Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:40, 1 February 2014 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,225 edits →User:Dicklyon reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Voluntary break ): Closing← Previous edit Revision as of 00:47, 2 February 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,783 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive234) (botNext edit →
Line 25: Line 25:


<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> <!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ripple (payment protocol)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PirateButtercup}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&oldid=592828983

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592851143&oldid=592850047
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=next&oldid=592851143
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=next&oldid=592851559
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=next&oldid=592851729
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592858668&oldid=592858080
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592835706&oldid=592833519
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592833519&oldid=592832930
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592832829&oldid=592832263
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592832263&oldid=592828983
And many others on the same day.

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PirateButtercup&diff=next&oldid=592863668

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PirateButtercup&diff=592862226&oldid=592646346

and following edits

<u>Comments:</u> <br />

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Straightforward 3RR violation. User admits he isn't familiar with the rules, but doesn't feel like reading up. I'll be happy to apply BRD if he disagrees with my changes, but he like everybody else must abide by the rules and know that the rules are in fact rules. ] (]) 23:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
: In addition to the reverts described above by mmeijeri, PirateButtercup also reverted five of my edits to the Ripple page today. I added them to the list above. All told, it's not a "straightforward" 3RR violation but an egregious one. ] 00:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
::Let me add that I believe he is acting in good faith, and also admit I posted in anger, which was maybe not the best course of action. I don't necessarily want to see him blocked, but I do want him to play by the rules. ] (]) 00:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Nearly half of the above were performed because the author chose to create subtitles with identical names to existing sections (rather than work within the existing sections). At first he seemed to be writing about the underlying philosophies, (under the category 'Concept'). This I believe would warrant such a redundancy. However, when he subordinated all of the existing categories to his categories by the exact same name...none of which were cited ...it became clear he had other motives. I undid one deletion regarding the control of Ripple as the person who deleted it claimed there was no mention in the reference...even though it stated that they "did not control Ripple". I undid another deletion regarding the legal section. The person responsible deleted it because he claimed it was irrelevant, when in fact it is very relevant. This was worked out on the Talk page....which is where it should have went before it was deleted. The talk page should have been the approach for all similar deletions. In short, hijacking an article by replicating category names and subordinating existing categories by the exact same name cannot be appropriate ... whether I know the rules or not. By that same measure, I suspect deleting direct and indirect quotes...from quality sources...that are pertinent to the article... without going through the Talk pages is not appropriate either. ] (]) 04:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
::::I did announce my edits in advance, waited a while, no one objected and I went ahead explaining why I was making the changes, going in small steps that could individually be reverted. I don't mind if PB reverts, that's what BRD is for. But that's not the point, the complaint here is about 3RR which has little or nothing to do with content. I do object to wholesale reversion and ignoring the rules. ] (]) 12:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

*'''{{small|(Uninvolved)}} Comment''' There does not appear to be edit warring, but some content disputes, certainly.
*1. 18:42, 28 January 2014‎ by ] restored 425 bytes removed 17:17, 28 January 2014‎ by ]
*2. 18:46, 28 January 2014‎ by ] restored 175 bytes removed 17:44, 28 January 2014‎ by Chrisarnesen
*3. 18:47, 28 January 2014‎ by ] '''{{red|removed 1,007 bytes}}''' {{sub|Note: summary not stated as being a revert}}
*4. 18:51, 28 January 2014‎ by ] restored 230 bytes removed 16:48, 28 January 2014‎ by ]
*5. 19:08, 28 January 2014‎ by PirateButtercup '''restored 1,007 bytes''' removed by Chrisarnesen
*Note that the number 3 edit by User:Chrisarnesen is dated 1 minute after the 2nd edit by User:PirateButtercup. It is not apparent whether User:PirateButtercup was aware of the intermediate edit when the number 4 edit (User:PirateButtercup's 3rd ''consecutive'' edit) was made. There is no evidence in that article's history after this of any opposition or objection to the several further edits by User:PirateButtercup. No specific edit was complained of on the talk page.
*What is ]'s beef? There is no discussion on the article talk page specifying any particular edit. The 3 posts by User:Mmeijeri on User:PirateButtercup's talk page do not specify what edit(s) is(are) being requested to be self-reverted, and ''tone'' of the complaints do not seem overwhelmingly friendly. ] (]) 15:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
::: The number 3 edit by me was a removal of unsuitable references (replacing them with citation needed templates), a new edit completely unrelated to any other I had made on the page. My removal of 1007 bytes (edit 3) was NOT itself a revert. PirateButtercup immediately reverted that edit, adding back the unverifiable citations. Nor did he "self-revert" his reversion after myself and Agyle agreed that that the citations were not valid on ] The fact that my edit had a negative byte count is relevant; Buttercup reverted it. The main beef is that PirateButtercup egregiously disregarded the 3 reverts per day rule. Mmeijeri and I each made several independent edits yesterday, and PirateButtercup reverted many of them, way more than 3. I actually just noticed ANOTHER Buttercup revert from yesterday that I hadn't noticed previously because he did it "manually" and left the edit summary blank. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592856988&oldid=592853855 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592828256&oldid=592826953 . ] 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p}} – Three days. Judging from the comments above the participants are capable of discussing the issues when they have to. This protection will allow time for agreement to be worked out on the article talk page. If reverts continue (without discussion) after protection expires, blocks may be considered. If you have questions about the usability of sources (for instance, about using the Ripple wiki) you can ask at ]. ] (]) 19:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
::We all get put on a timeout because Buttercup can't play nice? That's a worse outcome for the article than if we'd never brought this to the attention of the administrators in the first place. In that case I'd rather just try to work it out amongst ourselves. Much obliged if you could lift the protection. ] 20:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:::After all the times that admins had to intervene at ] it is not surprising that ] is in trouble as well. You guys are clearly capable of discussing the issues, so go ahead and do that. If you reach consensus on any single item use {{tl|edit protected}} on the talk page to get an admin to make the requested change in the article. ] (]) 21:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Chrisarnesen}} I just wanted to pop back in and say thank you for your reply. I agree that the red emphasised edit above was "NOT" a revert. Best wishes to everyone. {{small|] (]) 05:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}}

== {{anchor|Feysalafghan}}] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent}}
;User being reported: {{/userlinks|Feysalafghan|Feysalafghan}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|593008592|20:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 592834016 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|592833724|18:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)}} "i don't know what you are talking about but they say they made early inroads in indian subcontinent by going in Afghanistan but Afghanistan is not indiansubontinent but about Pakistan, Pakistan is part of the Indian subcontinent. i don't want editwar bro"
# {{diff2|592820417|17:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Afghanistan is not in the Indian plate sir and is on the western side of the hindu kush mountains so that means that Afghanistan is not Indian subcontinent go look for the definitions of Indian subcontinent on internet."
# {{diff2|592810514|16:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,


;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


;<u>Comments:</u>

I asked for full protection of the page yesterday to force both sides to the talk page but it was declined. Also I would like to note here that it is an edit warring report not 3RR. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours. ] (]) 01:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

== ], ] and ]<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here --> reported by ] (Result: WP Editor 2011 blocked) ==

'''Pages:'''<br />
:{{pagelinks|Aesop}} <br />
:{{pagelinks|Aesop's Fables}} <br />
'''User being reported:'''<br />
:{{userlinks|Mzilikazi1939}}<br />
:{{userlinks|Dougweller}}<br />
:{{userlinks|Johnbod}}<br />

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
]
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
There may have been more; there were numerous unrelated edits in between and not all of Mzilikazi's edits had clearly explained summaries.

]
#
#
#


<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
#
#
#
#
#
#
...and so on. These might be a little bit out of chronological order.

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
#
#
#
#
#
#

<u>Comments:</u> <br />

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
In May/June 2012, Mzilikazi1939's 1.5-year-long edit war surrounding the articles ] and ] came to an end after I noticed what had been going on, reverted the changes that he had been enforcing by bullying and argued with him on several different pages. He finally conceded defeat , after his , lying, suggestions of article ownership and misleading complaints to administrators all failed. Note his description given for the edit logs is a misspelling of the Buddhist greeting "sukhi hotu".

After the ]/] edit war, both articles remained in their clean states for 8 months straight until Mzilikazi decided to start the conflict all over again. This time, however, he used his original account by the name of ]. On 2 February 2013, he to ] that he had been trying to enforce via bullying in the first edit war. This was immediately reverted but Mzilikazi returned to ] at once to enforce his will , just like he had done for 1.5 years in the first edit war ....

In this second, 11-month edit war, ] has gone back and forth between the clean version and the hijacked version in exactly the same manner as it did the first time around, i.e. with Mzilikazi1939 and one or two other people regularly reverting numerous editors' attempts to save the article from their hijacking. The diffs are listed at the beginning of this report. However, unlike Mzilikazi's first edit war, ] remained untouched until just a few days ago. I reported Mzilikazi1939 for using a sock puppet but ] deliberately confused the administrators with grossly excessive amounts of clearly irrelevant information, most of which consisted of ad hominem arguments against me. Consequently, ] said he couldn't make sense of it and Mzilikazi1939 escaped unpunished.

A few days ago, I reverted Mzilikazi's illegal changes to ] so he canvassed his first edit war allies at the 3rd and 4th discussions linked to above. Dougweller already noticed what was happening and didn't need to be canvassed. Haploidavey has presumably recognised the illegitimacy of his position and has thus abstained from the conflict but the other three of them have greatly intensified their efforts to hijack the two articles in question in the last few days; refusing to discuss their proposed change on the talk pages and instead cherry-picking bits and pieces from their first edit war (particularly Dougweller) in an attempt to convince everyone that they didn't lose. The facts speak for themselves; Mzilikazi conceded defeat in June 2012, the articles remained in their clean states for 8 months and then, with no discussion at all taking place until a few days ago, Mzilikazi started exactly the same behaviour in February 2013 that he did for 1.5 years in the first edit war, with Dougweller and Johnbod now reuniting with him a few days ago. This gang of three has been ignoring the attempts of myself, Aoidh and the numerous other editors to resolve the issue during the last 11 months. The discussion is going nowhere and therefore this issue requires administrator intervention.
*{{AN3|b}}. I blocked ] for one week for edit warring in both articles against consensus (re ], for which they have been previously blocked) and for making ].--] (]) 01:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked for 3 days) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Amitc.iitg}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|593141381|17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Request you to stop being stubborn and do some research on the kind of information displayed on IIT pages(sister IIT (IIT Bombay, IIT Kanpur, IIT Kharagpur, IIT Madras, IIT Delhi, IIT Roorkee))"
# {{diff2|593140551|17:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Kindly refer to the page of IIT , increasing the information content of page"
# {{diff2|593139933|16:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Hampering the information content of the page, no promotional content has been displayed"
# {{diff|oldid=593123091|diff=593134610|label=Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC) to 16:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|593134098|16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593123091 by ] (])"
## {{diff2|593134610|16:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Hampering the information content of the page"
# {{diff|oldid=593115964|diff=593117118|label=Consecutive edits made from 13:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC) to 13:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|593116945|13:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593112211 by ] (])"
## {{diff2|593117118|13:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 593112555 by ] (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|593140061|16:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Caution: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|593140750|17:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|593140857|17:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on ]. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


;<u>Comments:</u>
*{{AN3|b|3 days.}} If the problem continues after that block, an indefinite block may be reasonable, since this is clearly a promotion-only account, in addition to the edit-warring issue. ] (]) 18:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 month) == == ] reported by ] (Result: 1 month) ==

Revision as of 00:47, 2 February 2014

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Muslim/Zionist category tag warring reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: )

    Users involved:

    The above users are engaged in edit warring related to articles on persecution of or terrorism by Muslims or Zionists. The activity involves repeated addition or removal of category tags from a large number of articles. Some users are leaving highly charged or disparaging comments towards the others in edit summaries. Please refer to contributions.

    The matter was previous brought up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Do we give IPs discretionary sanction warnings? though no action was taken.

    Comments:


    User:Nfomamdoalfrlpsa reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 month)

    Page
    Arms Industry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593245969 by Jim1138 (talk) stop Rv We've had this discussion"
    2. 07:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592162772 by Bevo74 (talk) We've had this discussion"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Started again after he got a 72 hour block for exactly the same reason. Please see comment by Kuru a week ago: . Δρ.Κ.  07:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


    We've had this discussion"

    the source doesn't provide evidence to substantiate its claims and is also riddled with inaccuracies and contradictions. If you would like to release source or evidence to substantiate its claims please do--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

    User:Kishok Nazriya reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Nazriya Nazim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Kishok Nazriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 07:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC) to 07:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
      1. 07:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC) ""
      2. 07:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Continuously tries to showcase illicit images of Nazriya Nazim, removing the legally used ones. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

    I got tipped off by the word "illicit", but maybe "poorly sourced" and "properly licensed" would be better terms here? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Warned. Not really an edit war issue but a copyright issue, as well as probable communication problems and promotional issues. I've warned the user on their talk page about the copyright violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

    User:The sun2013 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

    Page
    Vevo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    The sun2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism page vevo 💕 in English, This page needs to be protected from the clowns that erases information or enter false data to generate controversy among the fans of the artists."
    2. 20:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism page vevo 💕 in English"
    3. 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593317551 by ViperSnake151 (talk) WTF WHO THE PEOPLE?"
    4. 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Vevo. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Do not restore the "Certified" list. */ new section"
    Comments:

    Constantly restores content that was removed as a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE; editing pattern and conduct seems to imply "ownership" behaviour ViperSnake151  Talk  22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

    User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and user:5.69.238.72 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: IP blocked)

    Page: Morph (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    5.69.238.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Brightline 3+RR on both sides. Not a major change, just trolling from the IP. I reverted once to a previous stable version, then was reverted in minutes by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who now alleges that I'm a sock of the IP! Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    User:Jakandsig reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Dreamcast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jakandsig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

    Comments:
    Jackandsiq, who has been previously blocked for and aroused community ire by edit warring, reverted four times in less than an hour. In addition to the material he actually disagreed with, he started removing thousands of bytes worth of content that I added to make a WP:POINT, but he was reverting to a virtually identical version each time. I reverted him twice; three other editors reverted him once each.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

     Checking... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    User:50.30.49.20 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    P. J. Patterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    50.30.49.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593018561 by Sven Manguard (talk) Source was given(SIPT). They are currently prosecuting Misick (ex-Premier (chief minister of the Turks and Caicos Islands))."
    2. 16:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593018561 by Sven Manguard (talk) The source is verified. Who wrote that it was a crime?"
    3. 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593137059 by EricSerge (talk) The Official source. Multiple governments has put this team is place."
    4. 18:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593152871 by EvergreenFir (talk) Who wrote that a crime was committed. There is a confiscation Order(conviction)."
    5. 22:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593323261 by EvergreenFir (talk) Court Order"
    6. 03:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593349543 by EvergreenFir (talk) Queen Bestowed an Award"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on P. J. Patterson. (TW)"
    2. 22:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring warning */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits about court order */ new section"
    Comments:

    User just got off ban for edit warring today and proceeded to edit war on the same article. WP:NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    User:1houstonian reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

    Page
    Steve Stockman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    1houstonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Current tenure (District 36) */ revert with citations please do not vandalise"
    2. 04:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593385121 by GabrielF (talk)"
    3. 04:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593387454 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk)"
    4. 05:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Current tenure (District 36) */ please do not remove sourced material showing the persons positions"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Please stop reverting and talk */ sure"
    2. 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* writing on a talk page */ new section"
    3. 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Steve Stockman. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Hearsay? */ new section"
    2. 05:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Public Figure */ r"
    Comments:

    The editor won't engage constructively on talk page and has at least four reverts in the last couple hours despite both invitations to discuss and warnings. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    User:TheDude36 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: 24 hours)

    Page
    Rick Joyner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    TheDude36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593446788 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
    2. 16:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593448197 by Sean.hoyland (talk) VANDALISM VANDALISM"
    3. 16:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593449443 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) I CREATED THIS PAGE! YOU ARE POSTING FALSE INFORMATION!"
    4. 16:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593449873 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Rick Joyner. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    See talk page for additional warnings. See edit summaries for assertions of ownership. The editor won't stop reverting and discuss anything on the talk page. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    User:Caprimanali reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Lurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Caprimanali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 16:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Lurs. (TW)"
    2. 17:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* February 2014 */ don't change quotations, use edit summaries"
    3. 17:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Hamadan Province. (TW)"
    4. 18:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lurs. (TW)"
    5. 18:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Tofy Mussivand. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    POV edits across a range of articles. Probably a BLP violation at Tofy Mussivand as no sources say the subject is Kurdish. Basically nationalist editing - as you can see I warned him for changing a quotation (to add Kurdish to it). Removed sourced text which didn't support a Kurdish pov. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    Info:

    The user has done the same type of edits on svwiki and is now blocked there. -- Tegel (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    User:Dicklyon reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Voluntary break)

    Page: Vitamin D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    User in question is reverting multiple different editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    Characterizing these as reverts and blaming me for edit warring is a rather biased picture (the first revert was by Doc James, Jmh649 after I tried to implement the result of a talk-page discussion; he not only removed my attempt but restored a version that everyone had agreed was wrong). But I will refrain from touching it more as I said on the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Here are the recent Dicklyon edits after removing consecutive edits by the same person, using the 3RR helper tool:
    1. 17:14, 30 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Cardiovascular disease */ OK to mention and reference both sides in a topic with competing POVs")
    2. 17:59, 30 January 2014 (edit summary: "don't censor alternative points of view")
    3. 20:34, 30 January 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Jmh649 (talk): Restore ref to recent (2008, 2010) results. (TW)")
    4. 04:38, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Cancer */ clarify what small effects were reported")
    5. 04:43, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Bone health */ clarify what they were looking at here")
    6. 04:59, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Bone health */ why do people misrepresent sources so badly? fixing")
    7. 05:03, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Bone health */")
    8. 05:08, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Effects */ update again per sources and ongoing talk-page discussion that reverter seems unaware of")
    9. 05:45, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Cardiovascular disease */ say something more about ongoing studies; it's relevant that the report support and reports them")
    10. 16:05, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Effects */ re-fix the fortmann quote to what applies here; don't suppress the information from the quoted sources")
    11. 17:26, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Cardiovascular disease */ a 2014 report should not censor others from the last few years, per WP:MEDRS")
    12. 17:33, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Alexbrn: Alex, please restrain your censorship reflex and try to work this out on the talk page; I did not pick these refs have been in the article long before I looked at it. (TW)")
    User:Dicklyon made nine reverts on February 1 alone. Though Dicklyon is not the only person reverting here, he beats the others by a wide margin. Everyone is well-intentioned, but it would be best if Dicklyon would agree to take a 7-day break from the article to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    Most of these edits are good-faith attempts to improve the article in the direction that we had been discussing on the talk page. How can you characterize an edit such as this one that nobody objects to as a revert? I'm already taking a break from the article, as I said. I can make it seven days if you like, but I'd rather have you look into what's going on and say something appropriate the other three guys with the censoring reflex defending the status quo and making progress difficult. See the talk page discussion (not just the section that the doc linked, but several before and after). Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    User:Geraldo Perez reported for editwarring at Rick Joyner by User:Grade X (Result: Locked)

    1st 2nd 3rd 4th

    Enjoy.

    Grade X (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    Categories: