Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive323
User:TheTruthiness reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Warned)
Page: Milo Yiannopoulos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheTruthiness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
Straight forward 3RR violation, despite warning, with failure to engage in discussion talk. Related edit warring (also a 3RR vio) going on Ghostbusters (2016 film): [8], [9], [10], [11].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
User:195.128.1.28 reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
- Page
- Raphael Douady (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 195.128.1.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732521872 by Melcous (talk)"
- 14:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 731943439 by Denisarona (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This IP user has edit warred over maintenance tags, twice today, and more times on July 28th according to the page history. They have previously stated an intention to edit war after I made a general request for discussion on the dispute. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
User:AcidSnow reported by User:Richard0048 (Result: No action)
Page: East Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AcidSnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]
Comments:
The four reverts occurred during a period over more than 24 hours, but I do nonetheless apologize for it. I immediately recognized my mistake and completed a self revert. AcidSnow (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can we assume discussion is now underway and edit warring has ceased? I'd rather not have to block anyone. --Laser brain (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The user has created a 3RR case in order to divert attention towards me. See my response to the alligations below in that case. The problem with the user is that this has been going on for a while now. The user AcidSnow has reverted my changes twice in another article within hours [18],[19]. Making it adding up to total 6 reverts within 24 hours. Therefore I think it would be appropriate in blocking the user with regard to the breach of the 3RR and overall behaviour. This a clear breach of the 3RR. Richard0048 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not diverting attention from myself as there would be no point in doing so since you have no case. Anyways, I do apologize and I have completed a self-revert on the article, as such I haven't broken 3RR per here: WP:3RRNO. Not only that, but the five (not six since one is actually removed through a self-revert which I also apologized for) reverts are on separate articles and occurred over a period of more than 24 hours. These reverts have also received support from multiple users. You, on the other hand, have not received any support for your changes on both articles, yet insist that you have (see here: [20]). By the way Laser brain, I am sure if spoke with any of the other users involved in this dispute that you'll get a strikingly different depiction of me. If you believe that's it's best for both parties to drop their reports, then let it be so. Please also see my statements below. AcidSnow (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Again this is about the incident of you breaching the 3RR. Regarding the dispute where you broke the 3RR, you did not dicuss why you reverted at first and there were only us two involved. In regard to the other dispute and article I created a case in the dispute resolutionboard and searched for outside opinions. You on the other hand might have been engaging in tag-team editing. Ofcourse the person who agrees with you wont say anything bad about you, leave that up to admins or impartial users. Richard0048 (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I stated from the very beginning that "they are" in Eastern Africa (Egypt and Sudan). All these false accusations don't hurt me, but rather backfire on you, so kindly stop. Anyways, I have already shown you that I haven't broken 3RR (please above), so you have no case. There are other users that disagree with your definition of "East/ern Africa" (see here: Talk:Eritrea#Content_dispute) so don't claim that it's "only us two". As for your character assassination of Soupforone and the other users, it was highly uncalled for since they have done nothing wrong. AcidSnow (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Again this is about the incident of you breaching the 3RR. Regarding the dispute where you broke the 3RR, you did not dicuss why you reverted at first and there were only us two involved. In regard to the other dispute and article I created a case in the dispute resolutionboard and searched for outside opinions. You on the other hand might have been engaging in tag-team editing. Ofcourse the person who agrees with you wont say anything bad about you, leave that up to admins or impartial users. Richard0048 (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not diverting attention from myself as there would be no point in doing so since you have no case. Anyways, I do apologize and I have completed a self-revert on the article, as such I haven't broken 3RR per here: WP:3RRNO. Not only that, but the five (not six since one is actually removed through a self-revert which I also apologized for) reverts are on separate articles and occurred over a period of more than 24 hours. These reverts have also received support from multiple users. You, on the other hand, have not received any support for your changes on both articles, yet insist that you have (see here: [20]). By the way Laser brain, I am sure if spoke with any of the other users involved in this dispute that you'll get a strikingly different depiction of me. If you believe that's it's best for both parties to drop their reports, then let it be so. Please also see my statements below. AcidSnow (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The user has created a 3RR case in order to divert attention towards me. See my response to the alligations below in that case. The problem with the user is that this has been going on for a while now. The user AcidSnow has reverted my changes twice in another article within hours [18],[19]. Making it adding up to total 6 reverts within 24 hours. Therefore I think it would be appropriate in blocking the user with regard to the breach of the 3RR and overall behaviour. This a clear breach of the 3RR. Richard0048 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Result: No action due to the self-revert by User:AcidSnow. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jessicat830 reported by User:Andrewbubba (Result: Malformed)
Page: Wallace Huo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jessicat830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [21]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 1 https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wallace_Huo&oldid=732195715
- 2 https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wallace_Huo&oldid=732199647
- 3 https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wallace_Huo&oldid=732060505
- 4 https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wallace_Huo&oldid=732008253
- 5 https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wallace_Huo&oldid=732532384
- 6 https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wallace_Huo&oldid=732730123
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Reverting changes made by different users who have made improvements to the article. Insisting that her version of the information is correct without support.
2404:E800:E60F:409:A5E3:9AD5:31F0:665F (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Andrewbubba -->
- Result: No action. This report is malformed, since it is filed by an IP, but under the name of User:Andrewbubba. The filer should submit under their own name. Also there is no evidence that User:Jessicat830 was ever warned of 3RR or notified of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Richard0048 reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Warned)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page: Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: East Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Richard0048 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- On Eritrea:
- On East Africa:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- On Eritrea:
- Today:
- Revision as of 11:13, 2 August 2016
- Revision as of 16:00, 2 August 2016
- Revision as of 16:32, 2 August 2016
- 28 July, 2016:
- 25 July, 2016:
- 16 July, 2016:
- On East Africa:
- Today:
- Revision as of 20:20, 2 August 2016
- Revision as of 21:04, 2 August 2016
- Revision as of 22:09, 2 August 2016
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User Talk Page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Eritrea Talk Page and East Africa Talk Page
Comments:
Although Richard0048 has not broken 3RR, they have yet to receive any support for their changes and are edit warring on both articles. Oddly enough, the user insist that he has received support. This user also has along standing issue in accepting consensus as shown in his prior reverts from throughout the month of July. They were previously blocked on 18 July by admin SilkTork for this exact reason. They also choose to forgo SilkTorks advice when told not make any edits before they received support. AcidSnow (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I suggested that AcidSnow behaviour be looked upon, with regard to AcidSnow breaking the 3RR. This can be observed in the section above where I have created a case above and explained the breach of the 3RR by AcidSnow according to instructions for this template [22]. This is the users respons in diverting the attention towards me. Regarding the accusation I have in both articles engaged in discussion [23],[24], I have taken instructions from mentioned admin which can be seen in on the talk page[25], and also opened up a case in the dispute resolution noticeboard [26] where user AcidSnow has not been engaged in ( besides agreeing to what another user has written). I have also asked for outside opinions from a user [27] and a admin [28] in relation to the dispute AcidSnow is referring to, that has been going in for a month. In that period of time the user AcidSnow has been engaged in reverting my edits without discussing the reverting. In the second article the user AcidSnow has reverted changes twice within hours [29],[30]. Making it adding up to total 6 reverts within 24 hours. Richard0048 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have discussed all my reverts (please see the respective talk pages: Talk:Eritrea and Talk:East Africa), so kindly stop with these false accusations. Not only that, but the five (not six since one is actually removed through a self-revert which I also apologized for, see here: [31]) reverts are on separate articles and occurred over a period of more than 24 hours. These reverts have also received support from multiple users. It's also not surprising that you choose not to respond to how you haven't accepted consensus on either article (which other users have told you) since you can't dispute it! Also, watch out for WP:FORUMSHOPING since it's exactly what you have been doing for over a month. These discussions have been ongoing for quiet sometime Laser brain; it's just that Richard0048 has refused to accept consensus and was previously blocked by an admin for it (see here: [32]). AcidSnow (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Richard, as AcidSnow correctly points out, SilkTork already asked you politely to desist with the personal attacks. He also indeed clearly instructed you to confine your editing to the talk page [33], which you have been reluctant to do. Please at least try and respect the website policy. Soupforone (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Warned. A review of Talk:Eritrea suggests that User:Richard0048's efforts toward consensus leave much to be desired. He was already blocked once for 24 hours by User:SilkTork for edit warring. Nonetheless Richard0048 has opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Eritrea, which is a good idea. Richard0048 is warned he may be blocked if he makes any further reverts at Eritrea without getting a prior consensus either at Talk:Eritrea or at DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Given the information I provided EdJohnston should consider in warning the other part aswell, that type of behaviour should not be overlooked. I have engaged in discussion as you mentioned. AcidSnow should also be encouraged to discuss instead of just disagreeing with my edits. User soupforone and AcisSnow should stop the possible tag-teaming. Bad behaviour should not be supported. .Richard0048 (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Richard, SilkTork specifically instructed you to desist from personal attacks and confine your editing to the talk page, neither of which you did. And that's after he had already blocked you and given you a second chance. So don't blame myself, AcidSnow or EdJohnston for taking umbrage at that. Soupforone (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Although I have done nothing wrong, we can't say the same about you (see the replies above). Plus I have been involved in all these discussions, so once again kindly stop with these false accusations. Unless you have any supporting diffs for your claims of "tag-teaming", it's best that you drop it. Anyways, this discussion has already been closed, so please wait for the Archive Bot to move it. I do hope to see you at Talk:Eritrea as well. AcidSnow (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
User:121.154.39.153 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: 24 hours)
- Page
- Red Bull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 121.154.39.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */"
- 09:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */ no athletic ability and is not a sport"
- 09:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */ not a legitimate sport because it requires no athletic ability like Hockey, Football, or Soccer"
- 09:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */ not a legitimate sport"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 09:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Red Bull. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Continual removal of sourced material, supported only by opinion, and in the face of other editors' advice. Muffled Pocketed 10:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There was an identical edit on 21 July with the same edit summary here. I (and others) have attempted to engage the IP at his talk-page but despite various explanations, removals have continued Eagleash (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note The IP editor also attempted to remove this report. Muffled Pocketed 10:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Dictionary.com definitions are not "opinions", they are verified facts.121.154.39.153 (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment It is listed under 'endorsements' not 'sports'. The dictionary definition is not being used in the correct context & to justify POV. Eagleash (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Elitropia reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: List of psychedelic rock artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elitropia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [34]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
- Continuous edits from Elitropia that infringe upon WP:SYNTH and WP:RS. Many artists on the page are sourced to user-generated sites, which goes against WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. For artists who are properly sourced, most of them fail to use the terms "psychedelic rock" or "neo-psychedelia". Some of them say that an artist is "psychedelic"... but that's not "psychedelic rock" or "neo-psychedelia". I had already addressed this a month ago in the talk page after I added {{cite-check}} (the edit warring only began today).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Further discussion with editor shows that he/she has no understanding of WP:VERIFY [35]--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Also per WP:ROLLBACK, this edit was found to be an improper use of the tool; I have therefore revoked the editor's privileges until they request them at a point 6 months or more from now. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Rodionos reported by User:HighKing (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page: Time series database (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rodionos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [36]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is no discussion on the article Talk page. See comments below.
Comments:
I haven't discussed this on the article Talk page, but I have tried to engage with this editor several times on their own Talk page to no avail. By way of background, the editor appears to have taken exception at my removal of mentions of non-notable companies from this article, one of which was Axibase. An article on Axibase was CSD'd by me previously and removed by an admin. In response, this editor is now trying to remove all the edits they made previously to this article. -- HighKing++ 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Formation1234 reported by User:GetSomeUtah (Result: No violation)
Page: Petra Marklund (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Formation1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Petra_Marklund&diff=732672732&oldid=725969458
- [diff]https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Petra_Marklund&diff=prev&oldid=732376318
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/User_talk:Formation1234#Edit_Warring_on_Petra_Marklund_.28aka_September.29
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Talk:Petra_Marklund#Intro_to_Article_.2F.2F_Edit-warring
As noted in the guidelines, the 3R's don't need to be invoked for action. Formation1234 has a well-established pattern of edit-warring at this point.
Best regards,
GetSomeUtah (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
User:AKJatt reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked 31 hours by Jayron32 )
- Page
- Inter-Services Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- AKJatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 11:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC) "Let the Administrators decide, thankstalk User:AKJatt"
- 10:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC) "information you need"
- 05:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732944039 by SantiLak (talk)"
- 07:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 732926026 by Spartacus! (talk)"
- 05:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Inter-Services Intelligence. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeatedly reintroducing WP:OR. No discussion despite advice / warning fromm multiple editors. It may well be possible to incorporate elements of the material, but, obviously this is not the way to do it. He has been told that not only was he edit-warring , but editing disruptively, to little avail. Note, a discussion also took place on my talk-page, where he was advised in a similar manner by an uninvolved editor. Muffled Pocketed 10:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging previous protecting admin Airplaneman and SantiLak.
Also, I told the warrior to use the talk page on Fortuna's talk page.See below Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC) - He did, DatGuy- and for my pains I recieved personal attacks and a threat to sock!. Muffled Pocketed 11:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging previous protecting admin Airplaneman and SantiLak.
- Note This edit-warring has actually been going on since 27 July, has included AKJatt socking ([41], [42]) with IPs, and ultimately amounts to about ten instances in the last week. Muffled Pocketed 11:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Mr.User200 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: )
Page: Aleppo offensive (June–August 2016) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [45]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There were both attempts at the article's talk page [46] and his own talk page [47].
Comments:
The Aleppo offensive (June–August 2016) is under a general 1RR policy for all Syrian civil war-related articles. User Mr.User200 made two reverts of my edits (including removal of sources I added twice). As seen in the link I provided above ([48]) I warned him he broke 1RR. In addition, I asked him to discuss the issue instead of edit warring (also tried talking about the issue at the article's talk page as well) and I also asked him to cancel his second revert of me so we could discuss the issue, instead he said I should report his violation and showed no signs of regret for violating 1RR, implying he would do as many reverts as necessary so the article would be in accordance with his POV. PS The editor in question was already blocked once recently for edit warring and violating 3RR at another article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
User:45.116.182.59 reported by User:Junior5a (Result: IP and TJH2018 blocked)
- Page
- Women's Institutes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 45.116.182.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 02:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "revert unexplained edit that added trivia, most of which is unreferenced"
- 02:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "revert unhelpful and unexplained edit"
- 02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "please stop adding such trivia, the bulk of which is unsupported"
- 02:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "again, please stop adding unreferenced trivia"
- 02:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "please stop adding unreferenced content, most of which is trivia"
- 02:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "please stop adding unreferenced content"
- 02:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "revert addition of unreferenced content. The apparent 'references' to not support the content"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 02:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Women's Institutes. (TW)"
- 02:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Women's Institutes. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
As the main editor involved here, I would like to state that this is an Indian IP, so a general understanding of enwiki and its policies are unlikely at this point in time. I mean, come on. It's just getting stupid at this point...TJH2018talk 02:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that user TJH2018 is repeatedly adding trivia, of which the bulk is unreferenced. They have also made personal attacks & abuse, see [49] & [50]. And as you can see above is now making anti-Indian comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.182.59 (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I do not believe that Indian IPs come with a stamp in their Wikipassport that acknowledges they don't know the rules. I might add that it takes two to edit-war, and that the content removed by the IP was indeed chatty, unverified, promotional, etc. I don't know which one of these two should be blocked by the next passing admin, but I do know that the one is not necessarily worse than the other for being an Indian IP. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both parties were enthusiastically edit warring, with TJH2018 aggravating the problem by assuming that Indian IPs don't deserve the same consideration as everybody else. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
User:500ГОДИНИСТИГАТ reported by User:Crovata (Result: )
Page: Kutrigurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 500ГОДИНИСТИГАТ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [51]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 3 August - user created new short section titled "Origin"
- 5 August - 1st revert
- 5 August - 2nd revert, threatens due my sanction
- 5 August - 3rd revert, disruptive edit by which the sourced information was removed from the appropriate section, reference style, to the initial revision on 3 August
- 6 August - 4th revert, according to the talk page, while it is exactly opposite of what was said on the talk page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kutrigurs#Origin
Comments:The article is under protection since 5 April 2016 until 5 April 2018 due to persistent disruptive editing by sock-puppets by User:PavelStaykov (investigation archive). The same information was written on the talk page on 12 July by IP 84.40.95.172. The information pattern is the same as of the previous socks - WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. However, as the IP could not edit the article due to protection, most probably the new account is in relation to the previously mentioned IP. The edit information by the account, as I explained on the talk page, is wrongly cited, placed in the wrong section, and includes a typical example of SYNTH, while in the same time ignoring the actual mention of the subject in the source. In the end, for the first time found out the existence of both etymological theories, implying their very minor consideration in the mainstream scholarship, meaning the account edit violates the WP:WEIGHT. However, although the information was properly edited and included in the article, it was reverted. As can be seen from the account reaction on my replies (and his removal of my comment), there's some hidden intention behind the account edits. I won't revert the current revision to mine revision due to the fear of being blocked per 1RR arbitration enforcement sanction.--Crovata (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Vaza12 reported by User:Messiaindarain (Result: )
Page: Bengali Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vaza12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Previous diffs:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Bengali_Muslims&type=revision&diff=732637465&oldid=732624396
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk%3AVaza12&type=revision&diff=732641334&oldid=732619435
Comments:
I have tried to contact and settle the issue with the user on his/her talk page, but he/she has not responded to the requests. Rather he/she has used unprofessional language to revert my edits. (https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk%3AVaza12&type=revision&diff=732641334&oldid=732619435). Note how he uses a flowery language (without any links) to push a possible POV agenda:
"Sufi spiritual traditions are central to the Bengali Muslim way of life. The most common Sufi ritual is the Dhikr, the practice of repeating the names of God after prayers. Sufi teachings regard the Prophet Muhammad as the primary perfect man who exemplifies the morality of God. Sufism is regarded as the individual internalization and intensification of the Islamic faith and practice. The Sufis played a vital role in developing Bengali Muslim society during the medieval period."
See more at https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Bengali_Muslims&type=revision&diff=732957015&oldid=732942593. Frankly this is too much jargon for one editor to manage.
His/her previous mass removal of content has disturbed the structure of the article. In my opinion, he/she should be blocked from further edits for at least 3 months if not a year.Messiaindarain (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC) -->
User:Sangavitamilmani reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: )
- Page
- Vazhkai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Sangavitamilmani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 12:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- 06:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 08:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of File:Vazhkai 1949 Film Poster .jpg. (TW)"
- 10:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of File:Vazhkai 1949 Release Poster .jpg. (TW)"
- 10:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of File:Vidivelli Release Poster .jpg. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Keeps uploading an improperly licensed version of Vazhkai 1949.jpg and never communicates. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
User:86.186.73.141 reported by User:ThePlatypusofDoom (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
- Page
- Talk:Electronic harassment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 86.186.73.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 12:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733246795 by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk)"
- 12:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733246726 by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk)"
- 12:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733246511 by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk)"
- 12:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733246264 by Sro23 (talk)"
- 12:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733242494 by GB fan (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 12:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 12:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.186.73.141 (talk): Ignore the WP:PROFRINGE editor, please. (TW)"
- 12:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.186.73.141 (talk): Let's ignore the conspiracy theorist. (TW)"
- 12:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.186.73.141 (talk) to last revision by ThePlatypusofDoom. (TW)"
- Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — foxj 13:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
User:92.0.27.29 reported by User:71.35.131.7 (Result: Page protected)
Page: Galkayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.0.27.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]
Comments:
He is putting a false claim on Wikipedia. This is the false claim: The city is divided into two zones, where the main portion forms part of Galmudug state, the Suusacley (Israac) district is governed by the Puntland administration.[1][2]
The source he provided was checked and it did not contain his claim. He is putting false information on Wikipedia.
Page protected Both IPs warned before I saw this report. NeilN talk to me 18:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
User:50.183.99.254 reported by User:Feinoha (Result: 48 hours)
- Page
- Bexar County, Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 50.183.99.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733430500 by Feinoha (talk)"
- 19:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733429640 by Gus Polly (talk)"
- 19:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733425957 by Gus Polly (talk)"
- 18:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733023915 by Gus Polly (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bexar County, Texas. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Keeps removing the pronunciation of this without discussion. Has been both asked to discuss and warned. Feinoha Talk 19:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Yaysmay15 reported by User:TagaSanPedroAko (Result: Blocked)
Page: 2013 in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yaysmay15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [56]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]
Comments:
The article 2013 in the Philippines is subject to edit-warring by Yaysmay15 repeatedly because of reverting removals of non-notable, redundant, routine, and "over-hyped" events. Hariboneagle927 keeps on reverting Yaysmay15's edits, but one reverted, he reverts them again. Hariboneagle927 even warned him on this diff, but still continued to come back reverting his removals, as in this diff.
Yaysmay15 has also other edit-warring cases, mostly on years in the Philippines articles, like 2014 in the Philippines articles. But no one reported that user for edit-warring with other users on those articles.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I attest to this. I've been warning the user and asked the user to explain his edits but did not listen to such request after all or don't even bother to comment in anyway where I could have any hint on their position on their edits. I can only guess why they keep on insisting on reverting problematic edits, that they want to include any widely-covered events nationally (in the Philippines), no matter how it is WP:ROUTINE or overhyped silly season (such as the case of the "mystery death" of Nicole Ella during the New Year's Eve; which is caused by a stray bullet and its not uncommon to have stray-bullet deaths in the country during this period.)Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, as His edits are primarily targeted on "XXXX in the Philippines " articles, and the user doesn't even place edit summaries to explain the edits, and the events he has been adding/re-adding, once reverted, is beyond the consensus of the Tambayan Philippines community that events in XXXX in the Philippines articles should be notable enough or not routine. User:Hariboneagle927 is very serious about this matter, but Yaysmay15 would not listen to any warning by other users, like him. He has been edit-warring with Hariboneagle927 and seems to be reverting his edits in violation of WP:3RR, and seems to be making "XXXX in the Philippines" articles a summary of nationally-covered events, whether routine or non-notable (in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTABLE). I suppose Yaysmay15 should be blocked for a week or a month to stop those editing behaviors, that seems to violate those mentioned policies.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Although the user has been temporarily blocked for 48 hours which I assume is related to this case. A new user with a similar name has continued to make similar edits. Yays Falcunitin which has a strikingly similar name to blocked user, Vince daryl falcunitin who has a similar editing history. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vince daryl falcunitin.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, as His edits are primarily targeted on "XXXX in the Philippines " articles, and the user doesn't even place edit summaries to explain the edits, and the events he has been adding/re-adding, once reverted, is beyond the consensus of the Tambayan Philippines community that events in XXXX in the Philippines articles should be notable enough or not routine. User:Hariboneagle927 is very serious about this matter, but Yaysmay15 would not listen to any warning by other users, like him. He has been edit-warring with Hariboneagle927 and seems to be reverting his edits in violation of WP:3RR, and seems to be making "XXXX in the Philippines" articles a summary of nationally-covered events, whether routine or non-notable (in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTABLE). I suppose Yaysmay15 should be blocked for a week or a month to stop those editing behaviors, that seems to violate those mentioned policies.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Result: User:Yaysmay15 has been blocked 48 hours by User:Vanjagenije for sockpuppetry. Two other accounta, User:Yays Falcunitin and User:Vince daryl falcunitin, have been indef blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Mauro Lanari reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Stale)
Page: Red pill and blue pill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mauro Lanari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [62]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]
Comments:
Mauro Lanari has also been inserting this content on The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013 film) and attempting to edit war for it to remain there. Pinging Gothicfilm and Grayfell, who have been dealing with this editor. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Correct diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65] --Mauro Lanari (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Stale and seems to be a non-issue now. Conversation occurred and agreement was reached. Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
User:198.200.64.245 reported by User:PGWG (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Yuliya Yefimova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 198.200.64.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Doping scandals */"
- 15:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Doping scandals */"
- 15:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* 2016 Olympics controversy */"
- 15:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* 2016 Olympics controversy */"
- 15:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Doping scandals */"
- 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Doping scandals */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Yuliya Yefimova. (TW)"
- 15:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Yuliya Yefimova. (TW)"
- 15:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Yuliya Yefimova. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Doping controversy */ new section"
- Comments:
Initially looked like simple vandalism/using main article as a talk page/soapbox, however continues to add the same material despite reversion from a number of editors. PGWG (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked Blocked for vandalism by Widr NeilN talk to me 23:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
User:LouisAragon reported by User:HyeSK (Result: Filer Warned)
Page: Yerevan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [66]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]
Comments:
- Likely WP:BOOMERANG here, I've already reported the filer for edit warring and he's reported the user reverting his edits here. I don't see any violation here. Class455fan1 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- HyeSK, take note. NeilN talk to me 23:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Warned NeilN talk to me 23:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
User:HyeSK reported by User:Class455 (Result: HyeSK is warned per another report)
- Page
- Yerevan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- HyeSK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- [70] 8 August 2016
- [71] 8 August 2016
- 15:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverted back to Western Armenian. I have also had another agree with me on this change and I backed it with solid arguments."
- 22:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC) "Changed back to Western Armenian"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three revert rule on Yerevan. (TW)
- 16:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Yerevan. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Still edit warring with different users despite being previously warned without reaching a consensus with other users (even though he claims one person agrees with him).This time, it's on Yerevan. It's clear to see that this user hasn't learned from his previous warning, therefore he's being reported again. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not a claim, wiseguy. Look in the edit history and you will see a user clearly telling Yerevantsi he agrees with me. HyeSK (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)HyeSK
HyeSK is a single-purpose user. His response to my calls to discuss the matter in the talk page was: "I will be reverting them back". He should be blocked for edit-warring. His editing is simply disruptive. --Երևանցի talk 08:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not at all a single purpose user. I am here to put in place the truth and to improve Wikipedia. One of those improvements involves providing information to increase knowledge, specifically on Armenian articles. Armenian includes two primary dialects of Eastern and Western Armenian. Pages referring only to one dialect as "Armenian" are misleading, as that portrays only one dialect as the sole dialect of the language. If we are here to improve Wikipedia, denying this fact only hinders that cause. HyeSK (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)HyeSK
- @HyeSK: This is not the place for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You have to work together with other editors in a civil fashion. Muffled Pocketed 09:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - Forgive me, but how is me stating their are two major dialects "RIGHTGREATWRONGS"? It's simply a fact.HyeSK (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you're here to improve Wikipedia, why don't you stop edit warring and bring this dispute to a talk page. Even though there is one, you're still edit warring! You have to realise edit warring is highly disruptive and because you continue to do so, you find yourself being brought here again, HyeSK. Class455fan1 (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The one edit warring is the one who reverted my edits. Yerevantsi was warned about edit warring a month ago for the same reverts. The information I added only adds to the quality of the article. I have added this to the talk page on Yerevan's article:
Armenian languageThe Armenian language has two primary dialects - Eastern and Western. Eastern Armenian is spoken primarily in Armenia, Russia, Georgia, and Iran. The other major populations of Armenians around the world are speakers of the Western dialect. These nations include the U.S., France, UK, Germany, Brasil, and Argentina among many others. In the current day and age, the two dialects use different spellings for various words, and many times completely different words for the same topic. Eastern Armenian has been highly permeated by the Russian language while Western Armenian and Krapar (Classic Armenian) have not. Also, the Eastern Armenian alphabet has been modified at various times under Russian and Soviet rule, with various letters being modified or completely removed to "Russify" the language.
I, on various wikipages, have added the Western Armenian spelling to the pages, as it is relevant to proper understanding of the Armenian language. Listing only one dialect (Eastern) as the language Armenian (hy) is dishonest and disingenuous. It provides an incorrect understanding of the language. My edits are providing a greater understanding - is this not what we are all here to do?
The arguments from two wikiusers are that Western Armenian is not the official language of Armenia (neither is Eastern Armenian - Armenian is the official language) or that Eastern is more widely spoken (which is in fact false). Since when do either of these reasons negate the relevance of a language? And, since when do false arguments hold weight? HyeSK (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)HyeSK — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyeSK (talk • contribs)
This user had no understanding of Wikipedia policies. Instead of reaching a consensus on the talk page he prefers edit warring. He has one mission here: to make Western Armenian relevant in places where it isn't. Furthermore, he does not seem to be competent in the matter as he confuses different spellings of Armenian with its standardizes forms/dialects. --Երևանցի talk 09:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yerevansti - It is clear you do not have a solid grasp of the Armenian language or it's history. There are two (2) standardized forms of the Armenian language - Western and Eastern. This is a fact which anyone is able to easily find. Your arguments are false and have no weight. And, how is Western Armenian "not relevant" when writing in forms of the Armenian language? Please, explain this. I have entered a section in on the talk page of the article, which is posted above.HyeSK (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)HyeSK
- And you don't seem to understand that Երեւան is not the "Western Armenian spelling" but the spelling in the classical/traditional orthography. Iranian Armenians speak Eastern Armenian, but use the aforementioned spelling. Is it really that hard to understand that Western Armenian ≠ classical spelling. --Երևանցի talk 22:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Result: User:HyeSK has been warned by User:NeilN per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Ajax1995 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)
- Page
- Kanye West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ajax1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Please note: Reverts 1 and 2 occurred after edit-warring user was warned about this report.
- 17:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "(Almost 200, 000 bites to explain a bunch of irrelevant facts, The Beatles article has much less content that this, filled up with 6 million quotes. Wikipedia is not his Diary Book)"
- 16:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Wikipedia no needs for that kind of improperly content, that nothing adds to an ENCYCLOPEDIA, we are not his fan site or the Kanye West Official Website, the removed content are fan TRIVIA, Stop!)"
- 16:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "What's wrong with this guy, please, build your own Kanye West fan site, you can add all those twitter feuds, misogynist offenses, non-sense behaviours and all of that USELESS content."
- 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Stop your SARCASTIC behaviour and stop your irresponsible editings. I do not have the enough free time to revert again and again such irresponsible editions by this kind of person. Build your own West fan site. Stop vandalism an Encyclopedia"
- 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Basta, Stop relocating this oversourced bad content "I'm a vessel, and God has chosen me to be the voice and the connector." "Taylor might still have sex/Why?/I made that bitch famous" it is ANNOYING"
- 15:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision by this person, STOP vandalizing and relocating UNENCYCLOPEDIC, IMPROPERLY, BAD WRITING, REDUNDANT AND FANDOM CONTENT! WHICH which noboy cares but you!"
- Consecutive edits made from 13:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC) to 15:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- 13:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverting addition of stupid content by some jerk fan, "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/Why?/I made that bitch famous" Stop adding this kind of shit! Wikipedia in not your fan site"
- 13:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverting addition of stupid content by some jerk fan, "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/Why?/I made that bitch famous" Stop adding this kind of shit! Wikipedia in not your fan site"
- 14:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Trim the associated acts, not according to Wikipedia´s policy"
- 14:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "More stupid content added by this West fan"
- 14:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Improperly/fan content in the Lead / excessive detail"
- 14:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "This article is filled up with irrelevant /peacock quotes, please add this chit chat to your West fan page or Wikiquote, SERIOUSLY"
- 14:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "And again this guy oversourcing this RIDICULOUS AND IMPROPERLY content "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/ Why? I made that bitch famous.""
- 14:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "This article needs a detailed clean up, it is filled up "AD NAUSEAM". Wikipedia is a serious online Encyclopedia, formal content, competent administrators. no need for this shameful "sourced" stuff"
- 14:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "Shameful Never-ending Twitter feuds, which nobody cares but the fandom. Intricate detail for a single fact. OVERSOURCING/OVERDETAILING multiple irrelevant felony charges"
- 15:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "STOP! relocating this NON-SENSES "I'm a vessel, and God has chosen me to be the voice and the connector.""
- 15:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "UNACCEPTABLE in Wikipedia. Advertising, promotional chit chat. My new high-top boots line has a glow in the dark sole....... blah, blah, blah.....This is already becoming ridiculous."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeated mass removals of sourced content. Massive edit-warring. Attacking edit-summaries. Will not stop. Dr. K. 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes to the above, I've directed the user to the Talk page several times to no avail. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to report both users myself - Both users have taken up the entire history with this pathetic warring, Both users have been here since 2011 and 2012 respectively so therefore should know better and should know edit summaries don't count as a talkpage!, Both haven't discussed it at all and therefore should be blocked. –Davey2010Talk 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking about that point myself but then I chose not to report the second user since s/he was restoring a large chunk of the article. But now I see s/he continued reverting even after this report. It doesn't look good but on the talkpage of the article s/he seems to indicate that s/he doesn't want to revert alone any longer. Dr. K. 17:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- To be totally honest Ajax was Bold, He was Reverted and so he should've then Discussed the issue so on a technicality Ajax is at fault however they both edit warred and therefore are as bad as each other, Personally regardless of whether "they said they'll stop" they should be blocked anyway as they've actually taken up 2 pages of wars but that's just my honest opinion. –Davey2010Talk 18:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Again, I'm simply reverting sourced content that's continually being removed, there's nothing contentious about that. I'm not sure why I'd be at fault for it. It'd be nice to have some help protecting the page, is all. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Page protected It was either blocks for both editors or page protection. I chose page protection. Further edit warring after protection expires will likely result in blocks. Uninvolved editors keeping an eye on the article and helping to settle disputes or achieve consensus would be appreciated. NeilN talk to me 18:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: From what I've seen of Ajax1995's history, he is keen on removing things on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis and then edit warring over it. He SHOUTS and generally comes across as unpleasant. All of that needs to stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at more of Ajax1995's edits, I don't think it would be unfair to label his editing as WP:Disruptive. He removes some trivia, yes, but he also commonly removes important information and/or leaves parts of an article incoherent. And he will then get defensive about it if you challenge him on it, and we then have something like the edit war you see above. If more than one person reverts him, he is likelier to stop. Once he's done being disruptive at one article, he quickly moves on to the next. I do not think it will be long before this editor is blocked, indefinitely or otherwise. He does not have a good understanding of how this site works. And, NeilN, in addition to what you stated to him about less problematic edit summaries, he clearly needs to extend that to the subjects of the article, if this and this edit summary are any indication. If one is putting themselves out there as protecting our BLPs, they should not be badmouthing the BLPs in the edit summaries. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- All good points. I've reinforced them on Ajax1995's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 02:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User: Blakegripling ph reported by 81.151.100.70 (Result: Nominator blocked as a ban-evading sock )
Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blakegripling ph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
All within the space of ten minutes.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[78]
With this edit user restored another editor's edit to a talk page:[79]
With this edit user removed another editor's edit from a talk page:[80]. This is a prohibited operation. 81.151.100.70 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Nominating editor blocked Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Bello5Packo reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Blocked 24 hours )
Page: UNESCO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bello5Packo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please help to handle the SPA/sock user who reverts without answering in article talk page: Talk:UNESCO#Ataturk section. There is no 3RR yet, but it is looming. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I ask make the warning for Staszek Lem (he not must be vandal on this issue) Bello5Packo (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Bello5Packo has now breached WP:3RR despite my warning here:
They don't appear interested in discussing the situation beyond calling Staszek Lem a vandal. clpo13(talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman reported by User:Anythingyouwant (Result: Withdrawn by reporting editor)
Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DrFleischman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Donald_Trump&oldid=733558622
Diffs of the user's reverts:
1. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=733718838&oldid=73371603117:36, 9 August (restored huge amount of material per edit summary)
2. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733584041&oldid=73358144420:19, 8 August (removed the word “degree” per edit summary)
3. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733569081&oldid=73356889918:35, 8 August (removed “of the Wharton School” per edit summary)
4. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733567977&oldid=73355862218:25, 8 August (removed footnote per edit summary)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk:DrFleischman&oldid=733725794#1RR
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733718625&oldid=733718353 (re. diff number one)
https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Talk%3ADonald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733581818&oldid=733581295 (re. diff number three)
Comments:
Please note that 1RR applies at this article per discretionary sanctions. According to WP:3RR, a revert is any edit or series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, and whether supported by consensus or not. That's why I and other editors have been avoiding the kind of edits like the four listed above. I don't think DrFleischman is a bad editor, but this is just a matter of fairness so everyone edits by the same rules. When the rule refers to "undoing other editors' actions," is it only referring to actions that occurred relatively recently in the edit history? If so, why doesn't the rule say that? When it refers to "in whole or in part," is it exempting good faith attempts at compromise? If not, why doesn't the rule say that? Even if the rule said that, I think this would be a 1RR violation per diffs one and three.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Admins, if you're confused by the complaint it's because yes, it's procedurally defective. Anythingyouwant simply took my four most recent edits to Donald Trump and called them reverts because they all deleted or modified portions of the article, i.e. "undid other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part." This is an extreme reading of the edit warring policy and against its spirit if not its letter. In the first 3 "reverts" I was simply being bold and making constructive edits to the article. Two of these edits were never disputed, and the third is being resolved through talk page discussion, which I have readily participated in. In none of these cases was I reverting back to any prior version, at least to my knowledge. The fourth "revert" was simply me implementing this talk page consensus. There has been no dispute that the edit does in fact represent the consensus.
- What makes this complaint extra-unfortunate is that Anythingyouwant only lodged it to make a point. They actually told me that they want me to be vindicated so that they can point to this discussion the next time they're accused of edit warring. Anythingyouwant's beef isn't with me, it's with the edit warring policy itself, which they believe considers any deletion or modification of any content as a "revert" (since it is a "undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part"). I suggested that Anythingyouwant seek guidance at WT:EW or WP:VPP but they declined my advice and instead are trying to game the system by coming here. I suggest that this complaint should boomerang and Anythingyouwant should be admonished for disruptive editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the third revert, DrFleischman says, "and the third is being resolved through talk page discussion". In what world is that a justification for saying it wasn't a revert? That third revert was obviously the subject of controversy at the article talk page. The main reason I filed this report is because I am firmly convinced that the first and third diffs are reverts that together violate 1RR. The other two diffs (the second and fourth) are less obvious, and so I am indeed interested in what the verdict is about them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- My point on the third edit was that I made a bold edit, it was reverted by another editor, and then we discussed. BRD. No reverts by me. Simple as that. You are disrupting the normal editing process. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- The whole subject of diff three is discussed at the current article talk page (not an archive) before DrFleischman made that bold edit. For example, "Unless there's something which contradicts this source, the claim that 'he graduated from Wharton' should be removed from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)" Dr. Fleischman's edit #3 (about Wharton) was very clearly a revert. I would be happy to withdraw this report if DrFleischman would please remove his most recent revert. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously? So each time I make a bold edit I'm first supposed to go into the talk page archives and literally hundreds of edits deep into the article's edit history to make sure the same edit hasn't been fought over in the past? Anythingyouwant's last sentence makes it seem like maybe they just want their version of the 4th edit to be restored against consensus. This strikes me as bullying behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I now reluctantly withdraw the offer to take down this 1RR report, which I made in good faith (not to bully anyone!). Both diffs one and three are very clearly reverts. And they are both controversial at the article talk page as it stands right now (during this month of August), in case the age of the controversy makes any difference, and that controversy existed before these two respective reverts. I don't suggest that DrFleischman needs to study the talk history of this article going back forever. The easiest way to avoid problems is to not make more than one edit --- like diffs one thru four --- per day. But if he wants to run the risk of editing like diffs one thru four, by undoing the work of other editors, then why not look at the current talk page sans archives?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion I believe you're referring to appeared from both the header and the first comment to be about a different subject. Regardless, I don't think anything in our policies or guidelines requires editors to review the talk page before making bold edits. Just because I made an edit on content that happened to be discussed partway down an old talk page discussion doesn't make my edit a revert. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- My point on the third edit was that I made a bold edit, it was reverted by another editor, and then we discussed. BRD. No reverts by me. Simple as that. You are disrupting the normal editing process. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the third revert, DrFleischman says, "and the third is being resolved through talk page discussion". In what world is that a justification for saying it wasn't a revert? That third revert was obviously the subject of controversy at the article talk page. The main reason I filed this report is because I am firmly convinced that the first and third diffs are reverts that together violate 1RR. The other two diffs (the second and fourth) are less obvious, and so I am indeed interested in what the verdict is about them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Complaint was withdrawn by Anythingyouwant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Hebel reported by User:XavierGreen (Result: Nominator blocked 1 week)
Page: List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hebel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [[85]]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[90]]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[91]]
It would seem that's one to many by me and also by Xavier Green himself. I get the impression that Xavier is editing the article about related issues while a discussion about these related matters is going on without and before consensus or closure to the argument in progress. It seems to me he should wait for that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I haven't made any edits to change the page against consensus at all, my reverts of your edits were to restore the page to the status quo on two matters on which there was no consensus to change based on the current ongoing discussion involving those matters on the talk page. In actuality, it is you who have flaunted the dispute resolution process and have made edits contrary to the ongoing discussion on the talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I self reverted for the moment. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- .XavierGreen, I wasn't talking about your revert of my edits but of your revert of Ladril's edit here. He however has since indicated that he doesn't seem to feel that's a problem. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- So let's discuss this here. --Yukterez (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not here User:Yukterez but here. You are in the wrong place. This is another matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Hebel: You are formally warned to not edit war again. If you feel another editor is not listening nor adhering to consensus, make a formal report at WP:ANI and let an uninvolved administrator take a look; please, don't use the mainspace as a battleground. If you hadn't had self-reverted, and happened to have a clean block record, you would have been blocked as well. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I must apologise for the unhappy intervention I made there. Which I have further explained here on the talkpage of User:XavierGreen. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Ismadeby reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Gal Gadot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ismadeby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Wikipedia prefers rectangles over squares for Infobox images. Learn to crop."
- 02:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 14:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
- 14:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */ customize"
- 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gal Gadot. (TW)"
- 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Gal Gadot. (TW)"
- 15:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */"
- 15:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Editor is also editing disruptively by adding bogus warning templates at my own talk page. Diffs here [92], [93], [94]. Not only is he verbatim copying the warnings and comment additions to the warnings I have left at his talk page, one of his edit summaries at my talk page stated, "Lets see who gets blocked". This editor was formerly editing disruptively under the username Wikipedia-Translator. Pinging NeilN who is familiar with the issues at the article regarding the infobox photo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
See next item for the opposite report. Even here on an admin board regarding his disruption, Ismadeby can't help but continue to be disruptive in relation to Winkelvi, [95] apparently trying to give his later report greater prominence/precedence/priority. And then [96] edit-warring to keep it there (against page instructions for ordering). DMacks (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- ...twice. And deleting this preceding comment of mine (thanks for noticing, User:Laser brain!). DMacks (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- And see these apparent revenge reverts. clpo13(talk) 15:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I would give Ismadeby a good long block for disruptive editing. As they commented in a discussion I started, I will not do so myself. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked Laser brain (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User:206.167.168.128 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Scion tC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 206.167.168.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733692394 by Sro23 (talk)did you prove it, just because you are a clique of few ignorant editors doesnt change the faact Toyota rebadged the Celica as a tC."
- 13:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733689328 by Stepho-wrs (talk) the proof is in my driveway. on the chassis label which states the plant of Tsutsumi which is the same plant as the Celica."
- 12:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733682968 by Sro23 (talk) BECAUSE IT IS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE CELICA, but ignorant masses cant grasp the fact Toyota pulled a fast one on them"
- 12:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "ill keep changing it , because it is a CHEAPENED TOYOTA CELICA. To all the morons (Stepho especially) just because you are in love with your old Celica doesnt mean Toyota stopped making it, they just found a way to make more money of ignorant masses"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */ new section"
- 15:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* August 2016 */"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Despite being reverted by more than one editor, 206.167.168.128 has refused to stop their disruptive edit warring to Scion tC. I believe 24.114.92.193 is the same person, so that's even more reverts. On their talk page, they blatantly disregarded my warning about edit warring and request they stop. I know there's currently a discussion on the article's talk page, but something tells me it won't lead to any progress:[97], [98]. Sro23 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- And another revert. Their contributions to the talk page consist mainly of WP:OR and insults. clpo13(talk) 21:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
User:217.138.68.102 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: )
- Page
- Roy Sebag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 217.138.68.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
- 19:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733729928 by Marianna251 (talk) Image not publicly sourced, as are other elements of this profile."
- Consecutive edits made from 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC) to 18:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Edits reflecting the actual level of notoriety and publicly available sources."
- 18:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Roy Sebag. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 19:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Edits by 217.138.68.102 */ new section"
- Comments:
212.9.31.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just made the same deletion as the reported IP. That IP appears to be the same user, attempting to avoid reports/warnings. Marianna251TALK 14:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Both blocked)
- Page
- Newquay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733738700 by Electricburst1996 (talk) unsupported by non-primary reliable sources"
- 20:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733736164 by Electricburst1996 (talk) again not a travel guide and no trivia"
- 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733735774 by Electricburst1996 (talk) not a travel guide"
- 19:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Surfbury"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Newquay. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 20:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "→ trail, trivia: new section"
- Comments:
Edit war started with unexplained content removal on the first edit, but escalated into a dispute over whether or not the information removed was worth keeping. Though I didn't state it in edit summaries, I felt strongly that the information on the town trail and Newquay in film should be kept. Given the other editor's lengthy, troubling block history for edit warring (six counts, to be exact), I see no reason for a temporary block at this point. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 20:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- ElectricBurst went straight to AIV with NO warning (against "The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior.") dispite his false claim then removed my defense there. He did not give any reason for his edits while I did. I had though I had removed the information in a previous edit thus the first edit was just "Surfbury". I started a talk page discussion while he was here reporting me. He makes his fustration know that he can get me punished at AVI then removes my response twice now [99] [100] that he has been the instigating editor as NPA when it was similar in tone to his own post. Spshu (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- He has also attempt to add my starting a discussion as if he did so. Spshu (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Now, NeilN, an administrator, has stepped in to assist Electricburst1996 in acting like he started the discussion on the talk page when he did not. Spshu (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Spshu, the diff is not to show the reporter started the discussion, it is to show discussion exists. As it happens, you started it so that's a bonus for you. --NeilN talk to me 21:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- The diff is in my post. At the last AN3, the responding administrator stated he was not obligated into what actually happen just that I trivially legitimately reverted once some other editor over some other issue on the same article and disregarded that I was reverting the removal of what was agree upon the proper source (while using the edit summary to get the other editor to the talk page). So, I don't hold out any hope that the responding administrator would actual look at the talk page and would assume that the other editor started the talk section. Spshu (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Spshu, the diff is not to show the reporter started the discussion, it is to show discussion exists. As it happens, you started it so that's a bonus for you. --NeilN talk to me 21:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Now, NeilN, an administrator, has stepped in to assist Electricburst1996 in acting like he started the discussion on the talk page when he did not. Spshu (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- He has also attempt to add my starting a discussion as if he did so. Spshu (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- As an outside editor, those edits were acceptable. IMDB is user-generated content, so it is an invalid source. Primary sources can be used sparingly, but secondary sources are preferred. The information removed looked and read like trivial statements rather than encyclopedic content. As no edit summaries were provided for the reversions, I assert that the burden of proof is on Electricburst1996 to determine whether their reversions were appropriate. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – 24 hours. I don't like the pattern of removal of comments at WP:AIV by Electricburst1996. Whether IMDB is a reliable source is not listed as an exception to the edit warring rules at WP:3RRNO. You are responsible for counting your own reverts even if you think you have good reason for making the reverts, excepting only serious matters like BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Winkelvi reported by User: Ismadeby (Result: Nominator blocked)
Page: Gal Gadot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[105]
User using the word "bullshit" as summary for his removal of edit war warnings: [106]
- Comments:
It seems pretty clear to me that in this particular case, WV is up against a returning troll who likes to push WV's buttons. What I don't undertand is, after 5-6 previous edit warring blocks, why the hell can't WV resist edit warring when provoked? I think an appropriate action for Ismadeby is an indef block as a troublemaking sock. I just don't know what an appropriate action for WV is: no action because he's being provoked by a sock? 1 month block for edit warring after 5 previous blocks for same? Somewhere in between? Indef block? A lifetime 0RR restriction, no matter whether it's a sock he's reverting or not? What will it take for WV to stop reverting everything all the time? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reverting block evasion technically falls under WP:NOT3RR, but he really needs to start reporting obvious socks to WP:AIV and WP:SPI from now on. @Winkelvi:, when did you figure out that it was Wikipedia-Translator? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia-Translator/Archive which names an IP (109.66.183.56) who was active at Gal Gadot as a sock of User:Wikipedia-Translator. Nobody has done a checkuser yet to connect User:Ismadeby to the sock case, though the behavior may be evidence. Ismadeby also removed his own edit warring report from this noticeboard five times, which hardly counts as good behavior. Note that there is more information in the other complaint. Strangely, Wikipedia-Translator is only blocked for user name. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- See sock block at Hebrew Wikipedia for all three accounts as being the same person: [107], as well as User:YesAlexander, User:Dr. Feldinger, and sockmaster User:Yossimgim. Have been away from my computer all day and was unable to respond to question from Ian until now. Pinging Ian.thomson, EdJohnston, NeilN, Laser brain. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Hawkeye75 reported by User:MorbidEntree (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Sausage Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Hawkeye75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "I have removed the quote all together. More is less in this instance. WP:QUOTEFARM also adds to this edit."
- 08:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733814284 by Mean as custard (talk) I have started a section on your talk page, please read WP:BOWDLERIZE"
- 08:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "Per WP:BOWDLERIZE"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 08:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "General note: Censorship of material on Sausage Party. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This user seems to insist on removing swear words from Sausage Party and has done nothing to actually discuss the issue, despite my attempts. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Note The user has "banned" me from posting on their talk page after sending them some messages about their actions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is ok per WP:NOBAN. I also never used the word "ban", please don't put words in my mouth. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was paraphrasing with the word "banned." -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Another Note This user has had some past warnings about edit warring: [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 10:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
There's already a user called Hawkeye7 who has been here much longer. Perhaps a name change is in order, as to avoid confusion? Just a suggestion. Zerotalk 09:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to do all this fancy stuff, but it seems like MorbidEntree has an attitude where she thinks that she can have the last edit on all situations. First off, she is breaking the rules by not using edit summaries on Sausage Party's revision page. I have explained by reasoning behind the edits (WP:BOWDLERIZE) and (WP:QUOTEFARM). I have also asked MorbidEntree to stop posting on my talk page, but he ignored by request and did so twice here. This is a violation of rule WP:NOBAN. I know, I may not edit as frequently as her, but I still have way more back-up. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye75: Your allegations against me are, well, untrue.
- "First off, she is breaking the rules by not using edit summaries on Sausage Party's revision page." - A quick check shows that 100% of my edits have a summary.
- WP:BOWDLERIZE says that we should not alter quotes to censor profanity or offensive content, which is the opposite of what you were doing.
- "I have also asked MorbidEntree to stop posting on my talk page, but he ignored by request and did so twice here. This is a violation of rule WP:NOBAN." - While you can request that another user doesn't post to your talk page, sensible notices and messages are still allowed (which is all that I've posted to your talk page).
- Just a note: I'm a guy, not a girl. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- You need a "brief" explanation in your edit summaries. You didn't add anything to the "auto" "revert" message.
- Someone has already explained that.
- A warning template is not a sensible message. I even confirmed with 2 admins a couple days ago, that you should post at another board if a user has requested you to stop.
- Please don't include calling someone the wrong gender under "allegations" Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye75: Your allegations against me are, well, untrue.
In replacing a profanity from a reported quote by a euphemism, and in reverting my revert of this, User:Hawkeye75 justified the action by quoting WP:BOWDLERIZE, however these guidelines show the opposite is correct: "In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline." . . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- And WP:QUOTEFARM Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- What about WP:QUOTEFARM? . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment It is worth noting that Hawkeye75 has made 8 talk page edits compared with 156 mainspace edits[114]. logged out edit by--Adam in MO (talk)
- Blocked – 24 hours. Three reverts are listed above, but the user made a fourth at 08:57 with the edit summary, "Undid revision 733817782 by MorbidEntree (talk) Stop edit warring". Edits made to comply with a guideline such as WP:BOWDLERIZE don't count as exceptions to 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
User:AlecCollie reported by User:Velella (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Chapel Cleeve Manor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- AlecCollie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Present Day */"
- 19:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Present Day */"
- [115]
- [116]
- [117]
- [118]
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Chapel Cleeve Manor. using TW"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
[119] Rodw suggests a collaborative way forward and provides further guidance here. Uncle Milty endorses previous advice given here
- Comments:
This is an issue that started on 5th August and has continued to the current day. Uncle Milty and I have both been involved in restoring referenced text which has been replaced by unreferenced and sanitised text. Warnings and advice has been given at User talk:AlecCollie and at User talk:Velella#Chapel cleve only to be met with some invective. Velella Velella Talk 21:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
AlecCollie (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC) i have a few points to add.
1. I know a lot more about the subject than any other the other editors. As explained I am not censoring or taking out information that is of public interested. Indeed the relationship break up, the cost of the house or for that matter any monetary or personal issue is not relevant. Ms Wilkins is an old lady who is a very private individual. Yes she sought help from a programme but this is because she wanted to save the house. Ms Wilkins is a private individual and is not a public figure. 2. The other editors don't publish the cost if their houses on their Wikipedia pages or the state of their current relationship. It is therefore not relevant to the article. 3. The comment about Ms Wilkins thinking she is a custodian of the house and the pain staking work involved in it renovation are far more relevant to the history of the Manor. 4. The previous owner (who was actually made bankrupt) is not listed, therefore the history is incomplete. Without a full history of ownership, the current details of purchase price, sale price, the financial affairs or marital\relationship status if Ms Wilkins is not relevant. 5. Lastly, I have not made any "invective" comments about another editor. According to Wikipedia it means insulting, abusive, or highly critical language. Calling someone a busy body doesn't count! EndAlecCollie (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Lipsquid reported by User:StAnselm (Result: )
Page: Doug Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lipsquid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [120]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126]
Comments:
This is not technically a breach of 3RR, since the four reversions were made in a space of 27 hours. But it is clearly edit-warring, and involved adding material which two editors (including myself) deemed to be a BLP violation. The last reversion adjusted the wording, but made it an even more flagrant BLP violation; the other edits also added material that was not in any source. In any case, the material should not be in the lead (per arguments on the talk page), and there was never anything remotely close to a consensus to restore the material. StAnselm (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a breach of 3RR and we have already been to the BLP Noticeboard who determined an even harsher wording of the point of contention was not a BLP [127]. I have made many attempts to make a compromise edit asked for options of compromise and User:StAnselm says I don't agree to any changes so you have no consensus, (no one else seems to be visiting this article). The information I added is plainly sourced for the article. Sources actually called it sexual abuse and he has been accused of allegedly enjoying to masturbate on his young nanny. Again, we have already been to the BLP noticeboard with the wording and the sources. Lipsquid (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, that is not what the BLP noticeboard determined at all. In any case, the sources do not say there was actual sexual abuse, only alleged sexual abuse. There is a very important difference. If you can't see the difference, you shouldn't be editing BLPs. StAnselm (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's also not true that no one else is "visiting" this article. I'm someone else. I've both edited the page and commented on the talk page. There is no consensus for inserting this material into the lede. In my view, that would be undue weight in a BLP of this length. The allegation and the subject's response are covered properly in the "Controversy" section. David in DC (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is what the BLP board determined, the link is there for review. Also, my first edit of the contentious material did in fact include "alleged" [128]. More nonsense that flat out isn't true. This BLP had their notability questioned in 2011 and it was left open with no consensus. Now in 2016, the only thing they are notable for is the fall from grace and lawsuit that is a result of the alleged interaction with the nanny. I understand that some people might dislike the material, but it is impeccably sourced and the vast majority of sources say the same thing. There is no reason to keep it out, especially since he has no other notability. Lipsquid (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's a fair argument, but you should have made it on the talk page rather than edit-warring. In any case, it is easily refuted: In her book Building God's Kingdom (OUP, 2015), Julie Ingersoll devotes a whole chapter to Doug Phillips, and only two pages out of 27 concern the events surrounding his resignation. StAnselm (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is what the BLP board determined, the link is there for review. Also, my first edit of the contentious material did in fact include "alleged" [128]. More nonsense that flat out isn't true. This BLP had their notability questioned in 2011 and it was left open with no consensus. Now in 2016, the only thing they are notable for is the fall from grace and lawsuit that is a result of the alleged interaction with the nanny. I understand that some people might dislike the material, but it is impeccably sourced and the vast majority of sources say the same thing. There is no reason to keep it out, especially since he has no other notability. Lipsquid (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's also not true that no one else is "visiting" this article. I'm someone else. I've both edited the page and commented on the talk page. There is no consensus for inserting this material into the lede. In my view, that would be undue weight in a BLP of this length. The allegation and the subject's response are covered properly in the "Controversy" section. David in DC (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, that is not what the BLP noticeboard determined at all. In any case, the sources do not say there was actual sexual abuse, only alleged sexual abuse. There is a very important difference. If you can't see the difference, you shouldn't be editing BLPs. StAnselm (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Please re-read the advice at the bottom of the BLP/N thread you are citing. You thank another editor for this advice "It's not a BLP violation, but whether it's included in the article is a matter for editors to decide by way of consensus...." That editor also suggests using a direct quote, but that's not the final resolution. It a suggestion for, perhaps, coming to consensus, nothing more. It surely does not justify the edit-warring.David in DC (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have read it several times, it says "not a BLP violation" several times. I am fine with using a direct quote. I would also be fine with having a compromise edit in the lead. I am okay with all of the advice from the BLP board. I just can't get consensus on a low trafficked article for any change. I will walk away and remove it from my watchlist, I will watch the board here, but this is one of the travesties of Wikipedia. Low volume articles get WP:OWNed by people who say BRD, BRD, then have no intention of ever agreeing to a compromise. Lipsquid (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- The solution to disagreements on low-traffic arguments is often to start a RfC, as I suggested to you a few days ago. As for BLPN, the specific thing that was "not a BLP violation" was the assertion in the Vision Forum article that VF closed as a result of sexual abuse allegations against Phillips. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- The only reason people have to waste their time on RfCs for very common sense edits is because some editors have zero interest in compromise and know they can game the system with "BRD, no consensus, no consensus" and have the other person walk away rather than be blocked or waste more time. I walked away, Doug Phillips is a great guy. Can we be done? Lipsquid (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- The solution to disagreements on low-traffic arguments is often to start a RfC, as I suggested to you a few days ago. As for BLPN, the specific thing that was "not a BLP violation" was the assertion in the Vision Forum article that VF closed as a result of sexual abuse allegations against Phillips. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
User:49.237.212.107 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Blocked 1 day)
Page: Anna Wintour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49.237.212.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [129]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring/3RR warning: [137], [138]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]
Comments:
IP editor, who refuses to accept that Anna Wintour holds dual UK/US citizenship continues to delete info he/she does not like. He/she refuses (or does not know how) to check reflinks, read text, or face reality. Has engaged in edit warring with both myself and User:Daniel Case. Quis separabit? 17:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I think, their last edit indicates that they seem to have accepted this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case -- unfortunately not; see this edit Quis separabit? 18:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 day NeilN talk to me 18:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- IP blocked for 24 hours (see [140]) but that is nowhere near long enough -- cannot go through this headache every day!!! Quis separabit? 18:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's the standard length for a first time edit warring block. Further edit warring will result in longer blocks. --NeilN talk to me 18:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- IP blocked for 24 hours (see [140]) but that is nowhere near long enough -- cannot go through this headache every day!!! Quis separabit? 18:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Johnsc1277 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: Blocked 24 hours and then unblocked)
- Page
- Auli’i Cravalho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Johnsc1277 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734040126 by Ebyabe (talk)"
- 18:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734035135 by Sro23 (talk)"
- 18:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "Auli'i Cravalho was born on November 22, 2001."
- 18:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "Auli'i Cravalho was born on November 22, 2001."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"
- 18:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 18:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Recent editing */ new section"
- Comments:
Johnsc1277 has been repeatedly violating WP:BLP by adding poorly sourced information about living person (wikia can't be used as a source). Will not listen to warnings. Sro23 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hold it. Here Johnsc1277 added the date 22 November 2001, with this TechInsider citation. This corroborates the 22 November part, but would give 2000 if my maths hasn't gone wrong. Now once Sro23 rejected this they moved on to the Wikia source, which is inconsistent with TechInsider. The question arises whether this is reliable, but the statement in the citation is attributed to Cravalho herself. Sro23, did you read that first source, and on what basis did you reject it if so? BethNaught (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sro23, Widr BethNaught (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, I admit it is true I never actually read the source in full and simply assumed the user just picked a random date. Sro23 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Will unblock. BethNaught (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Profbatuknath reported by User:MorbidEntree (Result: )
- Page
- Marshall School, Dehradun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Profbatuknath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 05:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) to 05:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- 05:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
- 05:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
- 05:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733757353 by MorbidEntree (talk)"
- 11:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 733516801 by MorbidEntree (talk"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Unsourced content that you added to Marshall School, Dehradun */ new section"
- 05:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 05:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "/* An edit war is starting here */ new section"
- 05:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "/* An edit war is starting here */ needs reliable source"
- Comments:
This user keeps adding details that are controversial and without a source. I've sent them two warnings and tried talking it out on the article's talk page, but to no avail. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 22:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Chevyoncé reported by User:Carbrera (Result: Protection, Indef)
Page: This Is What the Truth Feels Like (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chevyoncé (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [141]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147]
Comments:
- The user repeatedly is labeling an entire album under several genres, when the record is not all those genres. The aforementioned is a pure pop record, but the user insists that it is also a "'punky' electropop, disco, and R&B record". This dispute is very similar to this: a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. The user's source that he or she repeatedly is using is not the most reliable when trustworthy sources like Pitchfork Media and NME are being used properly. Carbrera (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment I've warned both Chevyoncé and Carbrera for edit warring. I've requested temporary full protection for this page because it doesn't look like either of them are going to stop. A temporary block for both of them may be required. Marianna251TALK 08:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment I never started it, I know that the source explicitly calls it R&B, hip hop and punky electro-pop, Carbrera is making it worse by cherry picking it and making my edit out like it's influenced (to be honest, Pitchfork's review says it explores pop sounds and doesn't call it a pop album or set), some people are stuck in their own ways and don't even read a source that's added and are only tunneld vision when it comes to editing) Chevyoncé (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)- Who started it is irrelevant. You've both gone way above 3RR. Marianna251TALK 09:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment Article fully protected for 1 week. Airplaneman ✈ 11:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Comment Chevyoncé indefed as a sock. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Junkoo reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Black Pink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Junkoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- 19:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734352639 by JJMC89 (talk) PLEASE refer to the talkpage before thank you."
- 17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC) ""
- 17:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734333997 by Drmies (talk)"
- 17:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734333543 by Drmies (talk) its not excessive no reason to turn it into a stub"
- 16:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734333190 by Drmies (talk) blah?"
- 00:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734241001 by Yannaynay (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Black Pink.) (TW"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
I had started a discussion on the users talkpage he did not argue any further and did not revert it was settled then the user who reported me did the same i reverted it and started a general discussion regarding the matter on the talkpage since it involed an extra user.Junkoo (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Acroterion (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
User:DPGCMonsta reported by User:Orion XXV (Result: Blocked)
Page: Ice Cube discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DPGCMonsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&oldid=731823777
Diffs of the user's reverts
- https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&type=revision&diff=677977583&oldid=677976643
- https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&type=revision&diff=678922527&oldid=678115479
- https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&type=revision&diff=684063078&oldid=682718311
- https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&type=revision&diff=685871171&oldid=684907440
- https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&type=revision&diff=701404919&oldid=696073966
- https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&type=revision&diff=705974020&oldid=702638602
- https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&type=revision&diff=709683960&oldid=709683233
- https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&type=revision&diff=724173560&oldid=724090678
- https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&type=revision&diff=728446113&oldid=727886802
- https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&type=revision&diff=733728926&oldid=731823777
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ice_Cube_discography&diff=prev&oldid=733728926
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User_talk%3ADPGCMonsta&type=revision&diff=679098243&oldid=679025011
Comments:
Simply put, this user has been continuously providing false information on this page and I have been reverting it back for the past year and a half. All of the certifications on Ice Cube's page have reference links directly to the RIAA's site, and all of DPGCMonsta's edits are being made deliberately to boost the sales numbers on the page. The link to the talk page is indeed the user's because I have made it known that there is a discrepancy with the edits. Readers on here should get the facts and not some skewed numbers that, and neither I nor anyone else should have to maintain a constant watch. Orion XXV (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Result: Declined. The reported user has not edited since 9 August, and you haven't notified them or tried to discuss the problem anywhere. If you believe they are adding false information, you need to better explain what is wrong. File a new report if you have properly explained the issue to them and they still won't stop. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)- EdJohnston I've already told the user and someone who has had multiple citations is well aware of what he/she is doing. It's not a secret. Plus, if you made an effort to read the talk page, you will clearly see that I put in the comments that the problem is due to inflated sales numbers. In addition, August 9, 2016 was only 4 days ago and not a month or two like some people's reports. I filed this shortly after the incident reoccurred for the 20th time. Orion XXV (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – 1 month. The filer of this report didn't make it easy to check the true sales numbers, or give an example of a falsification. But this edit from August 9 appears to be artificially changing sales numbers by increasing the leading digit of each number. User can be unblocked if he can give sources for these highly implausible changes. A previous ANI report (September 2015)] is linked from User talk:DPGCMonsta#Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3. As User:NeilN stated in that thread, "If DPGCMonsta is deliberately adding factual errors they should be blocked". Ice Cube's actual gold and platinum awards are listed at this RIAA page. Evidently Ice Cube has no US triple-platinum albums (sales over than 3 million), contrary to User:DPGCMonsta. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Resnjari reported by User:Athenean (Result: Withdrawn by filer)
Page: Konitsa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Albanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Resnjari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
At Konitsa
[148]
[149]
[150] (partial rv of this [151])
[152]
At Albanians
[153] (partial rv of this [154])
[155]
[156]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [158]
Comments:
Brightline 3rr vio at Konitsa, accompanied with even more ferocious edit-warring at Albanians (3 reverts in the space of 20 minutes). Athenean (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: Given that I was in error at Konitsa, and that we have reached an agreement at Albanians, I am withdrawing the report. That said, I certainly do not appreciate the mud-slinging and character assasination by Resnjari in his defense below. Athenean (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Resnjari's reply: Of the Konitsa article the editor who reported me was pushing POV by distorting the sentence [159] (and claiming "bad grammar" as a reason) whereby the source did not say what that editor was claiming (see footnote 49: [160]). This editor only recently edited the page after a long absence. In a dialogue of good faith in the talkpage i am currently engaging other editors over content [161] which he has not in recent times contributed too thus far. Of the Albanians page i explained to the editor that the sentence placed in the lede was a condensation and based on Ramet (which he deleted [162][163] and placed Giakoumis who deals only with southern Albania while the editor then wrote a sentence that implies all Albanians based on that source) as she sums up the conversion process of Albanians more so than any other scholar [164]. His first response to me was about myself trying to "make the Albanians look more western" [165]. His second response was about misgivings of trusting me, implied source manipulation and accusations of cherry picking [166]. In a third reply he referred to "Funny, duress due to excessive love of Europe" [167] which left me perplexed. I point to these edits because the editor is involving his own personal POV (of possibly Albanians) instead of just engaging with the sources which is why i reverted his article edits which i felt had a POV overtone to them. While in here he accuses me of "ferocious edit-warring". I recently edited, heavily referenced the Islam in Albania article which allowed me to address shortcomings of other articles by removing [168] POV issues with the Albanians article which this editor had placed [169] such as Albanians being "the main pillars of Ottoman Porte's policy in the Balkans" (which the Clayer source makes absolutely no mention of). I would like to note that I have been on Wikipedia since 2008 and my record is clean [170]. That editor on the other hand has been blocked three times [171]. He has also been subject to an interaction ban with a past Albanian editor in 2010 [172] and in 2011 [173] for displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND rapport. He has also had discretionary sanctions applied to him in the past [174], [175], [176], [177]. I cite these examples because that editor has displayed similar WP:BATTLEGROUND tendencies when interacting with me over time. I ignored it then for the sake of good faith and making Wikipedia better. For example in the recent past he has deleted my comments on an article talkpage (without explanation) [178] which is a breach of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. He has also referred to me as "paranoid" and claimed that my talkpage comments are "rants" [179], again in breach of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. This has made editing at times very unpalatable. Other editors have taken the matter further [180] and he has been noted by an administrator for his "bad language". I don't know if it has to do with his personal views of things, though i have always placed sources and their content in determining the discussion above trivial things. It is within that context i reverted his edits as his other commentary (on the edit summary box and talkpage) concerned me about whether his edits were based on the sources or his own point of view separate to scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- SilentResident's reply: Athenean's past records can not justify your multiple and repeated violations of the 3RR, Resnjari. Nor the fact that he has been blocked in the past while you have a clean record, makes your argument against his report more valid, I am afraid. Your latest edits on Konitsa were not in accordance with what the cited source says, and thus I had no other option but to have your edits reverted. -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- additional comment: I have given my reply. Reverts where done as stated in the above section for the reason's outlined. An editor at the very least should base themselves on the scholarship, not on their opinion of what a particular group is considered "Western" or how Western etc. In the Konitsa article Baltsiotis says the Muslims of the town where considered of Turkish origin while at the moment it states that they themselves perceived themselves as Turks. That's a big difference.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I have undone my revert to Resnjari's edit on the article Konitsa, here: [[181]]. More specifically, upon re-checking the sources, I realized that self-declaration and consideration should not be confused with each other as they are two completely different things with different meanings when it comes to intentities. The one is by-self, the other is by-others. And therefore, the sentence has been restored to its previous version. However, the sentence is still problematic and the way it was worded, can not prevent from further confusion in the future. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- additional comment by Resnjari: This is footnote 49, the whole thing from Baltsiotis [182]:
- Note: I have undone my revert to Resnjari's edit on the article Konitsa, here: [[181]]. More specifically, upon re-checking the sources, I realized that self-declaration and consideration should not be confused with each other as they are two completely different things with different meanings when it comes to intentities. The one is by-self, the other is by-others. And therefore, the sentence has been restored to its previous version. However, the sentence is still problematic and the way it was worded, can not prevent from further confusion in the future. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
.According to a basically common legal process, a few hundred more individuals, Muslims, living mostly in urban centers declared themselves to be of “Albanian origin” and some others obtained Albanian nationality and thus avoided their inclusion in the exchange process. On the other hand the (Muslim) population of Preveza, and the majority of that of Yanina and of the small towns of Konitsa, Parga and Poghoniani (ex-Voshtina), were considered “Turks by origin” and were included in the exchange of the populations
- And this is what the current sentence after your change recently done says[183]:
.With the onset of the Balkan Wars and the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey, roughly two thirds of Konitsa's Muslims declared themselves to be "of Turkish origin" and left for Turkey.
- SilentResident, have i been reading Baltsiotis wrong or is there a difference between self declaration and outsiders considering someone to be something ? Its why i reverted. As the sentence stands it states that Konitsa's Muslims declared themselves to be of Turkish origin, edits [184] that were done in the first place by the editor who reported me here. Baltsiotis who is peer reviewed stated that they were considered of Turkish origin and up for population exchange, not declared (that is OR).Resnjari (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Resnjari, the whole sentence is very problematic as it stands now. I reverted the previous edit but I am still having the impression it is still not good to go. Like I said above, it causes confusion the way it is worded. I believe the sentence needs to clarify that they were self-determined as Albanians before it says that they were considered by others to be Turks. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- SilentResident, Thank you for the recent edit. Now its in line with the sources and no OR or POV and was the reasons why i reverted in the first place.Resnjari (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- The sentence has been fixed now as: [[185]]. But you know, this should have been achieved without edit warring and breaching the 3RR rules. I recommend next time you refrain from such behavior as this is not the way to go. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer to use the talk and have (and most editors know i have, some have said that i use it too much as i like detail -because that way no need to do the discussion over and over again). When i have used the talk in the past with the editor who reported me, lets just say instead of the sources at times being the first and mainly only port of call in guiding the discussion, other trivial things have come up (as i have cited with the examples above pertaining to the recent edits where i have been reported on). The Konitsa article now has been dealt with and even the Albanians one after the editor who reported me came up with a compromise (but only much later) which i am ok with that does not over bloat the lede. Nonetheless i don't know what's going to happen here. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- The sentence has been fixed now as: [[185]]. But you know, this should have been achieved without edit warring and breaching the 3RR rules. I recommend next time you refrain from such behavior as this is not the way to go. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- SilentResident, Thank you for the recent edit. Now its in line with the sources and no OR or POV and was the reasons why i reverted in the first place.Resnjari (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Resnjari, the whole sentence is very problematic as it stands now. I reverted the previous edit but I am still having the impression it is still not good to go. Like I said above, it causes confusion the way it is worded. I believe the sentence needs to clarify that they were self-determined as Albanians before it says that they were considered by others to be Turks. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- SilentResident, have i been reading Baltsiotis wrong or is there a difference between self declaration and outsiders considering someone to be something ? Its why i reverted. As the sentence stands it states that Konitsa's Muslims declared themselves to be of Turkish origin, edits [184] that were done in the first place by the editor who reported me here. Baltsiotis who is peer reviewed stated that they were considered of Turkish origin and up for population exchange, not declared (that is OR).Resnjari (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- additional comment: I have given my reply. Reverts where done as stated in the above section for the reason's outlined. An editor at the very least should base themselves on the scholarship, not on their opinion of what a particular group is considered "Western" or how Western etc. In the Konitsa article Baltsiotis says the Muslims of the town where considered of Turkish origin while at the moment it states that they themselves perceived themselves as Turks. That's a big difference.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- SilentResident's reply: Athenean's past records can not justify your multiple and repeated violations of the 3RR, Resnjari. Nor the fact that he has been blocked in the past while you have a clean record, makes your argument against his report more valid, I am afraid. Your latest edits on Konitsa were not in accordance with what the cited source says, and thus I had no other option but to have your edits reverted. -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
User:SameboyA reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: semi 3days)
Page: Wema Sepetu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SameboyA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [186]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [191]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion required. Large blocks of unsourced text in a BLP, including wholly unsourced claims of criminal activity and substance abuse, should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Restoring party made no attempt to discuss or obtain consensus for their preferred version.
Comments:
After User:SameboyA was warned about edit warring/3RR and BLP issues, they continued to revert using IPs rather than their named account. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
User:58.96.107.130 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result:blocked 3 months)
Page: Emirates Flight 521 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.96.107.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 04:07, 13 August 2016 Initial deletion of nationalities of pilot, co-pilot and the dead fireman by IP editor 58.96.107.130
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 04:52, 13 August 2016 reverts Andrewgprout
- 01:47, 14 August 2016 reverts Toddy1
- 02:41, 14 August 2016 reverts Andrewgprout
- 03:44, 14 August 2016 reverts Andrewgprout
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:08, 13 August 2016
Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Emirates Flight 521#58.96.107.130-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked for three months--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jekyllhide reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Withdrawn)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Page
- Kent Harper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Jekyllhide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734180721 by Marianna251 (talk)"
- 17:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Have added notes to talk page as requested Marianna. Undid revision 734178925 by Marianna251 (talk)"
- 16:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC) ""
- 16:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism revision 734177520 by 2602:30A:2C89:C8D0:A0A3:994F:5744:ACED (talk)"
- 16:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism revision 734176926 by 2602:30A:2C89:C8D0:A0A3:994F:5744:ACED (talk)"
- 16:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism revision 734175696 by 2602:30A:2C89:C8D0:A0A3:994F:5744:ACED (talk)"
- 15:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Clearly more vandalism Undid revision 734094466 by 107.77.231.194 (talk)"
- 21:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "Clearly vandalism: Undid revision 733651808 by 2602:30A:2C89:C8D0:44AA:7F4A:38FD:5964 (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kent Harper. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 17:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Movie roles listings */ new section"
- Comments:
The IP was not vandalising the page, but was instead removing material that contravenes WP:BLP. I've given Jekyllhide as many chances as I can to discuss instead of continuing to revert, but they're continuing to edit war. I'm at 3RR so can't continue to remove defamatory content that only has self-published sources. Marianna251TALK 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've deleted the article per WP:CSD#G12. Jekyllhide has clearly been edit-warring and their comments about vandalism are obviously misguided. However, I'll let another administrator decide whether to sanction Jekyllhide.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- That solves the main issue with the page, at least! Cheers. Marianna251TALK 21:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Ghoul flesh reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked 24h)
- Page
- 2016 Milwaukee riot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Ghoul flesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734557538 by Malik Shabazz (talk) No reason given."
- 03:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734557324 by Malik Shabazz (talk) Watch the video you moronic fuckface, tell me that's not reliable."
- Consecutive edits made from 03:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC) to 03:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- 03:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Riot */"
- 03:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversies */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- [192]
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- After his first revert of my edit, in which he called me a "moronic fuckface", I tried to caution him to be civil and read WP:IRS.
- Comments:
Editor is both incivil and clearly unhinged. He needs to read WP:IRS as well. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The reporting user clearly has a bias (look at his page, lol) and supports the media's cover-up of racism against whites. Hilarious. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. I can call you whatever I'd like. Ghoul flesh
talk 04:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The reporting user clearly has a bias (look at his page, lol) and supports the media's cover-up of racism against whites. Hilarious. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. I can call you whatever I'd like. Ghoul flesh
- All three sources host the video, which is a reputable source for the claims posted into the article. If you want I can try to find sources that'll better please you. Ghoul flesh talk 04:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- All three sources host the video, which is a reputable source for the claims posted into the article. If you want I can try to find sources that'll better please you. Ghoul flesh
I've tried discussing the issue with User:Ghoul flesh (see User talk:Ghoul flesh#2016 Milwaukee riot), but it's clear he would rather insult me than respond to my reasonable requests that he explain how the three sources he forced into the article satisfy WP:IRS. I'm through wasting my time talking to a wall. Maybe an admin will have better luck. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I could easily say the same for you. Ghoul flesh talk 04:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I could easily say the same for you. Ghoul flesh
- Side note - I have made a section against Ghoul flesh for personal attacks on this thread. @Ghoul flesh: Wikipedia is not censored ONLY on Articles. This gives you no right to make personal attacks against other users. Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - As much as I am not happy with the actions of blacks in recent times either, I can agree with Malik Shabazz's reasoning that this user has been incivil. As for Ghoul flesh, I would highly urge you to find at least one source that is more reliable and could support your content, and write said content in a due manner (I personally find the inclusion of most of the quotes very redundant). Parsley Man (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- This edit summary alone deserves an ANI report. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- It has already been done. Parsley Man (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
YES
- Update - Ghoul flesh has been temporarily blocked for making aggressive edit summaries. Parsley Man (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
User:James Allison reported by User:Hawkeye75 (Result: No violation)
Page: Multiple
User being reported: James Allison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:22, August 13, 2016 "(Reverted 2 edits by 2602:306:C584:F440:2C76:F93F:1B8C:2B44 (talk): Unsourced WP:BOOSTERism. (TW))""
- 23:49, August 12, 2016 "(Reverted 1 edit by Hawkeye75 (talk): Rv to status quo page pending possible discussion. (TW))"
- 23:48, August 12, 2016 "Reverted to revision 731659322 by Jg10101 (talk): Rv various unsourced and unnecessary additions, format breaking. station list already exists. rv per NOTGUIDE. (TW))"
- 23:45, August 12, 2016 "Reverted to revision 733136048 by Elisfkc (talk): Rv. planned should be emphasized, low res is better for FU. further discussion requested on talk page instead of reverts. (TW))"
- 23:39, August 12, 2016 "(Reverted to revision 733557938 by James Allison (talk): Rv to last good version. individual rides not notable. (TW))"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
James Allison rarely makes any textual contributions. In fact 15 of his last 25 contributions have been reverts, where the other 10 are small things like adding tags or link changes. He breaks WP:PARTR by reverting the whole text even when there are good contributions and changes made. His reverting is making wikipedia unpleasant (which is stated in WP:ROWN) for me and others like these users:
Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a case of edit warring since these all took place over four different articles. Please read up on WP:EW before making a report here. In this case, perhaps WP:M would be the appropriate forum. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 04:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- MorbidEntree just had me blocked from Wikipedia, so he is bias. He shouldn't be commenting on this situation. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye75: I do not have anything against you personally. I simply was stating that this is not a case of edit warring in any way that you look at it, so therefore it shouldn't be reported on this noticeboard. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 05:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Given the fact that these are unrelated edits made by an editor, what exactly is it you're reporting? You make the claim
15 of his last 25 contributions have been reverts
- so what? These appear to be valid reverts, and this report seems to be in retaliation to this comment about you. Please consider withdrawing your report here, or you may find yourself under further scrutiny -- samtar talk or stalk 09:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please check next time instead of using words like "seem". This report was made well before he posted that comment, and I didn't even see that until now because he didn't ping me. WP:PARTR clearly states that you shouldn't revert if there are other good contributions. This editor has made no effort to edit out wrong or bad information; he just reverts the whole section. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- No violation NeilN talk to me 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
User:212.178.242.255 reported by User:MRD2014 (Result: blocked 31 hours)
- Page
- Croatian Air Force and Air Defence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 212.178.242.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "per source"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Croatian Air Force and Air Defence. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Many more reverts. This report and the one above are for the same article. Also edit warring on Croatian War of Independence. —MRD2014 T C 17:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
User:TripWire reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Stale)
Page: 1971 Bangladesh genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TripWire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [193]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [200]
Comments:
This is not a violation of 3RR, but a case of continued edit warning despite both a warning and the fact that one of the three editors TripWire has reverted had opened a discussion of the content on the article's talk page. TripWire's insistence on retaining their preferred version is unhelpful while the talk page discussion is under way. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Response by TripWire
A clear case of WP:BOOMERANG as the user reporting has made no significant edits of the article himself, nor has he participated at all in the discussion(s) being carried out. The user has a potential CoI with the article and perhaps this is the reason he is not happy with leaving a sourced content that does not suit his POV. Though I need not to explain my edits as they are not violating 3RR, but as the matter has been brought here, I will like to reply:
- The very first edit quoted by the complaint was made at 19:33, 8 August 2016 in response to when a longstanding info (that Sirmila Bose is an Indian academic) was removed by Czyrko without any explanation. How else should someone deal with such an edit which was borderline vandalism? The edit summary I gave was: "She's of Indian descent. Attribution to her has been discussed at talk"
- The second edit being quoted was made at 00:36, 10 August 2016 when Aditya Kabir mistakenly reverted me thinking that I was t-banned which was not the case. As there was no reason behind Aditya's revert, so it had to be undone.
- The third edit being quoted was made at 15:47, 10 August 2016 in response to Kautilya3's revert with the edit summary: "She's an Indian. Added sources. Plz read and also understand WP:ASPERSION before throwing around policies" - this was infact the first proper edit that was made by me in which two sources were added by me to support the content which were not present initially. How else do we build WP - by adding content based on sources, no? The first two being mistakes, per WP:3RR cannot be taken as reverts. It was here that a discussion commenced at the articles talk-page per WP:BRD. Dont see anything wrong here either.
The fourth edit being quoted is the repeatition of the same edit already mentioned at serial 3, I dont know if I should take it as a mistake or a poor attempt at adding false weight to the report?
Lastly, a discussion at the talk page is currently being carried out and per WP:BRD the longstanding and sourced content cannot be removed unless a consensus is gained by the party trying to remove it. So, I dont see a problem here and dont understand the reason behind this report except that it is sheer WP:HARASSMENT and a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.In short, as the complainant himself has said that this is not a case of 3RR vio, I am still wondering why am I even replying to this? A WP:BOOMERANG will be in order especially when the complainant is an uninvolved editor with no contribution or participation in resolving the dispute, and as he has filed an undue report wasting precious time of Admins.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 18:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Response to Worldbruce's Fresh Comments
As I have mentioned earlier, my first revert was in response to "Unexplained removal of content", a reason which is quite common and frequent on WP. You remove legit content without giving any reason, it is bound to get reverted unless the initial edit was made to counter vandalism etc. So, speaking frankly your opinion didnt matter as my revert equaled an attempt at countering vandalism.
Second, when you say you had "cautioned me against editing against the consensus of three other editors", I must say that you are again wrong here. Because, the first editor committed borderline vandalism by removing content and then not explaining why. The second editor, (wrongly) reverted me thinking I was t-banned i.e. his dispute was not with the content but with me as a person. And the third person again just jumped the gun despite knowing that the previous edits by two other editors were not legit. So, sir, you cant possibly say that I was going against the consensus of three editors.
Third, I do not agree with you when you say that you tried to "de-escalate" the conflict, as there was NO conflict because the first revert was in response to vandalism, and the second one was in response to a mistake. The conflict only commenced when Kuatilya joined in and then opened a discussion.
Fourth, my edit history will show you that I am quite active at talks/prompt in opening discussions and participating in the same. I would have opened up the discussion myself as I have done so many times in the past whenever a dispute has risen, but I dont understand why would I open a discussion when I was reverting "Unexplained removal of content"?? Yeah, sure, per WP:BRD I was about to open a discussion when Kuatilya reverted me as that was the first legit revert but he beat me to it. So, your caution to me well before there ws any conflict was out of place and will be considered as WP:HARASSMENT.
Last, as you have corrected your mistake, I shall too strike my comment. And as you have added a fresh diff, the response is that this edit was made at 21:07, 12 August 2016 AFTER the discussion had progressed, and as per policy, content in dispute ought to stay unless there is a consensus to ultimately remove the content i.e the clean/original version of the article stays till consensus has been gained. So, again, I dont see anything wrong with it either especially when it was WP:NOT3RR.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 20:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Response to Kuatilya
Kuatilya, first, this forum is not for discussing content disputes but edit-warring, so if you have anything to say about the latter, please do so or else there is not need to complicate a very simple issue of Harassment and a poor report. Still:
- Re:Stonewalling: A little glance at the discussion at talk-page will show who was actually stonewalling. Kautilya3 having no locus standi for his revert first himself brought in the Sarmila's nationality issue to the discussion and then brought in the merits and demerits of Sarmila's book which had nothing to do with the current dispute, and then bold enough, asked me to stop discussing both of these issues though it was him who stonewalled the discussion at the first place. What's even strange that he accuses me of stonewalling while he himself totally sidetracks and stonewalls in response to a very direct question related precisely to the dispute. This was my desperate attempt to bring Kuatilya back into the actual discussion so that a resolution can be reached to which he paid no attention whatsoever. I would request the admins to please take a look at the discussion themselves and see if it was me or Kuatilya who was deflecting the discussion.
- All this was done by Kuatilya while he blatantly violated the restrictions placed on him recently.
- Re:Synthesis: Kuatilya is just misrepresenting the source which clearly says that Sarmila is an "American... of Indian parentage", while he safely omits the mention of another independent source which explicitly says that Sarmila is an Indian author. I wonder if he actually knew what he meant when he said that I synthesized the content even though it was not added by me.
- Re:Longstanding: The content in dispute was added after an exhaustive discussion [201] [202] [203] had taken place and consensus had been reached to which Kuatilya had been a party to. I wonder what prompted him to against the consensus to which he had been heavily involved and had agreed to just months after?
- Strangely enough, whereas Kuatliya himself advises others not to modify content without leaving an edit-summary or else they risk a reversion, but at the same time fails to follow his own advice and instead supports unexplained removal of content by Czyrko by reverting me which infact is cause of this entire dispute! Unfathomable, innit?
- Kuatilya, the main point is that as the consensus has not been reached (for removal of the said content), it should stay there till an agreement has been reached, but then you removed it twice already.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 20:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Response to Sutish
Sutish, I dont know you and you dont know me. We have never interacted, never crossed paths, nor been in disputes or even probably edited the same articles. But I have found you to be quick in jumping into reports involving me and Kuatiliya. Second, your comment here show that you have absolutely no idea what WP:3RR is, please educate yourself on it first.
'To Admin I would request you to speedily close this case as the usual attempts of WP:SOAPBOX are underway. And if possible, please look into the fact that why always a set group of editors who have never communicated with be before are always available to comment on such reports.
- @TripWire: Thank you for pointing out my pasting error in the above list of reverts. I have struck the duplicate and added the revert I intended to include.
- At the time of your first revert, I had no strong opinion as to which version was better. Indeed, my early feeling was that this was developing into a contender for lamest edit war ever. As you say, I am an uninvolved editor with clean hands. I have not engaged in the edit warring, and have attempted to de-escalate the conflict by cautioning you against editing against the consensus of three other editors and encouraging you to open a discussion on the article's talk page, advice you decided not to take. Kautilya3 opened a discussion on the talk page, and I have been following it. If you were to advance there a cogent and persuasive argument for why your version better serves the reader, you might even win my support. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is a probably a bit more complicated than the standard edit-warring situation. TripWire did participate in the talk page discussion, but their participation has been the usual stone-walling. The points I have raised have not been addressed, and TripWire reinstated the disputed content before reaching a consensus. Whether that is sanctionable or not I leave to the admins to decide.
- All I can say is that the rationale given for the final reinstatement [204] is not valid. The first citation, the author's personal page describes her as an "American... of Indian parentage." The fact that reducing it to "Indian academic" is an unreasonable synthesis is not something TripWire appreciates or probably ever likely to appreciate. The contention that it is "long-standing content" is also not exactly true. This content has been inserted after 4 March, a period of intense disputes, resulting in two full page-protections and two topic bans. So, this is problematic content and there is loads of such content on that page. The real problem is that all the knowledgeable editors that could have fixed the page have gotten tired of the disputes and left. The ratio of POV pushing to well-qualified editing has gone sky high, and the Wikipedia is degenerating. So, until some brave new souls come who have the knowledge and the energy to fight, this junk will just stay there. Those are the facts of the situation. This edit was just a drop in the ocean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- TripWire has given lengthy responses above, filibustering as they normally do. I deliberately avoided content dispute here. But if the two sources disagree, the discussion of their relative merits should have happened on the talk page and consensus reached before an edit was made again. The main point is however that consensus has not been reached before they reinstated the disputed content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment A clear breach. I don't think I have had any involvement with TripWire on articles but I have noticed their antics - wild accusations against others, TLDR responses involving misinterpreted policies, POV pushing, a tendency to pay lip-service to BRD while continuing on their merry way etc. I did comment at the recent AE case, suggesting that enough is enough. I maintain that opinion and the content of this report merely reinforces it: they seem yet again to be incapable of following our norms and I have little doubt that this is ultimately going to end up before ArbCom and/or with a community-imposed indef topic ban from everything related to South Asia. - Sitush (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- TripWire - think edit warring, not 3RR. I regularly follow Kautilya's edits - we have a lot of cross-over in terms of interests, although we do not always agree. When we do not, we work things out in a collegial manner, which is something that you should learn. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Stale Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
User:107.77.225.78 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Semi)
- Page
- Khizr and Ghazala Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 107.77.225.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734558484 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) rv edit warring 3RR vio"
- 04:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "THE FALSE CLAIMS WERE FALSE!!!1!!! Polarscribe -> FCYTravis -> NorthBySouthBaranof"
- 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Restore non contentious edits"
- 03:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734556077 by FCYTravis (talk) Travis throwing one of his "FALSE!! OMG!!!" "CONSPIRACY!!! OMG!!!" fits again. No."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Khizr and Ghazala Khan. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 03:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Reversion review */ That's right out."
- 03:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "We should remove the whole thing, actually."
- 04:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Reversion review */ Sources cited."
- Comments:
Personal-attacking edit warrior who appears to bear a grudge against me for some reason. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Only two reverts, however clear signs of vandalism. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
User:93.142.75.42 reported by User:MRD2014 (Result: Two articles semied)
- Page
- Croatian Air Force and Air Defence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 93.142.75.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734630142 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629997 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629914 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629841 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629786 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629747 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629670 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629604 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629426 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629273 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629179 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734629095 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734628898 by 212.178.242.255 (talk)"
- 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "stavit ću automatski aj bok hahahaha"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Croatian Air Force and Air Defence. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
And many more reverts. This report and the one below are for the same article. Also edit warring on Croatian War of Independence. —MRD2014 T C 17:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected this article three months, as well as the Croatian War of Independence. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jax 0677 reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Declined, Filer warned)
- Page
- Clayton Fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Jax 0677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Talk:Clayton Fire. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 18:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Jax 0677 (talk) to last version by Zackmann08"
- 18:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Jax 0677 (talk) to last revision by Zackmann08. (TW)"
- Comments:
User continues to add templates indicating the page is about a living person, which it is not. This is not the fire time they have been engaged in an edit war or that they have been warned for vandalism. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Reply
- I stopped adding {{WPBIO}} after getting the warning. I put {{WPBIO}} up there because the suspect has not yet been convicted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Declined – This is a war on the talk page not the article. It appears that User:Jax 0677 is not continuing to revert. There are only two reverts so far. The submitter, User:Zackmann08, is warned not to make incorrect charges of vandalism. Your diffs showing your 'attempt to resolve the dispute' are simply your own reverts. I see no actual discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Thank you for the information. I think I included the wrong diffs when I filed it but that is neither here nor there. I will review the policies and make sure I don't make the mistake again. Thank you for the information! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Abductive reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)
Page: Paracetamol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abductive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Paracetamol#Toxicity
Comments:
Abductive is adding UNDUE and unsourced, editorializing content about possible toxicity of acetaminophen/paracetamol to fetuses/infants. This subject has been extensively discussed on Talk and we get people who show up from time and demand that this hyped-in-alternative-media risk be emphasized more. See here and the section below that and elsewhere in the Talk archives. The existing content is the result of careful discussion among experienced editors and accurately reflects MEDRS sources. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Jytdog is exhibiting WP:Ownership over this article. I have modified my contributions and received nothing but escalation. I ask that User:Jytdog be civil, and allow scientific advances into the article, even if it bruises his ego and supersedes what he thinks the previous consensus might have been. Abductive (reasoning) 01:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Result: User:Abductive has added new material and then reverted three times to keep it in. He is warned he may be blocked if he reverts again without getting a prior talk page consensus. The claim is that use of Paracetamol by pregnant women may contribute to ADHD in the offspring. Generally, this kind of information is expected to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. I don't see any effort on your part to demonstrate that MEDRS is satisfied. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
User:EEng reported by User:LavaBaron (Result: No violation)
Page: Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [205]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17AUG editor blanked 6500 bytes of sourced content: [206]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
- 17AUG editor blanked 6500 bytes of sourced content: [207]
- 17AUG I reverted: [208]
- 17AUG editor immediately re-reverted: https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Conspiracy_theories_of_the_United_states_presidential_election,_2016&diff=734878235&oldid=734877971
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- This editor has been blanking a section of an article under 1RR restrictions. As near as I can tell, he is a supporter of Donald Trump (which is fine) who is non-plussed by a section of this article (which is also fine). He has alleged an ~ 400 byte section of the article constitutes a BLP violation (it doesn't really seem to, but out of a preponderance of caution I'm certainly open to discussing that point and keeping that section off page as we work through it, and have proposed alt verbiage here). However, instead of addressing that section he repeatedly is blanking 6,000 bytes of sourced material (the entire section in which the objectionable sub-section is housed).
- This is doubly disruptive as the article is under AfD right now; it appears it will WP:SNOW pass, however, it creates a bit of hassle for !voters. I want to give GF here but editor is non-responsive and his vast and extensive block history seems to indicate he's not here to productively or collaboratively contribute. LavaBaron (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with 3rr? I don't see that being exceeded in the diffs you provide? CassiantoTalk 08:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cassianto - this article is under a 1RR restriction under the WP:ARBAPDS case. LavaBaron (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But EEng had reservations about BLP infringement which, in itself, provides a legitimate caveat. CassiantoTalk 08:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect if one could just yell "BLP" before 1RR'ing, regardless of the actuality of a BLP issue, there would be no need for enforcement. That said, I certainly give GF to his concerns and am happy to discuss. However, I don't believe a BLP concern over 400 bytes of text justifies deletion of the 6,100 preceding bytes - for which there is no concern - as well? I may be a little jaded, though, I've been holding the line for the better part of a year now at Frank Gaffney which has seen a revolving door of IP editors sanitizing the article over "BLP" concerns and I've also been dealing with Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump being edit-warred 34 times in a day from the Trump campaign HQ over "security concerns" [210]. I may be a bit defensive from having to go through this endlessly, so, if this is a legitimate 1RR I apologize and defer.
- (I sure would like to reinsert those 6,100 bytes of sourced material for which there was no concern that is being blanked, though. That's a lot of knowledge that's been destroyed.) LavaBaron (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect if one could just yell "BLP" before 1RR'ing, regardless of the actuality of a BLP issue, there would be no need for enforcement. That said, I certainly give GF to his concerns and am happy to discuss. However, I don't believe a BLP concern over 400 bytes of text justifies deletion of the 6,100 preceding bytes - for which there is no concern - as well? I may be a little jaded, though, I've been holding the line for the better part of a year now at Frank Gaffney which has seen a revolving door of IP editors sanitizing the article over "BLP" concerns and I've also been dealing with Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump being edit-warred 34 times in a day from the Trump campaign HQ over "security concerns" [210]. I may be a bit defensive from having to go through this endlessly, so, if this is a legitimate 1RR I apologize and defer.
- Fair enough. But EEng had reservations about BLP infringement which, in itself, provides a legitimate caveat. CassiantoTalk 08:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I should also note the editor here - [211] - seems to be just hitting "undo" without actually reading the text. He expressed a concern about the use of the word "traditionally" in the lede. I rewrote the lede to remove it, and he then reverted my rewrite with the edit note Idea that US presidential elections are "traditionally" this or that needs a strong source which suggests he's just reverting without reading. There's not a rational, analysis-based approach occurring if you're just pounding the "revert" key without actually looking at what you're reverting. LavaBaron (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cassianto - this article is under a 1RR restriction under the WP:ARBAPDS case. LavaBaron (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with 3rr? I don't see that being exceeded in the diffs you provide? CassiantoTalk 08:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- No violation EEng has to have been formally notified of discretionary sanctions using the specific template before he can be sanctioned against them. Additionally, reverting fringe theories under BLP can (note, not will or must) be exempt from 3RR. As it stands, there are not enough reverts to justify anything right now. You've started a discussion on the talk page, let's see what happens there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Ritchie333 - in the interim can I restore the 6100 bytes of text that are not at issue vis a vis BLP? LavaBaron (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- As discussed by multiple editors at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Trump_plant_theory (another article, also by LavaBaron, containing the exact same material for some reason) the material removed states that Jeb Bush, George Will, and others actually propound the theory that Donald Trump is a "plant". This completely misrepresents sources, which make it clear that no one is saying this in seriousness. That's a BLP violation. And, as mentioned, the entire removed section was duplicated at another article -- LavaBaron seems to have seeded it into multiple overlapping articles he's created.
- I didn't realize this article is under 1RR, but if we want to get technical, me removing something that's been there for days, LavaBaron restoring it, then me re-removing it, is only a single reversion on my part.
- LavaBaron is under special restrictions at DYK precisely because of the chronic habit of misreading and misrepresenting sources. He's currently been forum-shopping to have those restrictions removed, and trying to get DYK rules changed to squelch scrutiny of his nominations, without success:
- LavaBaron's idea that I'm a Trump supporter is so absurd as to border on the surreal, as a glance at User:EEng#A_not-so-entertaining_diversion will show. I wouldn't mention this except that it serves to show how completely backwards LavaBaron is able to get things (as in his misinterpretation of sources, above) as well as his belief that everyone who disagrees with him is motivated by dark intentions -- not unlike Donald Trump, come to think of it.
I gotta go to bed, so pinging Fram and The_Rambling_Man, two admins active at DYK who are familiar with the situation.EEng 09:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- EEng - I'd love to keep this civil. No offense was intended when I said I thought you were a Trump supporter and, if you were offended, I apologize. If I mischaracterized you, I apologize. However, I don't believe everyone who disagrees with me is "motivated by dark intentions." As for "multiple overlapping articles" - I'm proposing to merge them after a discussion elsewhere and with other feedback. Nothing more dramatic than that. Also, did you not see my counter-proposal here? Would love to get your feedback on it. I think it ameliorates your concerns. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot! I'm going to bed too, have a great night! LavaBaron (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, now that you see I'm not a Trump supporter, it's all hugs and kisses, huh? I know you mean well, but you create too much content too quickly, with too little attention to detail. Combined with your penchant for counterpunching (to adopt the term of Donald Trump, of whom I assume you're a supporter)[FBDB] when people try to bring you back to earth, this really pisses a lot of people off, including me, and all this forum shopping doesn't help either.
- EEng - I'd love to keep this civil. No offense was intended when I said I thought you were a Trump supporter and, if you were offended, I apologize. If I mischaracterized you, I apologize. However, I don't believe everyone who disagrees with me is "motivated by dark intentions." As for "multiple overlapping articles" - I'm proposing to merge them after a discussion elsewhere and with other feedback. Nothing more dramatic than that. Also, did you not see my counter-proposal here? Would love to get your feedback on it. I think it ameliorates your concerns. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot! I'm going to bed too, have a great night! LavaBaron (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your trying to work something out, though I don't know how you'd think I would have seen a subpage of your userpage. The problem with this entire Trump-plant topic is that, while it's clear the sources aren't saying these people actually believe the idea, neither do the sources say in what exact vein they think these clearly nonserious "expressions of support" were made -- were they just jokes? Satire? As a result, we may be caught in a limbo where we can't say these people "support" the theory, but we also can't say in what vein they sent the tweets or whatever, because the sources don't characterize it clearly enough. EEng 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I totally get where you're coming from, EEng. One of the sources, MSNBC, actually refers to Carlos Curbelo describing his view as "for some, it’s actually not a joke" [212]. The other sources seem similarly clear-cut to me, so not sure I agree with you that the RS state it's a joke. To your question about the subpage of my userpage - I posted a link in the Talk section of the article, which is where we usually post edit discussions. Anyway, glad our differences are resolved. Look forward to discussing this with you further in Talk. Sorry, again, if I said anything you took as offense. LavaBaron (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your trying to work something out, though I don't know how you'd think I would have seen a subpage of your userpage. The problem with this entire Trump-plant topic is that, while it's clear the sources aren't saying these people actually believe the idea, neither do the sources say in what exact vein they think these clearly nonserious "expressions of support" were made -- were they just jokes? Satire? As a result, we may be caught in a limbo where we can't say these people "support" the theory, but we also can't say in what vein they sent the tweets or whatever, because the sources don't characterize it clearly enough. EEng 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
User:fyunck(click) reported by User:Bloodofox (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page: Cryptid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: (redirected to cryptozoology)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
User was warned and asked to revert their fourth reversion before this report: [217]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [218]
Comments:
First, please see the Fringe Theories noticeboard discussion here for background on what's going on with these articles:
These articles have long been a promotional device for users looking to use the site to push cryptozoology, a pseudoscience. While the situation has gotten better over the years as some of these user have dropped off and other, more pseudoscience-wary users have come along, we still have an issue with users edit-warring to promote cryptozoology on Wikipedia and we still don't have any active folklorists who work with the project. This user has been particularly fierce about it lately and has stood in the way of improvement. There appears to be consensus regarding a redirect on the fringe theories noticeboard and please note that every single reference used on the current article is a cryptozoologist source (the term is only used by cryptozoologists and not by folklorists). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Where to begin. This has boomerang all over it. It pops up on my watchlist that an article was first reverted and then was completely blanked. There was no discussion about it at all. I reverted the vandalism. It was blanked 2 more times. I reverted two more attempts at vandalizing the article. We aren't talking about a tweak or sentence change... the 9-year-old article contents were removed without discussion on the article talk page. many editors have worked on this article over the years. The editor removing the contents was warned multiple times but he deleted the warnings. I even put the article and editor up on the vandalism watchlist so others could deal with it instead of me. So with warnings and watchlist postings I feel I did my part to stop someone from page blanking. Could this article be merged in its entirety into another article. Hey that's possible with proper discussion. But we can't just have entire contents without discussion on the articles talk page. Too many editors (including bloodofox) have added to it through the years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- While this user is also doing a lot of talk about "vandalism", they're aware that they're misusing the term per Wikipedia standards (see rejected report). Red flag two.
- The user is well aware that every reference in the article is from a primary, pro-cryptozoology work—which fits his pro-cryptozoology approach well. Red flag three.
- Again, if you haven't looked at the this yet, I highly recommend that you do to get an idea what what's going on here. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. @Bloodofox and Fyunck(click): You're lucky clpo13 requested page protection and I saw that before I saw this or you'd both be blocked. If edit warring resumes after protection expires then blocks will occur. Fyunck(click) - this is not vandalism. Stop referring to it as that. NeilN talk to me 22:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Something seems broken here. Look, I'm heading away tomorrow till Sunday night, and I won't be able to respond. So if I get blocked for trying to stop page blanking without discussion with those who created the article 9 years ago, then I won't see it till then. But there are certain protocols, no matter the article, that we have to follow. RFC's, merge requests, AfD's. It's only fair to everyone. I'm not sure what has set this editor on edge, enough to have to fabricate things about me, or to start blanking articles without discussion, but all I ask is that those things stop. It's as if he owns the article and is allowed to bully his way no matter what. That doesn't seem fair to other editors who have worked on the article through its 9 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Bender235 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Page protected)
Page: Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bender235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [221]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [222]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [223]; discussion still active, but edit warring continues
Comments:
I moved a text message that was hidden in the source code to Template:Editnotices/Page/Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery. I explained doing this in the commentary of all three edits. SchroCat (talk · contribs) keeps reverting thinking I removed the text completely.
The message itself actually violates WP:INFOBOXUSE and our guidelines on use and misuse of hidden texts, since it is "telling others not to perform certain edits to a page" even though it was added without prior discussion anywhere in 2008. --bender235 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- There are several reasons why this is a bad move, as explained to you in the village pump discussion. The fact that you think your preferred version is the one you need to edit war to without discussion, without taking into account WP:3RR, speaks volumes of your approach. You may be entirely sure that you are right, but that does not make it so, and is absolutely no excuse for you to edit war while a discussion is in progress. - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- "
telling others
": no, it asks them to discuss on the talk page. It is an attempt to avoid edit warring (which, ironically, you have turned into an edit war because of your intransigence) - "
it was added without prior discussion
": 90-95% of our edits are made this way. This is something that has been there for eight years without people challenging it, and now you decide that you unilaterally want it gone, and you are prepared to edit war without the discussion coming to a conclusion? That's a very, very poor way of going about things. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- "
as explained to you in the village pump discussion
": You mean this VP(M) discussion where you basically told others you don't care about their opinions, and called me an "IB warrior" like I was following some evil agenda? - "
90-95% of our edits are made this way
": you very well know that this is not your regular type of contribution. It discourages people from making a certain edit, and it gives the illusion of an established consensus on the issue, when in fact there was no prior discussion at all. --bender235 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)- "
you ... told others you don't care about their opinions
": no, that's not true. I told one IB warrior to keep his opinions of my actions to himself. - Firstly, no, it's a polite message to ask people to use the talk page; secondly, it's a matter for discussion, not for you to arrogantly edit war to your preferred version without bothering to discuss with others.
- I have no desire to carry on any discussion with you: the talk page (or the village pump) was where the talking should have taken place before you breached the bright line known three-revert rule. You have offered no defence for breaching that rule based on WP:3RRNO because there is absolutely no defence for what you have done. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- "
- "
- While 3RR is a bright-line rule, both sides here are edit warring, and over a very silly issue. I mean, really? Edit warring over a hidden comment? Lame. SchroCat is absolutely correct that this should be discussed on the talk page. ~ Rob13Talk 20:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Both 'sides' may have been edit warring: only one individual has broken the bright-line rule with no defence from any of the 3RRNO criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- If it were up to me, I would block User:Bender235 for the 3RR violation on the hidden comment, unless he will promise to wait for talk page consensus before touching the article again. At this noticeboard we are not ruling on the value of infoboxes. We are just trying to ensure that people follow consensus processes before making contested edits. Since Bender235 has openly broken 3RR, I have the impression that he might be using this article as a test case. Admins should render a clear decision one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: It seems like you misunderstood the issue. The supposed "edit war" was not about adding or removing an infobox. It was about moving a hidden message [224] to the article's edit notice. --bender235 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The four reverts listed above are all reverts on the text of the hidden comment. My proposal is that you should be blocked for the 3RR violation on the hidden comment. If you create an edit notice echoing the same words, that is your affair, but you are still removing it from the the page text. You need consensus for that. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight: I am supposed to seek consensus first for moving a hidden message to the edit notice template? Just because SchroCat (talk · contribs) was unable to read the edit summary, where I explained three times that the hidden message has simply been moved? You got to be kidding me.
- Interestingly enough by the way, after SchroCat re-added the redundant comment three times (after I removed it three times), Clpo13 (talk · contribs) removed it again, correctly pointing out that it was, well, redundant. I guess you should tell him, too, he needs consensus first for that edit. --bender235 (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The four reverts listed above are all reverts on the text of the hidden comment. My proposal is that you should be blocked for the 3RR violation on the hidden comment. If you create an edit notice echoing the same words, that is your affair, but you are still removing it from the the page text. You need consensus for that. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: It seems like you misunderstood the issue. The supposed "edit war" was not about adding or removing an infobox. It was about moving a hidden message [224] to the article's edit notice. --bender235 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- If it were up to me, I would block User:Bender235 for the 3RR violation on the hidden comment, unless he will promise to wait for talk page consensus before touching the article again. At this noticeboard we are not ruling on the value of infoboxes. We are just trying to ensure that people follow consensus processes before making contested edits. Since Bender235 has openly broken 3RR, I have the impression that he might be using this article as a test case. Admins should render a clear decision one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I see clpo13 has now continued the edit warring. FFS, how many people are going to behave so shoddily before action is taken against these disruptive editors? – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Its odd you can have a hissy fit that Giano added the note without agreement or consensus (and one that has not been challenged or questioned in over 8 years) but when you add an official looking notice without agreement or consensus, you are so sure you are in the right that you will go past the bright line to protect it? – SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The original addition of the hidden message was not kosher since it created the illusion of consensus on the issue when in fact there had been no prior discussion. Now that Talk:Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery#Infobox proved that you are willing to push the envelope to make this the last holdout against infoboxes on Wikipedia, I concede that the edit notice should remain, and may it just to prevent the next poor sucker from stumbling into this hornets nest. --bender235 (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- "
Now that Talk:Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery#Infobox proved that you are willing to push the envelop to make this the last holdout against infoboxes on Wikipedia
": I'm not sure what planet you are from, but that's so far away from the truth it beggars belief. Your arrogance in edit warring to retain your version of things (with even less consensus than the previous version had) would raise a big red flag for most editors. It seems you are immune to such obvious signs that you've over stepped basic levels of behaviour and with so little justification. – SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- "
- Responding to SchroCat above: Yes, Bender has violated the bright-line rule, but edit warring doesn't take three reverts, and you've edit warred as well. That's obvious from the article history, and I would certainly hope whoever handles this report will equally treat all editors who reverted each other over this incredibly trivial notice. ~ Rob13Talk 21:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to AGF and put your comment down to inexperience as a new admin. He has edit warred with three users: if this was an IP, it would have been blocked some time ago. The fact it's an experienced editor who knows the rules, and still claims he is in the right, despite being badly in the wrong, makes it much, much worse. – SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to me that blocks of two of the parties for edit warring would be justified. This could be done, but it doesn't seem likely to bring the dispute to an end, The participants seem to be intensely convinced of the rightness of their respective positions and (I assume) the bad faith of their opponents. It seems unlikely that either party would ever admit they were edit warring. Another option is a period of full protection, taking the article back to an old version (such as August 7th) before the recent infobox warring began. Any admin who has a different idea for closing this should go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you keep insinuating that this was about "infobox warring" when it was about moving a hidden message to edit notice, as I have explained to you above and Gerda Arendt did on your talk page. --bender235 (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you believe you have consensus to move material from hidden text into edit notices, please link to where you got support for that. Until then, it counts as a regular revert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Has it really come to a point were a trivial edit like this needs prior consensus on the article's talk page? What's next, do I have to file an RfC before I can label a {{dead link}}?
- The hidden message in question has not even be removed, only moved to the edit notice. Even though deleting it completely would have been equally justified, since as a matter of fact Giano had as much "prior consensus" when he added this 8 years ago as I had
removingmoving it. --bender235 (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you believe you have consensus to move material from hidden text into edit notices, please link to where you got support for that. Until then, it counts as a regular revert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you keep insinuating that this was about "infobox warring" when it was about moving a hidden message to edit notice, as I have explained to you above and Gerda Arendt did on your talk page. --bender235 (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to me that blocks of two of the parties for edit warring would be justified. This could be done, but it doesn't seem likely to bring the dispute to an end, The participants seem to be intensely convinced of the rightness of their respective positions and (I assume) the bad faith of their opponents. It seems unlikely that either party would ever admit they were edit warring. Another option is a period of full protection, taking the article back to an old version (such as August 7th) before the recent infobox warring began. Any admin who has a different idea for closing this should go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Result: Article protected two weeks, on a version from August 7 that is prior to the beginning of the war. Use the talk page to try to get agreement. Admins can act on edit requests that have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Great job. With your wholesale revert you not only successfully restored an unjustified hidden message that violates MOS:COMMENT because it strictly prohibits a type of edit as if there was a policy against it (rather than encouraging a talk page discussion), you also restored a broken link, inconsistent use of dashes, and overuse of italics in quotation. I'm surprised you didn't drive this bizarre episode completely ad absurdum and deleted the edit notice as well. --bender235 (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- When dealing with the topic infobox, expect any absurdity. An edit war about a hidden message stat may be invalid seems on the harmless side. - Please, all involved: don't edit war, even if you are sure you are right. WP:BRD is a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- It really is quite funny. You get into all sorts of high-handed fury over Giano's edit "decided ... 8 years ago unilaterally without prior discussion anywhere" and demand its removal, but when you make a decision unilaterally without prior discussion anywhere, it's something the world has to obey without question? (And yours was questioned straight away, it didn't remain untouched and unquestioned for eight years either) Do you not get the irony in the double standards in that one? As Gerda has said, you should have gone to the talk page, not repeatedly warred to your preferred version. – SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Great job. With your wholesale revert you not only successfully restored an unjustified hidden message that violates MOS:COMMENT because it strictly prohibits a type of edit as if there was a policy against it (rather than encouraging a talk page discussion), you also restored a broken link, inconsistent use of dashes, and overuse of italics in quotation. I'm surprised you didn't drive this bizarre episode completely ad absurdum and deleted the edit notice as well. --bender235 (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Summary
I feel like this discussion will go down as one of the most insane chapters in Wikipedia history, so I felt the need to add a time line of these bizarre events before this section goes into the archives.
- I stumbled upon Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery, saw it didn't have an infobox, and wanted to add one. In edit mode I saw the hidden message added by Giano in 2008 saying
DO NOT ADD AN INFO BOX. I was curious to find out what were the reasons for this community decision, and found that instead the issue was never discussed anywhere. Giano had simply added it on his own authority. (only later I found out that this particular hidden message actually violated WP:INVISIBLE since it was "telling others not to perform certain edits to a page", but that's another issue) - So I decided to be bold and add an infobox. Not long after, Giano came along and reverted. So I did the B→R→D thing and opened a thread on the talk page. Giano explained himself as being the article's "principal contributor" who by "long standing Wikipedia tradition" had the sole authority to decide on the issue. Then Sagaciousphil and SchroCat entered the discussion, both of whom had never contributed to the article before, and joined Giano's general opposition of infoboxes.
- It became clear I ran against a wall, so I decided to let go. But before moving on I wanted to fix three minor issues with the article: (i) the inconsistent use of em/en dashes, (ii) an outdated external link by adding {{Jewish Encyclopedia}}, and (iii) moving the aforementioned hidden message from one place (the source code) to a better place (the edit notice) since I felt like it should remain given the apparent consensus on the issue. And that's where the madness started.
- SchroCat kept reverting my contributions without explaining what was wrong with them other than that I was supposedly "edit warring" and approaching 3RR. I eventually did, and ended up on WP:AN/EW. Later Clpo13 removed the now-redundant hidden message from the source code, only to be accused of edit warring by SchroCat as well.
- After a lengthy and insane discussion, EdJohnston closed this noticeboard issue, determining that from now even something as trivial as moving a hidden message from one place to a better one (as Gerda Arendt explained to him on his talk page) needs prior asking for permission from each article's council of elders.
So, that was pretty much it. If I am actually the only one finding this episode utterly bizarre and insane, I lost my faith in Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Bender235: You've missed the point by an exceptionally wide margin. As Ed has been attempting to point out to you repeatedly, this is not a dispute resolution noticeboard. We're not litigating or settling the infobox/hidden text wars here. This is a noticeboard for reporting and dealing with edit warring. You did edit war to keep your change in the article, regardless of its merit. Your expected to discuss and gain consensus for your change once its challenged, regardless of whether you think you're right. Everyone in an edit war always thinks they're right. Admins working this board frequently have to decide between blocking the belligerents or protecting the page. Surely you prefer the latter? --Laser brain (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I understand this was supposed to be dealt as 3RR issue here, and I acknowledge that EdJohnston wanted to end it by protecting the page. However, I disagree with his bottom line explanation above, telling me I needed to "have consensus to move material from hidden text into edit notices." This is pushing it too far. --bender235 (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)