7 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 87.254.64.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718457886 by Olowe2011 (talk) Editor is unaware how templates work; yet still feels justified in reverting others work. DO NOT REVERT UNTIL YOU HAVE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT ARTICLE."
- Consecutive edits made from 16:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC) to 16:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- 16:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718455940 by Olowe2011 (talk)"
- 16:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718456140 by 87.254.64.8 (talk)"
- 16:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718456170 by 87.254.64.8 (talk)"
- 16:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718455680 by Olowe2011 (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Samsung Galaxy S7. (TW)"
- 16:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Samsung Galaxy S7. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
-
- comment Hello, I would like to revoke my report for this user after I have just noted that their edits are most likely made in WP:GOODFAITH. The issue is that when the user implemented a certain code to restructure the infobox he ended up shifting the infobox title to just above the articles description which of course does not conform to WP:MOS. I am going to revert my own warnings and recommend that the editor pays closer attention with regards to the results of his edits and hopefully get him to fix the infobox title position. Thanks. Olowe2011 Talk 23:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Result: No action. Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Rachman227 reported by User:Crisco 1492 (Result: Blocked)
Pages:
Indonesia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jakarta ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Malay race ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rachman227 (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:
- Indonesia
- diff (need to be an admin to see the diff)
- diff (need to be an admin to see the diff)
- diff (need to be an admin to see the diff)
- diff (different day)
- Jakarta
- diff
- diff (different day, reinserting an image added with this edit and removed by this edit)
- diff
- Malay race
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff for Malay race; since then he has stopped on that page, but his tendencies on other pages have continued.
Comments:
Recently registered user has been edit warring over three different articles. He's been careful to avoid violating the 3RR, at most hitting 3RR in a day. However, attempts to discuss things with him have been ineffective. He has thrice removed warnings from his talk page, left by three different editors (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3); once he left some minor comments before removing the comments, but the other two times the warnings have been removed without comment. Based on some of the edit summaries ("Yes, all due respect, Indonesia and Jakarta wikipedia pages are ours (Indonesia), for all people. Not yours" and "1. Who are you may I ask? 2. I bet you're not even Indonesian 3. We Indonesians are not spamming. 4. If you just going to delete all images and people's work, you're vandalizing") I'm concerned that the editor is showing nationalistic WP:OWN tendencies, which makes the situation a bit more contentious. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Crisco 1492, thanks for reporting me. Yes I'm new to Wikipedia and you are so much longer staying here, but I'm just trying to be a good contributor in Wikipedia. If you don't like me, don't threat me like a 10 years old child. Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, Wikipedia:WikiBullying, Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:Don't be obnoxious. Your talk contributions have been added to my Archive page, User_talk:Rachman227/archive, because I just learned how to do so. See Personal talk page cleanup; moved to talk/archive. I'm not deleting your comments, since everything in Wikipedia is archived cannot be deleted. And remember Crisco, if Wikipedia really are your life, then okay, but I have other things to be cared about other than Wikipedia. I don't have time for your hatred towards me for no reason. Rachman227 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Attempting to communicate with you and try to build a consensus regarding the use of images is not a personal attack, nor is it bullying (accusing one of not having a life outside Wikipedia, meanwhile...). Likewise, leaving a polite message that your behaviour is liable to get you blocked is not "obnoxious". You are new, and people recognise that you are unfamiliar with the policies of Wikipedia (no matter how much you like linking to them). We are trying to educate you. And yes, part of education is letting you know that there are punishments for digressions.
- As you state, your talk page archive was created after the most recent warning. That does not change the fact that you have not replied to the concerns brought up at your talk page. Adding too many images is problematic. Adding images which are copyright violations (though nobody has brought these up yet) is problematic. Calling edits which aren't vandalism "vandalism" is problematic. Edit warring is very problematic. WP:OWN-ish behaviour is likewise very problematic. An unwillingness to discuss concerns regarding your behaviour is extremely problematic. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – 48 hours for disruptive editing. Reminding you of well-established Wikipedia policy should not be described (above) as 'hatred towards me for no reason.' Asking you to seek consensus is not abuse. Your changes over the last seven days have been reverted by many different people but you continue anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Listofpeople reported by User:79.177.137.186 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Circassians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Listofpeople (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: preferred, link permitted
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30] and [31]
Comments:
Here I copy the message that I wrote to an administrator about this issue:
"Today, it's been the most surprising day to me on Wikipedia. Recently, I have been editing the page Circassians with valuable contributions. I rescued many dead links, fixed typo, grammar, styling, and did a clean-up in general.
This was my final version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=prev&oldid=718577605
and I insist that this is the best form that page ever was in.
However, suddenly an IP and then another user came and reverted all my edits, so all those saved links with web.archive pages and others are gone. All the sources are gone. When it was first reverted by an IP, I didn't mind, but when a rollbacker did that, I was more than shocked.
Moreover, I did not remove serious information from anywhere in the article at all. All I did, at best, was moving some paragraphs. For instance, I moved a sentence about religion in the introduction to the religion section, and removed the template "Islam|Related topics". ??? What does that template have to do with that article? And right below the infobox? Also, I noticed that some information about the population estimates were either unsourced or sourced with a link that directs to an inactive webpage. That's why I found many sources as much as I can, and I was going to keep doing that. For any of the changes I made, I am ready to elaborate why I did. There's nothing to hide on my side.
I would really appreciate if you could take your time to review my edits which are "super clean". Please tell me if you find any one of them that looks like vandalism to you. I was accused of being so by a IP user, and more surprisingly, by someone who has a anti-vandalism badge on his user page. This is ridiculous. I believe there is a serious mistake, and the worst thing is that I felt really bad because I didn't know who to talk to and where to write. I see that you are an administrator. I want my edits to be reviewed by an administrator so that I can keep contributing with valuable sources on that page and others. It was extremely disappointing to see such warnings on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Listofpeople
Regards," Listofpeople (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Please, just a wise person come here and tell which one of the versions are better:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=718578336&oldid=718577605 (Here's the comparison between my final edit and the version of the user that reverted all my edits. Because of that reversion, the page is now full of sources with dead links that directs nowhere, external links of websites that were closed years ago and even some false information. I am not even mentioning the grammar mistakes, typos, and other styling issues again.)
I request the undoing of this revision back to my final edit.
I can't believe that an IP reports me without any logical reason, and without questioning and having an idea about the ethnic group at the stake, a rollbacker reverts all my valuable edits. There's nothing to be modest about this issue. I am very confident with my edits, and I accept any kind of investigation about my edits. Please an administrator review all my edits and tell me if I did anything that looks destructive.
Thank you in advanced.Listofpeople (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Listofpeople is continuing his disruptive edits, same article, this time against another Wikipedia editor: link. 79.177.137.186 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me? David.moreno72 reverted my edit just because of your misleading and unjust report. That's the surprising one, because without reviewing my contributions to that page throughly, David.moreno72 reverted it without any explanation, thinking that what I did was wrong while it's the opposite. I am afraid the one that should be reported is you in the first place. I hope David.moreno72 undos his [this action, revert it back to my final revision.
- I am the one who was wronged, and this should be compensated. I repeat that I kindly request an objective user/administrator to review all my contributions. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&type=revision&diff=718577605&oldid=718576629 Here's the link again. I can also make the comparison here one by one. Needless to say, anyone would agree with me as everything is quite obvious.Listofpeople (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Listofpeople is continuing his disruptive edits, same article, this time against another Wikipedia editor: link. 79.177.137.186 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Blocked – 24 hours. It's not enough to be well-intentioned, you also need to listen to the other editors and try to reach agreement. You have never posted to the article talk page. Your edit summaries about 'blatant vandalism' are not correct; it's just a content dispute in which you are not listening. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Tbacon143 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Superdelegate ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Tbacon143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718633003 by Dbrodbeck (talk)"
- 16:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC) ""
- 11:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC) ""
- 10:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC) ""
- 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC) "Re-inserted paraphrase from democratic chairwoman. Clearly non pic."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "/* May 2016 */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 11:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent changes to the lede */ it really still does not belong, especially in the lede"
- 17:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent changes to the lede */ please don't edit war"
- Comments:
I have discussed with this editor on the talk page, explaining a couple of policy based reasons for excluding this edit, but he/she continues to edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- And see below, now there seems to be a tit for tat thing going on. I have not exceeded 3rr. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
[[User:]] reported by User:Tbacon143 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|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]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQLQuery me! 22:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: page protected)
Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ракал (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Breaking 1RR:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Jabal al-Shaer - al-Shaer gas-field & User talk:Ракал#Sources
Comments:User:Ракал violates the rules for editing. He edits based on unreliable sources:
- [33] used map as the source for edit
- [34] source not provide for changes
- [35] edit without source on basis of his own judgment
- [36] add object without source on basis of his own judgment
- [37] edit on based not the crediable sources
User:Ракал was recently blocked for violation of the rules of editing. But this user not want observe the rules of editing and almost all of its changes are not justified and violated the rules for editing. He provokes war of edits and conflicts between editors. As said User:Ermanarich and User:Tradedia said him that need follow the rules and not do unjustifed editings but his ignored all appeals. Actions of this editor do great harm to the article, and this must be stopped. Also must be punished new editor User:Լրագրող because he violated 1RR when try fix unjustifed changes of User:Ракал SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Ракал Intentionally commits the unlawful acts and violates the rules of editing. This editor is not able to give benefit for articles in Wikipedia only harm. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- New unjustifed edits from User:Ракал:
- User:Ракал not want follow the rules and he must be punished. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place. After a 3 day block for edit warring (that expired 2 days ago), this user found nothing better than to edit war some more on the module, breaking 1RR. As a background, it should be said that all of this user's edits are POV pushing (on maps) in favor of a specific group (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). This user has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The block a few days ago did not seem to affect his behavior at all. Maybe he is a sock made just for edit warring... In any case, he doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia... Tradediatalk 20:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- -slakr Protect pag-It is not the solution of the probmlem, because when the defense will be charged User:Ракал will again continue violate the rules for editing. As said Tradedia that all of this user's edits are POV pushing (on maps) in favor of a specific group (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). This user has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The block a few days ago did not seem to affect his behavior at all. Maybe he is a sock made just for edit warring. In any case, he doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. So User:Ракал must be punished for vandalism, deliberate violation of the rules of editing, unjustified editing and he also several times provoked the war of edits. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- -slakr I ask you put ban of User:Ракал for edit all articles about Syrian Civil War. It will be the best solution. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Page
- Ray of Light ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Navyiconer (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 19:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC) to 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 19:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718640035 by Homeostasis07 (talk)"
- 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Commercial performance */ you can't find source for 25 million because doesn't exist. and i added 11 source for 20 million. face it. this is the fact"
- 17:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718630439 by IndianBio (talk) stop TW there is countless source for 20 million"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Madonna albums discography. (TW)"
- 19:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on List of best-selling albums. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Inspite of explaining countless times of long-standing consensus about the album's sales in the talk page, the user goes on reverting and deleting all warnings. Coupled with NPA and battleground mentality. —IB [ Poke ] 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
He thinks himself the owner of Wikipedia. If you research you can see. What does he wants on these pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_albums_discography and all Madonna articles. But I can't do. He blockes me all the time. I'm not doing wrong anything. I don't break the rules. Please research. Ray of Light's sales standing on Madonna albums discography for 2-3 years. But he changing now. why? beacuse he just want? please block him. He is very harmful for wikipedia —Navyiconer (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQLQuery me! 22:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:2600:8800:FF04:C00:E53C:D908:2301:35CB reported by User:Baking Soda (Result:Blocked 24h)
- Page
- Portal:Current events/2016 May 4 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2600:8800:FF04:C00:E53C:D908:2301:35CB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 11:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC) ".(((WP:BLOCK EVASION edits removed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive)))"
- Consecutive edits made from 10:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC) to 10:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- 10:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718742976 by Baking Soda (talk)right - and again not in evidence from citation"
- 10:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718745747 by 2600:8800:FF04:C00:E53C:D908:2301:35CB (talk)actually i have a better one"
- 10:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC) ".(((WP:BLOCK EVASION edits removed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive)))"
- 09:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC) "not in evidence of citations"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 11:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Portal:Current events/2016 May 4 . (TW)"
- 12:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Portal:Current events/2016 May 5. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Removing cited information, across many pages. Accusing me and many other editors being socks, please see user contributions. cc: @Shhhhwwww!!: Baking Soda (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:ThatPerson903 reported by User:LL212W (Result: Declined – malformed report)
- Page
- Splashh ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- ThatPerson903 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: Sock puppet indeffed)
Page: Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Breaking 1RR:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:User talk:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim#Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map
Comments:User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim not provide sources for edits only provide his comments:
User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim So can said that all of this user's edits are POV pushing (on maps) in favor of a specific group (Kurdistan Regional Government). But no one can't impunity break rules. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim still do revert and broke 3RR:
and here the some new unjustifed edits without source:
User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim must be blocked or put ban for edit of all articles about Iraqi war. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim as a Confirmed sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:58.147.172.251 reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page: List of Bangladeshi television and radio channels ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.147.172.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
IP user repeatedly adds unsourced and speculative "Upcoming television stations" section to list.
Previous version reverted to: [41]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]
Materialscientist, Mcmatter, and I have all tried to educate and engage the IP editor on their talk page about these additions of unsourced speculation and similar edits to related pages List of television stations in Bangladesh and List of Bengali TV channels, all to no avail: [52]
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Subtropical-man reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Warnings)
Page: Multiple templates
User being reported: Subtropical-man (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:
etc...
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]
Comments: Obvious resumption of "agenda-driven reverts at multiple templates". I noted it is not his place to decide what is necessary for a template, and in one light this is authoritarian behavior. Also left a nonsensical message on my user page that made no attempt to address the questions I raised. He is also continuing to strut about my contribution history and revert even after posting on his talk page. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- User:CaradhrasAiguo, you are a very inexperienced user (~500 edits in Wikipedia), your application do not meet the standards and principles of the WP:AN/3RR. I one revert at page is not edit warring. Your diffs show one revert in Template:Cincinnati_weatherbox, one revert in Template:Columbus_weatherbox, one revert in Template:Olympia,_Washington_weatherbox and one revert in Template:Seattle_weatherbox and this is not four reverts in one page. Your application is joke or incompetence.
- CaradhrasAiguo, bold edit in one to few articles are ok but you doing mass changes in dozens of templates, without any consultation with other users. Per Wikipedia:CYCLE - if you want add more informations (after reverts by other user/s), must to be discuss and consensus first. Before User:Politoed89 reverted your changes (for example [58][59] and many other), you reverted User:Politoed89's edits and continued own changes. So.
- I tried to argue with you, but you behaved like a troll [60]. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)- Who's reverting two users (me and Koopatrev) now? CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- So? [61] You understand the rules of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Please read Wikipedia:Competence is required. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- So? [61] You understand the rules of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Please read Wikipedia:Competence is required. Subtropical-man talk
- Who's reverting two users (me and Koopatrev) now? CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Warnings. There is no violation of 3RR here, though an edit war may be starting. It looks like the filer, User:CaradhrasAiguo, wants to stuff more numbers into each weather template, increasing the size by as much as 50%: for example, from 4,000 bytes up to 6,000 bytes. Both parties are advised to get consensus at a central place, for example Template talk:Weather box or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology. See the advice in WP:Dispute resolution if the two of you can't find agreement. Blocks are possible If reverts continue without a proper effort at finding consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:185.97.214.100 reported by User:Qpalzmmzlapq (Result: Both blocked, semi-protected)
- Page
- Popcorn Time ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 185.97.214.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718826235 by Fcxxhlla (talk)"
- 21:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718825328 by Fcxxhlla (talk)"
- 21:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC) "Please Cite your references , all references is saying .sh is the replacement of the .io"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Popcorn Time. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Nobody has gone to the talk page. —Qpalzmmzlapq T C 21:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comments:
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours "Both" meaning the IP and Fcxxhlla, not the reporter. The page is also semi-protected for 3 weeks so that warring won't continue after the block lifts, since both editors are not confirmed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Optimus edit reported by User:Terrorist96 (Result: )
Page: Gun laws in Minnesota ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Optimus edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [62]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]
Comments: Have tried to inform user that his edit is incorrect. The law in Minnesota allows for open carry of long guns if you possess a pistol permit. He has refused to engage and only reverts edits.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)