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:TRUEV140 reported by User:Essex-1799 (Result: Both indeffed for sockpuppetry)
- 2 User:Coneleir reported by User:Mehmedsons (Result: Blocked)
- 3 User:187.189.240.192 reported by User:82.5.252.160 (Result: Blocked)
- 4 User:Johorean Guy reported by User:Semi-auto (Result: protected)
- 5 User:Johnvr4 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )
- 6 User:47.201.179.7 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Page protected)
- 7 User:Apeanof reported by User:Noq (Result: Stale)
- 8 User:Hyperforin reported by User:Jytdog (Result: protected)
- 9 User:Hydloc009 reported by User:AKS.9955 (Result: Protected 48 hours)
- 10 User:SWF88 reported by User:Parsley Man (Result: 31h)
- 11 User:Homunculus 2 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)
- 12 User:HeheDNCE reported by User:IndianBio (Result: 31h)
- 13 User: 198.30.10.254 reported by User:BlaccCrab (Result: 3 years)
- 14 User:67.11.0.43 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: 1 month)
- 15 User:Pointer22 reported by User:Primefac (Result: 24 hours)
- 16 User:Bulldog123 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24 hours)
- 17 User:Mztourist reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Both warned)
- 18 User:Happydaise reported by User:Bradv (Result: Blocked)
- 19 User:Pbfreespace3 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked)
- 20 User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )
- 21 User:John reported by User:IgnorantArmies (Result: )
User:TRUEV140 reported by User:Essex-1799 (Result: Both indeffed for sockpuppetry)
Page: Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TRUEV140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Last best known revision
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1], [2], [3] (Not exactly edit war warning, but for deliberate inclusion of factual errors)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, diff (user did not participated)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: diff, diff, diff (user did not participated)
Comments:
User is again edit warring after the expiration of his recent block. The user is a "large scale" IP hopper, one of his frequently used IP was blocked recently along with his original a/c, which apparently again started edit war in other pages. See this report to get a better understanding. For edit warring, the user alternatively uses his original a/c and his IPs. Last time he used his IP, hence this time its his original a/c. User is trying to re-add some long-disputed content, to leave no stone unturned it is further manipulated in the maximum possible way through his own extra additions and alterations. The user is not willing to participate in any of the discussions initiated in the article talk or in his own talk page, which I tried 3 times. I am pretty sure that the user very well knows what he is doing is deliberate inclusion of problematic content, hence he has nothing to discuss about it (other than bluffing in edit summary). So his only option to establish the content is through edit war. This is not the only page he is doing this. As far as observed, the account is created only to promote his favorite actor Mammootty and his films, by adding puffery and other claims in favor of his star. If anyone questions his activities, he don't care. --Essex-1799 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
reported user here! I have given explanation for each of the edits. Essex-1799 is actually edit warring which can be checked in : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film) The Essex-1799 is removing sources, which are valid and correctly explained, so I am restoring these valid sources and informations . In this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film)#Box_office - Firstly the user is telling Times Of India report(http://m.timesofindia.com/others/news-interviews/Hariharan-MT-Vasudevan-prepare-for-Randamoozham/articleshow/9807050.cms) is invalid without any proofs. Secondly the user is providing producer's box office claim(http://movies.ndtv.com/regional/pazhassi-raja-to-be-shown-at-tokyo-film-festival-52284%7Ctitle=Pazhassi Raja to be shown at Tokyo Film Festival), which can not be actually placed as source according to wikipedia rules WP:V. Admin Cyphoidbomb has explained rightly about this thing in talk page of the article Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film) . After this explanation also, the user Essex-1799 has started giving invalid reasons against admin's explanation and started removing valid sources and restoring back invalid sources. The user is also removing sources from other pages also without any valid reasons...TRUEV140 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
To administrators, for knowing this issue correctly, visit the talk page of this user and the article talk.--Essex-1799 (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Administrator note: - TRUEV140 has cited IndiaGlitz, a site that is not considered reliable per WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Onlookersmedia is a blog formed by a few nobodies who met on Facebook, so it shouldn't be used as a source as it fails WP:UGC. TRUEV140 incorporated an International Business Times (IBT) reference that cites Onlookers as the source of some information, so TRUEV140 is using an inappropriate reference by proxy. I think that TRUEV should have left the status quo alone and gone directly to the talk page immediately upon being reverted, rather than participating in this edit war that appears to have gone on since October. I've been just too busy with other stuff to notice this going on. Both editors haven't behaved at their best. I do note that at least Essex opened a discussion circa 8 November, where TRUEV140 didn't respond until 26 November. I will also note that at Indian cinema/actor/TV articles in general there is a significant problem with paid editing rings who sweep through articles puffing them up with arbitrary records, so I can understand Essex's sensitivity to puffery. I note that some of the content submitted by TRUEV140 included subjective ideas like "The film was successful at both Malayalam and Tamil versions.[38] The film was successful at Kerala,Tamil Nadu,Mumbai,Delhi,UAE and USA[39][40][41][42][43]" I haven't scoured through these, but this is one reference that is attributing the claim of success in the Indian state of Kerala to the film's director, which I would argue violates WP:PRIMARY. So there might very well be fundamentally flawed information and sourcing going on here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Essex-1799 is simply edit warring with TRUEV140 with invalid reasons...OneFourZero (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note that, user OneFourZero is a possible sock account. He is doing exactly what the other user is doing.--Essex-1799 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Administrator note: I would tend to agree. Essex-1799, don't war with the new account. leave things alone for a little bit, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- I would also like to encourage any reviewing admin to hold off on sanctioning Essex for the time being, please. Some of the IPs used by TRUEV140 have generated some disruptive content, like this one who kept adding hyperbolic statements about films being "highly successful" or in this case describing a film as a "disappointing failure". I feel very strongly that I've dealt with this person a number of times, and there's a strong possibility they are evading another block and are already de facto banned. In which case, Essex would be protected from 3RR per WP:REVERTBAN. An SPI case is pending CU. What is clear, is that this user has, while logged out, been warned numerous times about promotional tone and introducing subjective content about film success. Here's a warning from FoCuSandLeArN about this very thing. And Materialscientist warned this IP for unsourced content, though it was in fact for this edit, which introduces the hyperbolic description of a film as a "super hit". Admins should also check this report. The IPs mentioned above all geolocate to Thiruvananthapuram, in the Indian state of Kerala, on ISP Asianet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, Much to my chagrin, Editor Essex-1799 was determined by Bbb23 to be a sock of Inside the Valley. The progression of events went: I opened an SPI case against OneFourZero and asked for CU to compare the account to TRUEV140. That actually turned out to be a dud, but since I was also suspicious that OneFourZero had been created as a decoy, I asked Bbb23 if Essex could have created it themselves to throw off the edit-warring case. During B's investigation he uncovered a "can of worms" and as detailed here that sweeped up a few accounts including Essex, Charles Turing and Inside the Valley. I'm at least shocked about Charles Turing, who was developing as a very strong, communicative editor. However, I still think that TRUEV140 has dirty hands, considering the months-long campaign to assert his preferred version of articles despite community-approved sources, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Administrator note: Both accounts have been indeffed for sockpuppetry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Coneleir reported by User:Mehmedsons (Result: Blocked)
Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Coneleir (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: [link]
- 04:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- 12:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- 15:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- 15:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- 15:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- 19:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
- 08:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- 19:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- User talk:Coneleir#Xeber24
- User talk:Coneleir#Al Bab advance
Comments:
This is my first complaint so do not judge strictly. But I ask experienced participants to do something in this situation. Mehmedsons (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yor are must take action! No one to should violate a rules. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours. See my notice to Coneleir. I was hoping they would respond before it was time to close this but they haven't been active. I'm going ahead with a block for the 1RR violation because they were previously warned about this at ANI, back in October. They had a chance to respond then but did not do so. See their talk page. Various people have left them five different warnings about the Syrian war map, to which they don't respond. According to the ANI complaint, the problem is not just edit warring but making unsourced changes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
User:187.189.240.192 reported by User:82.5.252.160 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Arrival (film) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 187.189.240.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
I think this is also the same user: 2600:100F:B00C:7725:9417:9BDF:BE8A:BA4A
Unfortunately the user above is right that user can post from other locations and is now using 2600:100F:B02C:8AB7:205A:B1CE:938F:354 User:IanB2 29 November 2016
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: <br /
User (blocked once before for similar) delights in introducing tiny mistakes into an active page and then reverting or reintroducing it each time it is corrected. On the Arrival film page this has been going on for several days with various users restoring the earlier version until giving up due to 3RR. I have revised the paragraph concerned to close off the apostrophe dispute he has been waging just recently, but am reasonably confident he will resume somewhere else; his entire edit history consists of similar.
- Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- A good outcome. Unfortunately the user above is right that user can post from other locations and is now using 2600:100F:B02C:8AB7:205A:B1CE:938F:354 User:IanB2 29 November 2016
User:Johorean Guy reported by User:Semi-auto (Result: protected)
Page: Johor Bahru
User being reported: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [4]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
According to 2010 census, Iskandar Malaysia conurbation, including Johor Bahru, is the third largest metropolitan area in Malaysia. User:Johorean Guy has posted misinformation claiming that Iskandar Malaysia is the second largest metropolitan area without any substantial evidence. In fact, he posted some crude, ridiculous explanation on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Semi-auto.
Translation: Helo Penangite, Penang has fallen behind... So do not feel paranoid... haha :) Ikea, Paradigm Mall & Southkey Megamall are about to open in JB. JB's highways are also longer than Penang.. JB's built-up area is larger than Penang.. High-speed rail is also about to be opened in Iskandar.. About 60 elevated highways are under construction.. Penang's era is over.. Stop vandalising the Johor page or I will report your Wikipedia account.
Semi-auto (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Johnvr4 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )
Page: Chemtrail conspiracy theory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnvr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- diff 1st introduction, 18:19, 21 November 2016
- diff, restored after reversion 18:43, 21 November 2016
- diff 21:12, 21 November 2016
- diff 16:16, 28 November 2016
Separately there is another bit of edit warring on a different piece of content
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see talk section started by Johnvr4:
- Faulty reasoning for reversion of edits
- Origin of conspiracy theory and relationship to historical covert CBW testing (added by JohnVR4)
- User_talk:Alexbrn#Reversion_Comment (added by JohnVR4)
- ANI Noticeboard Reversion Comment (added by JohnVR4
Comments:
Johnvr4 has been fixated on this topic for a long time (see contribs) and has returned after a long break. For some reason is demanding that the article state that there were no books on this topic as as of 2003 or so - waging a slow edit war to put that in and bludgeoning the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- The other involved editors have been "fixated" on that page even longer. User:jytdog asked me to take a break from editing that page, to regroup and come back. He also helped me develop the material I've inserted. "Demanding" inclusion is a misrepresentation as the stated reasons for these edits are available on the talk page while
the actuallegitimate reasons for reverting are not. The edits have been discussed extensively on the article talk page as was consensus and editor participation in the discussion and the merit of concerns. I feel this is going to be a npov noticeboard issue. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)- Johnvr, we have provided reasons; you are not hearing them. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- The concerns were expressed by you and other editors who were utterly unable to support or explain their concern on the talk page. You also included reliably sourced Diffs above that I reinserted because they were removed with mistaken and utterly absurd obstructionist reasoning such as wp:v or wp:or Johnvr4 (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I just noticed that you've also included diffs of improvements to citations of the very sources that involved editors admittedly didn't read and that they fought me over repeatedly because they didn't read it and then refused to listen when I explained they did not read it. That is how this problem started. This is pretty pathetic and I pray that uninvolved editors understand it for what it is. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Johnvr, we have provided reasons; you are not hearing them. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
User:47.201.179.7 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Page protected)
Page: Polio vaccine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.201.179.7 (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: [14]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]
Comments:
And another revert [16]. They even reverted the formating on the reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Page protected Semi-protected for 3 days. I think the IP is dynamic so a block might not do anything, and it's now stale anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Apeanof reported by User:Noq (Result: Stale)
- Page
- Bilderberg Group ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Apeanof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC) ""
- 20:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC) ""
- 19:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC) ""
- 18:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC) ""
- 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bilderberg Group. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeating same comment despite multiple warnings from multiple editors noq (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- And continuing to revert after being notified of this discussion.[17] Doug Weller talk 12:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Stale A block would have been justifiable 12 hours ago but he's stopped now. If he starts up again, ping me and I'll look into it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: They just did it again [18] Fyddlestix (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Hyperforin reported by User:Jytdog (Result: protected)
Page: Performance-enhancing substance ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hyperforin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- diff 05:17, 29 November 2016
- diff 05:36, 29 November 2016
- diff 05:41, 29 November 2016
- diff 06:15, 29 November 2016
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; previously warned on 16th twice dif and dif.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section
Comments:
Note block log stemming from ANI Nov 18 and ANI Nov 24 and these comments on my Talk page: diff, diff. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what the hell this is about because the three reverts were mainly for varying and evolving content. Jytdog is a masterful selective displayer of edit history to make others look bad when they are trying to do the right thing. Although he linked to the Talk page, he completely failed to discuss the disputed statements on the Talk page. Moreover, he is a hypocritical user who asks others to use only recent Pubmed indexed recent sources, whereas he himself used substantially older non-Pubmed indexed sources. He has a documented conflict of interest with regard to neurological drugs, one which shows clearly to me in his edits for the noted article. --Hyperforin (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- My COI is clearly defined here. Adaptogens are not relevant to acute neurological injury as far as I can tell. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I can't say I believe the declared limits of your COI, although this is a disagreement which we won't resolve today. It's also terribly easy for a COI to bleed into closely related concerns. --Hyperforin (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- My COI is clearly defined here. Adaptogens are not relevant to acute neurological injury as far as I can tell. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Hydloc009 reported by User:AKS.9955 (Result: Protected 48 hours)
- Page
- Indian paisa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Hydloc009 (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:
User has engaged in 3RR with multiple users. Notice was posted on his talkpage, which he has deleted. Refuses to listen. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not going to block here because I had a minor dispute with Hydloc009; but this user is being rather disruptive at the moment. They have been advised not to engage in further reverts several times, by several more experienced users, but choose to ignore the warnings or to defend their position. Vanamonde (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- User continues with disruptive editing. Despite me leaving him several messages and warnings, this user again indulged in disruptive editing. I started a discussion on WikiProject Numismatics talkpage here to get a feedback from experienced Numismatics users and am awaiting outcome. User Hydloc009 does not listen to anyone, is pushing his POV, engaging in 3RR, I suspect he is sock of another account (which was blocked and I have opened a SPI also) and is causing lots of problems for other users. Kindly block this user asap. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- If some body checks edit history of Indian paisa, I've constantly mentioned "do not use wrong infobox, this article is about Paisa, please move the pie and anna tables to Coins of the Indian rupee". I hope that's clear that I'm improving the article. How does one even think I'm vandalizing? Pie and Anna can be in the Coins of the Indian rupee article (which has all pie/anna/paisa/rupee coins). But when if comes to Indian paisa article, this article is about paisa only, so it must have information/tables about paisa. Content of the article must go with the title/subject of the article. I've also sent a message to User:AKS.9955 's talk page (1, 2), but the user doesn't seem to understand. I've also mentioned not to use "Infobox coin" in Indian paisa as the article is about a subunit of a currency, the article is not about a coin denomination, User:AKS.9955 keeps reading the wrong infobox even after I've sent him messages on this talk page. Hope it's understandable here. Hydloc009 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hydloc009. Firstly, the article is still under construction and had in-use and under-construction tags which you removed blatantly (despite me telling you several times not to). Infobox; as I stated above, I have opened a discussion on WikiProject Numismatics talkpage. You need to wait for the outcome. Thirdly, it is important to highlight the transition from pie -> pice -> anna -> naya paisa -> paisa and hence the details. Lastly, yes you are vandalizing the page by changing key information like "aluminium series" (which was defined by Reserve Bank of India) and other such subject headers; you just want to push your POV. STOP THE DISRUPTIVE EDITING; wait for the article to get over and the Numismatics group to reach to consensus. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- @AKS.9955: I understand that "it is important to highlight the transition from pie -> pice -> anna -> naya paisa -> paisa" = which you must do it in the Coins of the Indian rupee article. The Indian paisa article is paisa coins only. Second under construction template cannot remain for days. Thirdly, after posting a message on talk page or any where please use 4 tilds to sign. Hydloc009 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- As I mentioned before,
{{Infobox coin}}
is for coin articles, not for unit of currency articles. Indian paisa is an article about subunit of a currency. Do not add{{Infobox coin}}
to Indian paisa. Hydloc009 (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)-
- @Hydloc009:, are you mad or something? Did you not read anything I have written? Let me (for the last time tell you)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The page is under construction and hence you should wait till the article is finished.
- Infobox discussion has been opened on the relevant WikiPorject talk-page. Stop jumping to your own conclusions.
- You are vandalizing the page by changing the terms defined by RBI and adding your own interpretation of the series.
- You are blatantly engaging in WP:3RR with multiple users; despite several warnings and messages.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @AKS.9955:, under construction templates cannot be on the page for days,
{{Infobox coin}}
is for coin articles and not currency unit articles, Do check what you're editing. And for your information I have not been in any edit war with any user. Also the RBI website does not have the complete list of coins on RBI website, let's look into other sources for the complete series list of the Indian paisa. Thanks. Hydloc009 (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- @AKS.9955:, under construction templates cannot be on the page for days,
-
-
-
-
-
Page protected for 48 hours. Please use the talk page and/or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute, not edit warring. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hello Reaper Eternal, the reported user has been blocked indefinitely for SPI. He was the one who engaged in 3RR with multiple users (please check his talkpage history). The article in discussion was under-construction when he started disruptive editing. Can you please unprotect the page or mark it for WP:SEMI? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:SWF88 reported by User:Parsley Man (Result: 31h)
Page: 2016 Ohio State University attack ( | 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: [19]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]
Comments:
In my attempt to have a talk page discussion, this is all the user had to say. Parsley Man (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Reported user comment: In the same talk page you can see that you're the only one having the issue adding it. you've even been called out for using the threat of ban as a debate method. SWF88 (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't the one who reverted you last time, so clearly at least one other person has issue with it. Also, read the rest of the talk page. There a number of other users who would be in opposition to this inclusion as well. Parsley Man (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- And another person who is clearly opposed to your contribution! Parsley Man (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- fine then, that's 2v2. We need a tie breaker. SWF88 (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I told you to read the rest of the talk page. There's definitely more people who would object. Parsley Man (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I just did. now my position holds a 3v2 lead. SWF88 (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Did you read this section? Parsley Man (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Either way, it doesn't matter. You reverted four times, which is a violation of WP:3RR. Therefore, this report is perfectly warranted and legitimate. Parsley Man (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- ironic, coming from a guy banned multiple times for revert warring. SWF88 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Which is how I knew when to stop and let others do the work for me when the whole affair got drawn out. Which you failed to do. Parsley Man (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- the concensus was against you, and still is btw. you made an unjustified removal. that's why i reverted. SWF88 (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're clearly not reading this section... Parsley Man (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- And what part of WP:3RR do you not understand? This attempt at deflection really isn't going to work... Parsley Man (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Parsley, your attitude is very provoking and you do very rarely attempt to sort things out in a civil tone. You leave messages at SW88s talk page about him having a "snippy attitude". If you had contacted him and used a civil tone there would be no issue here. Threatning another editor with a ban for simply a 3RR violation is excessive at best. I think that both Parsley and SW88 needs to stay away from each other, period. BabbaQ (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- You clearly did not read the diffs I provided. I stopped at my third revert and attempted to take the dispute to the talk page, but SWF88 made no attempt at a civil discussion and simply posted an incivil reply that was not contributory whatsoever. Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Parsley, your attitude is very provoking and you do very rarely attempt to sort things out in a civil tone. You leave messages at SW88s talk page about him having a "snippy attitude". If you had contacted him and used a civil tone there would be no issue here. Threatning another editor with a ban for simply a 3RR violation is excessive at best. I think that both Parsley and SW88 needs to stay away from each other, period. BabbaQ (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- the concensus was against you, and still is btw. you made an unjustified removal. that's why i reverted. SWF88 (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Which is how I knew when to stop and let others do the work for me when the whole affair got drawn out. Which you failed to do. Parsley Man (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- ironic, coming from a guy banned multiple times for revert warring. SWF88 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I just did. now my position holds a 3v2 lead. SWF88 (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I told you to read the rest of the talk page. There's definitely more people who would object. Parsley Man (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- fine then, that's 2v2. We need a tie breaker. SWF88 (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note that SWF88 is a new editor, he's been around only since last March and has ~700 edits. Note that the attacker at OSU, posted a message on Facebook indicating his sympathy for violent Islamist attacks yesterday morning, then phoned in a fake emergency which emptied a building, then drove into the crowd of people who had evacuated the building, then took out a knife and began stabbing people. New editors can have a hard time understanding why an attack like that can't be called Islamist. Parsley, who has a documentably WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude towards fellow editors who write about Islamist attacks, ought to have begun by engaging this new editor, explaining policy, and attempting to work this out. This sort of attack chase editors off the project; why put your time into editing in such a nasty environment? I do wonder to what extent this sort of attack on newish editors is merely part of an editor's style, and to what extent it is a targeted effort to chase an editors whose POV on an issue in uncongenial off the project. Whatever the motivation, Parsley should try harder to work with fellow editors. And try harder not to waste the time of dedicated editors trying to keep up with complaints on this board. This one truly looks as though a little patient courtesy could have ended with an amicable solution.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- And please note that @E.M.Gregory states as if they were fact an number of things which have yet to be determined or to be reported by any reliable source. No source has as yet confirmed that the attacker posted the Facebook message being investigated, and the Facebook post criticized American actions toward Muslims; it was not a obvious confession or declaration concerning the attacker's actions. No source has confirmed (and in fact several agencies now dispute) that the attacker "phoned in a fake emergency". And even if either of these had been established as facts, neither would permit the labelling of the incident as "Islamic terrorism", which is the effect of the edit SWF88 persistently asserts, until authorities have (any authority has) made that determination. So far, none of them have. General Ization Talk 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Whoa. I never said that such an assertion should have been put on the page. Only that one can understand why a newish user would think so. My assertion is that the proper response would have been to explain how we make this sort of decision to User:SWF88.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- No, actually, you stated those assertions as if they were facts that somehow supported the contentious edits. SWF88's Talk page and the Talk page of the article already bear evidence of attempts to explain our policies and procedures to an editor who is intent on ignoring them. General Ization Talk 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:General Ization i'd appreciate if you don't speak for me or for my intents. i don't intend to be a wiki maverick. SWF88 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't claim to be a mind reader. We can only judge editors' intent by their actions. In this case, your actions are what have led to the opening of this case. When editors follow or even appear to be trying to follow policy, they generally do not find their edits being discussed on this noticeboard. General Ization Talk 20:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- General Ization has every right to participate in this discussion, especially he's also made fruitful contributions to the article and has knowledge of the situation. And if you never intended to be a "wiki maverick", you should've heeded the very important rule of WP:3RR and discussed the disagreement with me and others on the talk page in a civil manner before you made any further edits. Parsley Man (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- never said he doesn't have the right to be involved in the discussion and you know it. you're just looking for a petty excuse to start a confrontation. also, take you own advice Palsey 'banned numerous times for edit war' Man and have a nice day. SWF88 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're the one who's being incivil and confrontational here. "i'd appreciate if you don't speak for me or for my intents." Really sounds like you're trying to lock him out of the discussion, or at least limit what he has to say. Parsley Man (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- we're done. go troll someone else SWF88 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a troll. You have five reverts under your belt, and this needs to be addressed. I of all people would know the importance of this. Parsley Man (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- we're done. go troll someone else SWF88 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're the one who's being incivil and confrontational here. "i'd appreciate if you don't speak for me or for my intents." Really sounds like you're trying to lock him out of the discussion, or at least limit what he has to say. Parsley Man (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- never said he doesn't have the right to be involved in the discussion and you know it. you're just looking for a petty excuse to start a confrontation. also, take you own advice Palsey 'banned numerous times for edit war' Man and have a nice day. SWF88 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please try to hear yourselves as others hear you, particularly as new editors hear you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Meaning what? This is a discussion of core Wikipedia policies and of repeated but so far unsuccessful efforts to convince an editor to follow them. My communications with you and with the editor have been civil, but to the point. What are you proposing? And by the way, there is only one of me. General Ization Talk 19:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, E.M., you're clearly trying to deflect here because of our longstanding issues. I did make an effort to discuss with SWF88 on his talk page and that of the Ohio attack, but he really did have a snippy attitude in response. Look at the diffs I provided. Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:General Ization i'd appreciate if you don't speak for me or for my intents. i don't intend to be a wiki maverick. SWF88 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, actually, you stated those assertions as if they were facts that somehow supported the contentious edits. SWF88's Talk page and the Talk page of the article already bear evidence of attempts to explain our policies and procedures to an editor who is intent on ignoring them. General Ization Talk 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- And please note that @E.M.Gregory states as if they were fact an number of things which have yet to be determined or to be reported by any reliable source. No source has as yet confirmed that the attacker posted the Facebook message being investigated, and the Facebook post criticized American actions toward Muslims; it was not a obvious confession or declaration concerning the attacker's actions. No source has confirmed (and in fact several agencies now dispute) that the attacker "phoned in a fake emergency". And even if either of these had been established as facts, neither would permit the labelling of the incident as "Islamic terrorism", which is the effect of the edit SWF88 persistently asserts, until authorities have (any authority has) made that determination. So far, none of them have. General Ization Talk 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — SWF88 (talk · contribs) clearly exceeded 3RR on this article. He was warned, continued, violated, was reported—was aware of the report and commented on it—and continued anyway. Also, calling someone a troll and shutting down doesn't help anyone. --slakr\ talk / 21:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Homunculus 2 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Richard B. Spencer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Homunculus 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "No YOU stop changing and discuss. No "common sense" except your opinion and leftist sources. Yes, PBS is leftist."
- 16:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 752118457 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
- 16:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "Do NOT link to leftist sources calling them "Nazi" salutes. The opinion of leftist sources does not count as objective reality."
- 19:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC) "NOT "Nazi" salutes and no chants of "Sieg Heil". Linking to a leftist source calling them "Nazi" salutes does not count as objective reality."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Richard B. Spencer. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Simple, blatant violation of the rules to remove a well-sourced description of an action as a Nazi salute, because apparently this user has a sadz that people don't like Nazi salutes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. How to describe the salutes in our article is a matter for editor consensus to decide, but four reverts is four reverts. The New York Times has also used the phrase 'Nazi salutes' describing a different Spencer event. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
User:HeheDNCE reported by User:IndianBio (Result: 31h)
- Page
- Whip It! (song) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Fame ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
When the Sun Goes Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene album) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
OctaHate ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Revival (Selena Gomez album) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - User being reported
- HeheDNCE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "Seriously? So at Wikipedia it's ok to assume someone is a sock without any proof whatsoever and just continually revert their edits? What a toxic site this is."
- 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "I've given you a reason for why this should be here, you're being unreasonable now. I will get you banned if I have to."
- 17:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "So? Look at the pages for any song that features a singer; the featured singer is credited here. Look at the page for "Telephone" by Lady Gaga for reference."
- Consecutive edits made from 14:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC) to 14:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- 14:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC) "Page doesn't exist"
- 14:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC) "She needs to be credited here"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet. (TW)"
- 18:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
I am absolutely confused by the mass Edit warring going here between this user and Kellymoat (talk · contribs). Someone please intervene. —IB [ Poke ] 19:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Do not delete my comment. I would suggest that whoever looks into this takes a look at their edits as well, as they are involved in the same edit wars. The difference is that I gave reasons for my edits, they did not. HeheDNCE (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, your comments were not deleted, it got removed in an (edit conflict). —IB [ Poke ] 19:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
And let me clear up the confusion for you: they are refusing to state their reasons for reverting my edits, which is not ok. I tried to be reasonable with them, but they are not reasonable, just like you. HeheDNCE (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Just because you gave a reason for your edit does not give you the right to continue edit warring across multiple article and similarly Kellymoat should not continue warring. —IB [ Poke ] 19:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Well then tell me, why did you only report me but not Kellymoat? Just admit it, you have some personal issue with me, and that's why you're reporting me. I haven't done anything wrong, you just want me off this site for some personal reason. Oh and also, I added sources for the MC scores. HeheDNCE (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours @HeheDNCE: on the contrary, you have done something wrong, despite being warned about it. Please familiarize yourself with our three-revert rule, as well as our other policies and guidelines in order to avoid this confusion in the future. --slakr\ talk / 22:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
User: 198.30.10.254 reported by User:BlaccCrab (Result: 3 years)
Page: Black Beatles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.30.10.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: # [30]
Comments:
Keeps trying to say that Paul Mccartney participating in the manequin challenge is "irrelevant" to the Black Beatles song. Dumbest edit warring that could possibly occur on the page. This is my 4th time undoing it and he's just some random ip address who argues with everyone on every page he edits. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 3 years. This school-based IP has an extensive block history, and this behavior seems to coincide with prior disruptive activity. I JethroBT drop me a line 19:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:67.11.0.43 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: 1 month)
- Page
- Fark ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 67.11.0.43 (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
See block log - already blocked twice for this edit war and has returned to grind the axe.
- Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 1 month. Obvious long term issue; same editor on static IP. Kuru (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Pointer22 reported by User:Primefac (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Allen Meadors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Pointer22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC) ""
- 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC) ""
- 04:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */To remove errorous information"
- Consecutive edits made from 03:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC) to 04:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- 03:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC) ""
- 04:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */Removed false information"
- Consecutive edits made from 03:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC) to 03:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- 03:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC) ""
- 03:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
- Consecutive edits made from 03:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC) to 03:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- 03:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC) ""
- 03:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Career */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 03:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC) "/* November 2016 */ further explanation"
- 04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Allen Meadors. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User is being paid to edit the article in question, and is clearly NOTHERE to do anything except whitewash the page. Has been reverted and warned multiple times with no indication that they are doing anything other than "removing false information" (which, in and of itself, is a false statement, since everything is referenced). Primefac (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- A discussion has finally started on my talk (permanent link). Whether it goes anywhere remains to be seen. Primefac (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. Blocks will quickly escalate if this behavior continues after the block expires. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Bulldog123 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Richard B. Spencer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bulldog123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [37]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
and it continues
5. [42]
6. [43]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]
Comments:
Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Mztourist reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Both warned)
Page: Operation Castor ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [46]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54], [55]
Comments:
User insists, despite clear consensus to the contrary (including a current RfC where the current consensus is 7 to 2 against it [56]), on adding "victory" or "defeat" to the infobox Result parameter. There's already been an ANI filed about this, and the user was instructed to leave consensus until consensus changes [57], but they are still reverting to their preference. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- This issue is the subject of an unclosed RFC, Softlavender has to wait until there is a result, instead he/she insists on making the change that is the subject of the RFC and so it isSoftlavender who started edit-warring this on 24 November with this diff [58]. Referring to a "current consensus" based on his/her own count (which I disagree with) is unacceptable. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC) I should also note that Softlavender made the non-admin closure of the ANI, the change to the page was originally made by Dino nam with this edit: [59] and so the previous consensus should prevail pending the outcome of the RFC and Dino nam's IP-socking raised there by me was never addressed.Mztourist (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- You are obliged to accept the overwhelming consensus (currently 7 to 2) [60], as you were instructed to do in the ANI: [61]. It makes no difference that the RfC hasn't been closed yet, the consensus is clear. If that happens to change, and the consensus veers equally widely in the other direction (which seems very unlikely), you are welcome to change the infobox. This has been explained to you several times: [62], [63], [64], [65]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dino nam's forgetting to sign in and then reverting his own edits is not "IP socking", and repeated spurious, gratuitous, unfounded accusations of sockpuppeteering are personal attacks and subject to sanctions. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- If it was a one-off I wouldn't have mentioned it, but it wasn't and he didn't self-revert each time. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- "he didn't self-revert each time". He most certainly did self-revert both times, within two minutes of his accidental logged-out posting: [66] + [67]; [68] + [69]. These continued personal attacks are digging you in deeper. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive Mztourist (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with this article. Plus the SPI was declined, and only established that Dino nam might have forgotten to log in one day, as he admitted he might have there. One of the two IPs you tried to prosecute isn't even from the same continent as Dino nam [70], and is the same user as this IP, which can be clearly seen by the conversation they participated in and the geolocation. As I mentioned before, your attempt at attacking others to deflect from yourself is digging you in deeper and deeper. Softlavender (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I never said it was to do with this article, rather it shows a pattern of behaviour of IP socking. You claimed that he socked twice and self-reverted both times. The only time that Dino nam self-reverted his IP was here: [71]. You also state that Dino nam self-reverted "within two minutes of his accidental logged-out posting", but this diff [72] clearly shows that was not the case, although I'm unsure how the IP edit I reverted shows as being made by Dino nam. You seem very willing to AGF of Dino nam speaking of his "accidental logged-out posting" and "he might have forgotten to log in one day." but you extend no similar AGF to me. The SPI was declined on what is to my mind a foolish policy that protecting the IP identity of a possible socker is more important than stopping socking using an IP. You say one of the IPs wasn't even from the same continent, which may be the case, but you ignore the fact that Dino nam admitted that the other IP was probably him. In relation to your comment that my "attempt at attacking others to deflect from [my]self", you were the one who closed the ANI by reference to the RFC and so the IP socking issue was never addressed, so it is perfectly reasonable for me to raise it. In relation to your digging comments, I suggest you look at your own behaviour and actions. Mztourist (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with this article. Plus the SPI was declined, and only established that Dino nam might have forgotten to log in one day, as he admitted he might have there. One of the two IPs you tried to prosecute isn't even from the same continent as Dino nam [70], and is the same user as this IP, which can be clearly seen by the conversation they participated in and the geolocation. As I mentioned before, your attempt at attacking others to deflect from yourself is digging you in deeper and deeper. Softlavender (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive Mztourist (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- "he didn't self-revert each time". He most certainly did self-revert both times, within two minutes of his accidental logged-out posting: [66] + [67]; [68] + [69]. These continued personal attacks are digging you in deeper. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- If it was a one-off I wouldn't have mentioned it, but it wasn't and he didn't self-revert each time. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Result: In lieu of issuing at least one block I'm warning both User:Mztourist and User:Softlavender not to revert again until a clear consensus is found on the talk page. So long as the RfC is still running, clear consensus has not been achieved. The argument about 'current majority' would allow widespread edit warring during most RfCs, which is not a thing we want encourage. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you, but with respect, I'm not sure why you're warning me, when you are clearly agreeing that User:Softlavender was not justified in making the change while there was an open RFC. regards Mztourist (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is one of the two reverts you made while the RfC was running. If either of you had made no reverts at all during the RfC then no warning to that person would have been justified. I am puzzled by the edits by both you and Softlavender during the RfC. Each of you is a regular long-time editor who has has never been blocked but you were taking a risk of bad consequences, when there was already a proper discussion going on. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, but with respect, I'm not sure why you're warning me, when you are clearly agreeing that User:Softlavender was not justified in making the change while there was an open RFC. regards Mztourist (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Happydaise reported by User:Bradv (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Organizational behavior ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Happydaise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 09:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Contributing disciplines */ Ethnology definitely should be there- tell me why if not"
- 01:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Contributing disciplines */ have discussed this now too"
- 20:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Contributing disciplines */"
- 22:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC) "I took time to work out all the steps how to list this at the dispute resolution noticeboard"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Organizational behavior. (TW)"
- 03:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "/* November 2016 */ reply re 3RR"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:"
- There is some further discussion at User_talk:Iss246#November_2016. Also, please note the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171 (not directly related to this article but may be relevant). Bradv 13:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is the other user and what they did too. Bradv why did you not report them too after you told them this-
-
"It doesn't matter the reason for your edits, The three-revert rule is a hard limit that may not be crossed. You did the initial edit here, and reverted back to that version again here and here. The point is: don't dispute over content on the article. Instead, discuss on the talk page in a civilized manner, until you come up with a consensus. What the two of you have done so far is yell and insult each other, and then look for someone else to step in to make a decision. You can figure this out yourselves. Bradv 03:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Also Softlavender today deleted my entry twice after I explained it and asked them to explain why they did it. how is this not edit warring? How do i put the edits here in the way of diffs to click thru to to show what i mean? They made the two deletions just today with no explanation.Happydaise (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I mean how many more times would softlavender have done this deletion within hours of each deletion. Why did they choose not to discuss it when I started a new topic on ethnology even? I had justified why I added it in this new section I started and then Softlavender chose not top participate but just continue edit warring and I talked about including ethnology, like i should have but they did not participate in discussing it.
-
- How is that not edit warring by user Softlavender and also by user Iss246 based on what Bradv showed they deleted my addition 3 times within a couple of hours? Is this about trying to frame me? Why wont anyone discuss things. I have listed twice now on the dispute noticeboard and took a lot of time working out all of the steps involved in doing that and still - no-one participated in discussing things peacefully with me. Softlavender did not participate there either. they just kept on edit warringHappydaise (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Pbfreespace3 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Pbfreespace3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This user reverted my edits several times without any source. His only sources were:
- 1: An unreliable Twitter account named as Civil War Map.
- 2: His own poor arguments.
Now, I will ask from the moderators to ban this user for a time. He's doing edit war since days with me and other users. The other user is which he's doing edit war is Mehmedsons, this user added several sources and changed villages while User:Pbfreespace3 reverted all edits, with poor sources or without any source, with his own arguments. Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Beshogur. Mehmedsons (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Pbfreespace3:, you seem to be under a 1RR per week ARB enforcement restriction on articles with discretionary sanctions. You agreed to this explicitly as release from an indefinite block. Can you point me to the discussion that removed this restriction? Kuru (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Gah, drat! I forgot to adhere to this rule that was put in place. I'm not aware of a resolution to remove it. How long will I be blocked for? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked. That's just not credible. Outlined on your talk page. Kuru (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )
- Page
- Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Beshogur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
Pleace note that user Beshogur did 3 reverts of edits of other users in a time-period of 24 hours:
(Revert of sourced 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled village Azraq and Jubah)
(revert of sourced 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled controlled village Azrak)
(revert of 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled village Jubah)
- Notice
The 'Syrian National Resistance' is neutral force both loyal to SDF and Regime and using Damascus Syrian flag created so that Kurds from SAA territory and 'indirectly' SAA itself can help SDF advance on Al Bab.
A list of 13 sources of SDF control of Jubah you can find on http://wikimapia.org/28004322/Cob%C3%AA-Jubah Including Daesh sources claiming they shelled SDF-positions inside Jubah village.
- Talk page
- Extra reasons to report the account of Beshogur
- Account created for sole purpose of targeting of minorities
I also want to report the account of user Beshogur for being an account created with the sole purpose of targeting wikipedia information about Armenian, Kurdish, Jezidi, Cypriotic, Greek and other minorities,... and glorifying glorifying pan-Turkish organisations that are targeting minorities in Turkey and the region, the Turkish state.
The user that openly states he is pan-Turkisch 'Nationalist' has clearly made a account on wikipedia out of racist sentiment and objective toward all minorities that are usually targeted by pan-Turkish nationalists. A look at Beshogur account and edit history proves this.
Wikipedia is an international multi-etnic community. And users should act with respect to other peoples and etnicities. If a user is proudly targeting etnicities the user hate, based on racist motives on wikipedia, it should be sanctioned. Such behaviour focused on hate against peoples is not normal and should not tolerated here.
Please also note he was warned for this several times by multiple users.
- Treats of targetting of groups of wikipedia-users
I also want to report user Beshogur for stating he wants to target what he calles 'PKK-supporters' on wikipedia. Please note that with in present day (pan-)Turkish nationalist anyone that defends Kurdish people, human rights,.. is automaticly labeled 'PKK-supporter' and the actions of TAK (Kurdish falcon fighters), Daesh, others are atributed to PKK instead to frame the organisation as a terrorist organisation to justifying the human right abuses against Kurdish people and all AKP opposition in Turkey.
In the same way they frame the Syrian YPG and the Syrian Democratic Forces, the main ally of the international coalition in Syria as 'PKK'. So in Beshogur's mind all wikipedia-users trying to stop them from targeting Kurdish, Jezidi, SDF,.. info and replacing it with false info are 'PKK-supporters' and should be targetted.
(Please note that my personal facebookpage is targeted 3 times in the last 24 hours by Turkish nationalists with attemps to hack it)
- Discussion
- Beshogur reverted twice in 24 hours, not three times, which is still a violation of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- The third one was actually also a revert of the same villages, just not done with the revert button. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Niele~enwiki: In your list of edits where you count three reverts, two of them are consecutive edits and therefore count as only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Then by that logic 2 reverts still took place, still a violation of policy. Additionally, he is editing with malicious intent. He is trying to represent the forces advancing on al-Bab from the western side as a pro-Assad force, rather than the diverse mix of Kurds and Arabs without a strong loyalty to Assad that they really are. Since he openly admitted he is a Turkish nationalist opposed to Assad, his editing is biased because he is trying to represent these forces as evil Assadists rather than the democratic forces they themselves proclaim to be. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Let us also look at the bias of his edits. In the first revert, he cites a video on YouTube that appears to show some fighters in Jubah town. They have a Syrian flag with them. Beshogur takes this and claims the entire town must be held by the Syrian government and there is no SDF/Kurdish loyal forces present. This is an attempt to misrepresent.
- Also, in the second revert, he cites one Twitter user to justify the town of Azraq not being taken by Anti-Turkish forces. It's literally one random Twitter user saying "no, Turks still control it!". How can he use these sources? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Niele~enwiki: In your list of edits where you count three reverts, two of them are consecutive edits and therefore count as only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- The third one was actually also a revert of the same villages, just not done with the revert button. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Syrian National Resistance ('Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade') is it a group from mostly local Arabs and Kurds which loyal to the Syrian government and not have any coordination with SDF. per Kurdish and reliable sources:linklinklinklink Syrian National Resistance or ('Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade') is a group loyal to the central government(SAA). Mehmedsons (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Syrian National Resistance with their armed-wing 'Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade' is neutral brigade loyal to both SDF and SAA fighting embedded with the SDF, it was founded by the SDF in negatiation with the SAA in SDF-held Tel Rifaat and is leaded by Rezan Hedo, who is a member of the 'Syrian Democratic Council' the political wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Sources: News article on founding, link,link, link [--Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- In all the acronyms and accusations -- some of which are being copy-pasted in part elsewhere -- it's hard to be clear what is going on, but it may be worth taking into account that of Beshogur's two reverts, one of them, according to the section above, may have been a revert of an edit made by an editor (Pbfreespace3) already restricted from making it. Not that this makes it OK, but it is possibly a mitigating factor. MPS1992 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:John reported by User:IgnorantArmies (Result: )
- Page
- Gibraltar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC) "nah"
- 07:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC) "IPA is unintelligible to most Wikipedia readers; citation please"
- 23:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC) "redundant"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
None – user is an admin and would be well aware of what constitutes edit warring.
- Comments:
User is edit warring, but seems to be deliberately skirting around the third-revert rule – per WP:3RR, "any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached". This edit in particular was purely antagonistic. Gibraltar is an archetypal "battleground" article, and has previously been the subject of ARBCOM sanctions. I don't know if the user has any previous involvement in that subject area, but as an admin and 10-year+ veteran editor (per his userpage) he would certainly be aware of that. We should not be encouraging a culture where editors can make multiple reversions against consensus on controversial topics without any consequences. IgnorantArmies (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting timeline here. I raised the matter in article talk at 07:37, this report was raised at 19:18 by User:IgnorantArmies, followed at 19:49 by Ignorant Armies' contribution at article talk. Not for nothing has the user declined to fill in the mandatory Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section, because no such attempt was made. --John (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)