Misplaced Pages

User:2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 reported by User:CharlieTheCabbie (Result: no violation)

Page

Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657087910 by 132.3.53.81 (talk)"
2. 22:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657093945 by Keilana (talk) repeated addition of vandalism highlighted by obvious ignorance of Latin"
3. 22:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657096850 by Wikiisawesome (talk) failure to cite a reliable source or explain changes to long-standing content confirmed in article text"
4. 22:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657098303 by Wikiisawesome (talk) repeated vandalism"
5. 22:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657098875 by Wikiisawesome (talk) try actually looking at the (Latin) motto's linked article. Now what's your source for Madonna's song being the anthem"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussions has been held over edit summaries. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Warnings have been given by at least 2 other users to cease disruptive editing and provide sources. These have been ignored. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 22:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think my reversions of this IP's edits were in error. Looks like the IP was correcting some earlier vandalism and I was too quick on the trigger. My fault. wia (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Does that actually excuse the edit war from occurring though? Surely it should have stopped before it hit that mark. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 22:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, the whole situation seems more my fault than the IP's. Perhaps IP should have posted on my talk page, but I should have paid closer attention to what I was doing. I'd rather not have the IP blocked when the problem stemmed from my own jump-the-gun reversions. I will offer to stay away from anti-vandalism work for a token period as a gesture of goodwill. wia (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Screw up admited good faith should be applied and a fishing trip may be required but that should be sufficient. Amortias (T)(C) 23:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. Goodness. Apologies to Puerto Rico. Kuru (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:223.176.190.65 reported by User:Mfb (Result: blocked)

Page: Higgs boson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 223.176.190.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. Based on very similar IP and version history, also diff and original change

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:223.176.190.65 (done by Jaaron95)

Comments:

Repeated nonsense in the article and edit war for it. --mfb (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. This isn't really an edit war; it's simple nonsensical vandalism that you're free to remove. I've blocked the latest IP and will semi-protect the article if they keep rotating out of the block. Kuru (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism the right place then? Okay. --mfb (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and usually faster. No big deal; it all comes out in the wash. Kuru (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: )

Page: Cabinet of Zoran Milanović (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Timbouctou (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 / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Appears not to be willing to discuss on talk page or stop reverting the article. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• User:Tuvixer ignored repeated requests to explain his recent additions, which include listing unsourced ministry budgets in a list of government ministers. He never tried to start a discussion or resolve the matter in either article talk or my user talk page - that is, not until he decided to file this report, after which he started a discussion in the talk page, issued a warning on my talk page, filed this report and then notified me about it - all in the space of 11 minutes. Sounds rather disingenuous to say the least. Timbouctou (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It is the first time I am reporting someone. It is not the first time you have harassed me and you are doing it even now on the article bout the Ministry of Culture(Croatia) --Tuvixer (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And where have you tried discussing the matter at the other article you've mentioned? 17:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Timbouctou (talk)

User:217.118.81.17/User:217.118.81.21 /User:217.118.81.22 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: page protected)

Page: Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.118.81.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 217.118.81.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 217.118.81.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP-hopping editor is edit-warring to insert the following uncited POV text into the article on the Crimea

But it must be said here that this United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was adopted only by very small majority. By example, only 51.81% of total UN members voted for this resolution. This small majority is only 33.80% of world`s population. The international community was split.

A later version is:

But it must be said here that this United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was adopted only by very small majority. By example, only 51.81% of total UN members voted for this resolution. This small majority is only 33.80% of world`s population. The international community was split. Even under strong American pressure, the majority were minor. It was a real Pyrrhic victory for American policy.

Diffs of the user's edits to do this:

1. 09:09, 18 April 2015
2. 13:16, 18 April 2015
3. 08:15, 19 April 2015
4. 13:53, 19 April 2015
5. 14:08, 19 April 2015
6. 18:40, 19 April 2015
7. 18:56, 19 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:52, 19 April 2015

There has been no discussion on talk pages. Four different editors have reverted the IP editor. Some of them explained why in their edit summaries, e.g: "reverted uncited POV edits by 217.118.81.17", "Reverting POV OR", "OR"-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Comment Page protection requested, might be more beneficial as ip-hopping. Amortias (T)(C) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected. Per Amoritas; the rapidly rotating IP makes semi-protection a better option here. Kuru (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:GogoLive123 reported by User:Jetstreamer (Result: Blocked)

Page: Balkan Bulgarian Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GogoLive123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Links can be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unsourced.2Fpoorly_sourced_changes_at_Balkan_Bulgarian_Airlines where I started a thread regarding the warring pattern of the user concerned. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Many warnings left at the user's talk regarding the removal of content.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user also left a message at my talk (diff provided in the link to the thread at WP:ANI above) and in their latest edit summary to the article that borders WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Jetstreamer  00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I saw after seeing the WP:ANI report and checking, this definitely looked like Edit warring to me. I would definitely agree that a (short) block is in order, possibly a somewhat longer block when the personal attack (see: diff) is factored in. --IJBall (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:174.124.182.172 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

Page: Indigo children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.124.182.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. - Reported to AIV and warned about edit warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Pretty clear cut violation of WP:EW and WP:NOTCENSORED. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Nulla Taciti reported by User:Khestwol (Result: Restriction for one week)

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nulla Taciti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to (no link to Wahhabism in the "Ideology" section of the infobox):

Diffs of the user's reverts (with misleading edit summaries):

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: (Nulla Taciti decided to delete my warning note about disruptive editing to them from their talk page .)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Clear cut violation of WP:1RR. The user is repeatedly pushing a certain POV while disruptively edit-warring in articles related to Wahhabism. They are removing any link to Wahhabism that they find from multiple articles. Another user, Mbcap, who is also pushing the same POV as Nulla Taciti, had also violated 1RR recently, after reverting 2 users in a period of less than 1 hour ( ) in the same article. Even Mbcap had agreed that something must be done so that the removal of the Wahhabism reference from the ideology section of the infobox is stopped (). But all of that, and even the 1RR restriction, is not protecting the article from disruption by Nulla Taciti. Khestwol (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Other users active in the article are welcome to comment here, including Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, GregKaye, and Aronzak. Khestwol (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is remarkably WP:BADFAITH behavior on the part of Khestwol. Wahhabi/Wahhabism is considered a derogatory sectarian term: this was the result of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant talk page WP:CON that this user is completely misrepresenting (see also The Vocabulary of Sectarianism "The utilization of Wahhabi as a negative moniker is not new"). Khesteol is using sensational language and clearly pushing his own agenda regarding the inclucision of an obviously contentious term, and hasn't even attempted to discuss this matter before coming straight to the admin noticeboard on the most flimsy pretext (didn't even realize the page was 1rr, which I usually adhere to on a global basis regardless). Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nulla Taciti: stop deleting notice from your talk page about this report. Also, there have been discussions about 1RR at Talk:ISIL in the past, so a user like you active in POV-pushing in the article can not claim to not knowing about 1RR. Khestwol (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I will remove WP:BADFAITH from my talk page whenever I see fit. You are literally edit warring on my talk page while engaging in a bad faith attempt to get an editor you disagree with blocked. Talk about a hypocrite. And stop with the WP:PERSONAL (e.g. "POV-pushing") and debate the issue at hand — why are you so insistent on inserting sectarian hate terms into articles? Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Also the only other article edited in relation to the misuse of the term Wahhabi was al-Nusra Front, where an article was quoting a Shiite sectarian figure disparagingly using this term. It is uncommon to except 1rr. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

When you violate WP:1RR it doesn't help to argue you were right, so it was justified. It is now too late for Nulla Taciti to self-revert. But in my opinion they might be able to avoid a block if they will agree to make no edits regarding Wahhabism on any article for the next seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input EdJohnston. Also note that Nulla Taciti has been repeatedly deleting my warning note and AN/EW notice to them from their talk page (, , ). Such unhelpful behavior should be considered vandalism. Khestwol (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol, your reading of policy is not correct. Per WP:BLANKING a person can remove almost anything from their own talk page except declined unblock requests. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A person can also remove warnings for edit-warring from their talk, as much as 3 times within a period of less than 15 hours? Khestwol (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem Khestwol? You are going to quite great lengths to WP:HARASS me over this unintentional 1rr. It really speaks to your character, as well as your intentions regarding this subject. I didn't "use misleading edit summaries" and a user can revert whatever they like on their own user page or talk page, as many times as they like (especially when the user continutally reverting is conducting themselves in such an inflammatory manner). Stop clutching at straws. And yes EdJohnston, I agree to avoid the subect of Wahhabism for the next week — probably would have anyway. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I have found the editor Khestwol to be an extremely bad faith editor who decided to open a thread on the ISIL page about my conduct in regards to 1RR, instead of approaching me first. Secondly Khestwol himself has broken the 1RR rule here and here. It is very rich for Khestwol to be alleging that I am pushing a POV when he/she has consistently pushed for Wahhabism to be included in the infobox, despite not enough weight in sources. Mbcap (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Nulla Taciti has agreed to make no edits regarding Wahhabism on any article for the next seven days. I'm accepting this assurance in lieu of a block for the 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If an admin could remove the subject Khestwol dumped on the talk page of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant titled "clear cut edit warring" linking here, that would be great. This user appears to be obsessed with smearing me on articles I edit frequently, the title isn't accurate or fair at all, and this matter was quickly resolved anyway. Nulla Taciti (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Mustu6233 reported by User:Summichum (Result: )

Page

List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mustu6233 (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 13:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC) "/* List of Da'i al-Mutlaq of Dawoodi Bohra */"
   2. 13:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC) "/* List of Da'i al-Mutlaq of Dawoodi Bohra */"
2. 14:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "The changes is been made by looking towards the followers of super majority sects of group who are following Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and let the world know who is currently the authoritative of the community.The other sect have less than thousand ppl."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

long history of reverting correct information, possibly a partisan of one of the claimants to Dai.

WARNINGS given by admin: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mustu6233#April_2015 Summichum (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Let's wait and see if User:Mustu6233 will respond. He has not edited since this report was filed. Though it's not a 3RR violation it's a case of long-term edit warring -- several reverts since April 9. (Declaring one candidate to be the winner, while having no reliable source to confirm it). EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Unesco2015 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours )

Page

Zeitgeist (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Unesco2015 (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 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC) to 09:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ removing "social networking". This is a real chapter-based activism group that has been around for 6 years. It has had over 1000 events"
   2. 09:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ Adding viable data. Removing biased legal reference used to distract and create POV"
   3. 09:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Zeitgeist: The Movie */ Removing incorrect 3rd party ref to claim the film supports "new world order" interests. This is a fringe 3rd claim with non consensus."
   4. 09:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ Removing incredibly biased and unfounded ref to "profit" for peter joseph. Who is putting this crap in here?. Peter joseph has never claimed to lead any group/"
2. 09:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "Removed "social networking group". In the 6th year history of the movement, never has this term be seen or heard. The movement is a network of physical chapters across the world"
3. 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657349409 by Ian.thomson (talk) Restoring non POV change."
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC) to 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657351194 by Ian.thomson (talk) Removing biased vandalism"
   2. 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "Showing source as documentaries"
5. 17:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "fixing biased vandalism"
6. 17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ repairing POV based on blog sources"
7. 17:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "removing poorly sources blogs references that paint absurd and false POV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article attracts WP:SPA fans who want to censor the article and turn it into a promotional piece. Unesco2015 is just another one. User has also engaged in talk page vandalism and their first edit was an utter fabrication about consensus. Unesco2015 is WP:NOTHERE except for WP:ADVOCACY. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bishonen | talk 17:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:برسام reported by User:Samak (Result: )

Page

Hamadan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

According to agreement in this article and talkpage-Requested move, The correct writing is Hamadan not Hamedan. Even a valid source for example Encyclopædia Iranica wrote Hamadan but this user do not accept the agreement 1 and 2. plz investigation-Samək 19:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ Multiple Authors (April 18, 2012). "HAMADĀN". Encyclopædia Iranica. Retrieved 20 April 2015.

• If User:برسام doesn't respond to this complaint a block should be considered. Meanwhile I've applied move protection to the article. The question is whether to render the town's name همدان into English as 'Hamadan' or 'Hamedan'. Since this is an issue of romanization there is no answer that is certain to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Laddypat reported by User:Widefox (Result: )

Page

John Basedow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657489974 by Joseph2302 (talk) Undid deletion of New York Times sourcing information. Please put edit protection block back on page as per Chris Wilson at Misplaced Pages."
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC) to 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657463744 by Smartse (talk) Added New York Times reference link that was questioned and undid negative, non-factual comments that were questioning the validity of this article."
   2. 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "Added Vine back as another platform where Basedow's show Culture Pop is on."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates on John Basedow. (TW)"
2. 09:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "WP:COIN notified"
3. 13:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing afd templates on John Basedow. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruptive SPA & COI editor refusing to engage in dialogue and continuing to remove maintenance templates and the AfD after final warning given . See also Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#John_Basedow Widefox; talk 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reported the same user to ANI. They hadn't been warned about EWing, but had been about AFD templates and are clearly being disruptive. SmartSE (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

They're blocked. Withdrawn. Widefox; talk 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Amber388 reported by User:WeldNeck (Result: )

Page: Theodore Beale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amber388 (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 / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Amber388 has continually placed blog sourced and other self published defamatory material into the article. WeldNeck (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

] reported by User:CrazyAces489 (Result: )

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: