|
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
||
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so. |
||||
|
||||
Definition of edit warring | ||||
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. | ||||
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) | ||||
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. | ||||
Noticeboard archives |
Contents
- 1 User:123Steller reported by User:Borsoka (Result: No action)
- 2 User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: declined)
- 3 User:Oldyeller123 reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: protected, blocked)
- 4 User:2601:C8:4000:D3:C0BF:E166:6BEB:54A5 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: semi-protected)
- 5 User:DaniloFFloresCarvajal reported by User:Chrisw80 (Result: )
- 6 User:LongNailsShortHair reported by User:TheGracefulSlick
- 7 User:Fonsy74 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocks)
- 8 User:Deffrman reported by User:Onel5969 (Result:36h )
- 9 User:Deffrman reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )
- 10 User:VanEman reported by User:Debresser (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
- 11 User:Mezzi10 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
- 12 User:Adamstraw99 reported by User:Ankisur2 (Result: )
- 13 User:Herakliu reported by User:Zoupan (Result: )
User:123Steller reported by User:Borsoka (Result: No action)
Page: Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 123Steller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
1. I reverted to the status quo, that existed until December 2015: [8]. User:Rgvis also rejects the addition at the moment: [9]
2. Borsoka, who reported me, is also involved in the edit war: [10]
3. There is a difference of 2 days and 1/2 between my 1st and my 4th revert.
4. The recent discussion on the talk page was initiated by myself [11] and I am an active participant in it. I want to get a consensus with all involved editors. 123Steller (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Just two remarks. (1) No, I did not participate in an edit war. (2) No, you are not an active participant in the discussion. You are making declarations without referring to a single reliable source ([12]; [13]. Borsoka (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Result: No action. It appears that User:123Steller has not continued to revert since March 6. If this starts up again let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: declined)
Page: 2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He has been blocked and reported for similar behavior multiple times, so he's expected to be aware of what edit warring is.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've opened a section for this regard on the article TP.
Comments:
There are some disputed points regarding the article which are being discussed on the article talk page. Some agreements and disagreements are being exchanged there, as it's seen. BlueMoonset correctly tagged the article writing " issues discussed at length on talk page and still unresolved". Suddenly, a user who has shown tendency to commit edit war on several occasions, jumped in and removed some disputed material without participating the discussion. It was weird, as the issues were not resolved so I restored them and kept on discussing my points on the TP. The reported user once again did his job of reverting without participating the discussion. After almost 2 Mins, he put a note on the article TP and accused me of POV editing (which it self should be proved). As I said He was not even involved in that discussion! Here my point is not that I was right regarding those issues as here's not the place for that, rather I want to say that "edit warring is edit warring even if you're right," (as Drmies said) and I think that single diff of FC's revert is clearly enough to prove his edit warring where almost nothing is resolved. Note: Among other occasions, the reported user was verified to be guilty of edit warring some days ago. Mhhossein (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Only someone tripping on acid will think of this as edit warring: There is consensus on TP that article should be given a NPOV makeover. Mhhossein does not WP:OWN the article and anyone can edit the article to reduce POV edits. Everyone including BlueMoonset and User:Dr.K., except Mhhossein agrees with my edits, to be frank this is a simple case of one disgruntled user with a case of WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI. If Mhhossein reverts me with the reason that TP discussion is ongoing, however, the issue about POV has already been decided and the article tagged, hence it is proven that restoring NPOV is not against policy. reverting any edits that restore NPOV is total BS. Enough is enough this time I want a damn boomerang for this guy who keeps posting shitty reports about me, simple as that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- As It's seen FreeatlastChitchat pretends to ignore that "edit warring is edit warring even if you're right". I think because he simply survived his previous case although he was guilty of violating WP:3RR, as it was proved. Anyway, How do you know they agreed with your edit warring? could not they do it? BlueMoonset clearly asserted that the issues were not resolved! You should've participated the discussion instead of being such a disruptive user. Moreover, I'm asking the admins to take care of "Only someone tripping on acid will think of this as edit warring", because FC has been blocked and warned for being uncivil multiple times. He was also asked multiple times to practice diplomacy, the suggestion he ignores usually. Mhhossein (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- What I said was that POV problems persisted, which is why I finally tagged the article. Neutrality issues have plagued this article for well over a month and were what sank its DYK nomination, which I closed over a week ago because none of the issues raised had been addressed. At some point someone was going to come along and attempt a rewrite to take care of the neutrality problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Look BlueMoonset! There are some disputes over some points and this naturally happens. Who is right and who is wrong is something and dealing with those issues is something else. I had my points, as you did and they are all respected. For example, at first it was said that Firouzabadi's comment had to be removed, while I had my point that He's notable enough to have such a comment and we have to keep that. Here it's not important who was right and who was wrong rather the very important problem here is that edit warring retards reaching a consensus and is prohibited. You can see other sections such as "Just two SIM cards", "returned to the United States" and "Some points" where disputes were simply resolved via discussion. The very spirit of being able to discuss the issues with other editors leads us toward consensus, the point which is apparently hard to understand for some users. FreeatlastChitchat's persistent edit warring trend has to stop somewhere. Mhhossein (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Anyone calling one revert "edit warring" belongs in a place where he should be taken care of on hourly basis. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:edit war, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so," the case is even more clear if the parties don't try to solve the issue via discussion. You made zero effort to resolve the issue! Moreover, any one who violates the limits of civility by calling others "...someone tripping on acid..." and "...should be taken care of on hourly basis" and had been repeating this behaviour over and over (I can simply present multiple diffs) probably needs to be addressed by admins. Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Anyone calling one revert "edit warring" belongs in a place where he should be taken care of on hourly basis. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Look BlueMoonset! There are some disputes over some points and this naturally happens. Who is right and who is wrong is something and dealing with those issues is something else. I had my points, as you did and they are all respected. For example, at first it was said that Firouzabadi's comment had to be removed, while I had my point that He's notable enough to have such a comment and we have to keep that. Here it's not important who was right and who was wrong rather the very important problem here is that edit warring retards reaching a consensus and is prohibited. You can see other sections such as "Just two SIM cards", "returned to the United States" and "Some points" where disputes were simply resolved via discussion. The very spirit of being able to discuss the issues with other editors leads us toward consensus, the point which is apparently hard to understand for some users. FreeatlastChitchat's persistent edit warring trend has to stop somewhere. Mhhossein (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- What I said was that POV problems persisted, which is why I finally tagged the article. Neutrality issues have plagued this article for well over a month and were what sank its DYK nomination, which I closed over a week ago because none of the issues raised had been addressed. At some point someone was going to come along and attempt a rewrite to take care of the neutrality problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- As It's seen FreeatlastChitchat pretends to ignore that "edit warring is edit warring even if you're right". I think because he simply survived his previous case although he was guilty of violating WP:3RR, as it was proved. Anyway, How do you know they agreed with your edit warring? could not they do it? BlueMoonset clearly asserted that the issues were not resolved! You should've participated the discussion instead of being such a disruptive user. Moreover, I'm asking the admins to take care of "Only someone tripping on acid will think of this as edit warring", because FC has been blocked and warned for being uncivil multiple times. He was also asked multiple times to practice diplomacy, the suggestion he ignores usually. Mhhossein (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Note to closing administrator: Please consider WP:BOOMERANG -- perhaps a topic ban or a ban on noticeboard complaints -- for the editor who initiated this. At this point, their unsubstantiated noticeboard complaints about FreeatlastChitchat border on harassment. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Could I know what you mean by "unsubstantiated noticeboard complaints about FreeatlastChitchat border on harassment"? Mhhossein (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein He means that you have been routinely opening up new reports on noticeboards about me. none of these reports hold any water. As per WP:HARASSMENT you are now going to be banned either from opening up new reports or from Iran/Islam related topics. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I mean that most of your complaints about FreeatlastChitchat lack merit, which is why they are rarely supported by administrators, and they are starting to appear—to me at least—to be "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior ... to intentionally target" FreeatlastChitchat, which is how Wikipedia defines harassment. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think that's enough. Mhhossein's behaviour has crossed over to disruption and should stop. I also think he should be prevented from reverting editors such as FreeatlastChitchat who act after talkpage discussion and within consensus trying to clean up that article from its heavy-handed POV and propaganda. Finally, this report is a clear sign that Mhhossein does not understand when to file a 3RR report. Dr. K. 03:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- 1- ASFAIK, FC were proved guilty and were warned after my reports 2- I advice you and Malik Shabazz to read harassment once again completely to see this is not harassment. In fact, this is FC who is hounding me on multiple pages 3- You have shown enough cases not following TP discussions. 4- Dr.K.: There were no consensus! His act was disruptive as before. What you call "heavy-handed POV and propaganda" was being discussed and some agreements was forming. We were 3 (you, bluemoonset and me) and I had my points. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- (edit conflict) I think that's enough. Mhhossein's behaviour has crossed over to disruption and should stop. I also think he should be prevented from reverting editors such as FreeatlastChitchat who act after talkpage discussion and within consensus trying to clean up that article from its heavy-handed POV and propaganda. Finally, this report is a clear sign that Mhhossein does not understand when to file a 3RR report. Dr. K. 03:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
We were 3 (you, bluemoonset and me) and I had my points. Please get your facts straight. FreeatlastChitchat also participated in the discussion and I actually thanked him before you reverted him. You reversion was not justified on the talkpage so actually it was you who edit-warred without discussing on the talkpage and without anyone agreeing with your strong POV, for which you were admonished several times on the talkpage. Dr. K. 05:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's clearer now. As it's seen on the article talk page, We 3 were involved in the "POV issues" section that I had started. We were exchanging our points. For example, at first you said that Firouzabadi's comment had to be removed, while I had my point that He's notable enough to have such a comment and we have to keep that. There were also some other points being discussed there. We were just three when the points were exchanged! suddenly, FC jumped in and removed some material while he hadn't participated the discussion and there were of course some unresolved points which needed to be discussed yet. I emphasize, He had absolutely zero participation in the discussion. The only comment he made was after the removing and reverting had happened accusing me of POV editing. I restored the material as there were no consensus yet. We were 3, and one (me) had his points and FC had no points there! He should not have done that when there were no consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein this shows your utter lack of WP:COMPETENCE and you serious WP:OWN issues. You do not understand(or you do understand and just ignore, which is a bigger problem) that I (or anyone else for that matter) do not require YOUR PERMISSION and your consent in order to edit an article you have worked on. ANY one can edit an article while adhering to policies. If I read a TP discussion and understand what the editors are talking about I have every right to edit the article according to the consensus that has been formed you can see that the other editors where quick to grasp that my editing was spot on and even thanked me on TP. Therefore I don't have to go to the TP to say "MR Mohossein SIR! Can I please edit the article"? Nor do I have to get your "express" consent if I see that Wikipedia policies are being violated AND the majority of editors are going against you. This 3PR thread is most likely going to result in you being banned from reverting my edits and reporting me, and if it does not I am going to ANI. This has gone on far enough it is highly ridiculous that you think you own articles and people need your express consent to edit them. Consensus does not mean that until you agree with something it will not be allowed, consensus means that the majority of editors form an opinion based on policy, and if you disagree and cannot quote any policy, then you should seriously reconsider your editing pattern. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Uninvolved non-admin comment Having no involvement, but knowing both users, I'd like to offer them both some advice.
- Mhhossein, you really need to stop reporting FC unless there's an obvious policy violation'. In this case, it is obvious there is not a policy violation. Reports like this one is a waste of the communities time. If you don't know what a 3RR violation is, then I suggest you do not report 3RR violations.
- FreeatlastChitchat, you really need to start respecting WP:CIVIL. Even if the report is wrong (and it is), there's no reason to say that Mhhossein is "tripping on acid" or "belongs in a place where he should be taken care of on hourly basis". If you're reported, state your case once and do it factually instead of engaging in repeated melodramatic personal attacks.
As both users have been warned before, for unfounded reports and for WP:NPA violations respectively, I'd not be opposed to (a short) block for both. Both can be useful contributors, but both far too frequently engage in behavior of this kind. Jeppiz (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz so if someone KEEPS on reporting and reporting and reporting another editor what should he be called? Calling something which is ridiculous as ridiculous is not a personal attack. Just how many times is an editor allowed to make "wrong" reports btw? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @FreeatlastChitchat, that is for the admins to decide (and I already adviced Mhhossein stop). But really, do you think accusing him of drug abuse or accusing him of being mentally ill is the best approach. I understand your frustration, but there is no reason you could not express that factually instead of these vile personal attacks. Saying someone is a drug addict or mentally ill is not just a little bit uncivil, it is far beyond what is acceptable. Jeppiz (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz how do i express it factually? you tell me and I will do it. How do I stop this guy from opening up these ridiculous reports every single time I edit one of his POV laden articles. Just answer this question and I will be highly, highly indebted to you. How can I stop this frivolous reporting which wastes my time and everyone else's time, which frustrates me and puts a full stop to my editing, cuz I want to make sure this is solved before editing another article or else this guy is just going to pile on the reports like he did a couple of months ago. I will follow your advice to the LETTER. just give some advice. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Jeppiz: Could you please present the mentioned warning diff? Warning for what? By the way, 3RR is different from edit warring. Here, we are talking about an edit warring. Per WP:EW, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." FC needs to practice democracy. The only problem here is that he can't and doesn't want to respect TP discussions. Did he participate the discussion? were there any consensus? Not actually. Mhhossein (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think this diff (warning by Drmies) is worthy of mentioning. Finally, I tried to form a consensus on the article talk page. There were still points to be dicussed and resolved via discussion. Unfortunately, FC blew up the balance. Getting thank by one user is not shoeing anything. we were 3 and one of us had counter view. So, Should his view just be ignored? Mhhossein (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz how do i express it factually? you tell me and I will do it. How do I stop this guy from opening up these ridiculous reports every single time I edit one of his POV laden articles. Just answer this question and I will be highly, highly indebted to you. How can I stop this frivolous reporting which wastes my time and everyone else's time, which frustrates me and puts a full stop to my editing, cuz I want to make sure this is solved before editing another article or else this guy is just going to pile on the reports like he did a couple of months ago. I will follow your advice to the LETTER. just give some advice. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @FreeatlastChitchat, that is for the admins to decide (and I already adviced Mhhossein stop). But really, do you think accusing him of drug abuse or accusing him of being mentally ill is the best approach. I understand your frustration, but there is no reason you could not express that factually instead of these vile personal attacks. Saying someone is a drug addict or mentally ill is not just a little bit uncivil, it is far beyond what is acceptable. Jeppiz (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mhhossein et al--please don't think I'm a cop you can have on call. I may be able to look at something, but only if and when I can--and want to. I'm a bit tired of y'all's bickering. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: All above is about a flawed and incomplete Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. Freeatlastchitchat were bold enough to make this edit, I reverted because I thought no consensus were formed yet (you can see the TP to see some points are not clear still + see my edit summary). I kept on discussing the the points and unfortunately the cycle did not complete as Freeatlastchitchat reverted without bringing his points to the TP (He just made an accusation). Of course it does not mean that he should have got my permission for making the edits, rather I mean he should have respected the points being discussed on the TP. Mhhossein (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Declined to take action, as I don't see long-term edit warring by this user on that page; {{Alert}}ed both Mhhossein and FreeatlastChitchat for American politics. If this continues within the topic area, editing restrictions, topic bans, and/or interaction bans may follow as arbitration enforcement remedies for either or both users. However, this isn't the typical place for discussing personal editing restrictions and complex patterns of long-term editing habits. If anyone feels that's necessary, please consider raising a thread on WP:ANI. --slakr\ talk / 02:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Slakr: So, should the WP:PA's be reported at WP:ANI? Mhhossein (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would bear WP:ROPE in mind. Irondome (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Irondome: Thanks for the tip, but can you explain more? Mhhossein (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- My tip. Walk away, drop it, leave the situation and get on with building the 'pedia. WP:BOOMERANG. Escalating or continuing this by any party would be unwise. Drop it. Use DR if you have to but nothing more confrontational. You need to de-escalate. All parties. Irondome (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Irondome: Thanks for the tip, but can you explain more? Mhhossein (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would bear WP:ROPE in mind. Irondome (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Slakr: So, should the WP:PA's be reported at WP:ANI? Mhhossein (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Oldyeller123 reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: protected, blocked)
Page: The American Dollar (band) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oldyeller123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]
Comments:
Conflict of interest user and various socks are reverting to non neutral promotional version.Theroadislong (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. The fresh socks are accusing experienced editors of being socks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Several wikipedia accounts have been vandalizing the page with biased information/removing cited content/adding incorrect versions of events, and not discussing them first on the talk page. I do not know how to do all the fancy wikipedia tagging, but I do know bad writing when I see it— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldyeller123 (talk • contribs)
User:2601:C8:4000:D3:C0BF:E166:6BEB:54A5 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: semi-protected)
- Page
- Executive Order 11110 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2601:C8:4000:D3:C0BF:E166:6BEB:54A5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Background */"
- 23:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Background */"
- 23:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Background */"
- 23:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Background */"
- 23:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Background */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 23:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Executive Order 11110. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Page protected — it looks like they have multiple ips and have also created an account to vandalize. --slakr\ talk / 02:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
User:DaniloFFloresCarvajal reported by User:Chrisw80 (Result: )
- Page
- DannyFlores ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- DaniloFFloresCarvajal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC) ""
- 22:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "Danny Flores music artist page Wikipedia.org"
- 17:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Numerous warnings on user's talk page for removing speedy deletion templates: Caution: [24] Warning: [25] Final: [26] Chrisw80 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- User being reported
- Maytavk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This same person who's used multiple IP's made yet another account and went to delete JayFrance's involvement on My House by removing the song from the producers singles discography BlaccCrab (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
User:LongNailsShortHair reported by User:TheGracefulSlick
This user has been removing sourced material and rearranged content to his preference (but is not typical of format) in the You're Gonna Miss Me (song) article. I've warned the user in edit summary and sent the user a message, regarding the incidents. Although he/she acknowledged the message, he/she blatantly disregarded my warning and, instead, is beginning to remove material. At times, the user shows promise by adding helpful links, but other times, like this, he/she does not heed to formating and sources. At the very least, the user needs a brief block since a warning clearly didn't work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Fonsy74 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocks)
Page: Homotaurine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- Fonsy74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- 84.120.139.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- 81.60.45.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link for Fonsyn74
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
Please block. WP:NOTHERE. Based on their IP and editing, this user may be a sock of the blocker user, Nuklear (see SPI. The style is the same, the interest in obscure old drugs is the same, but the edits are not adding synthesis content which was the hallmark of Nuklear. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion is finally happening here, but the article is still messed up. I stood down and allowed Fonsy74's version to stand, but this new editor is completely resisting paying mind to policies and guidelines and instead is just making personal attacks. There is no way forward here. Please do block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Update. So last night I finally got time to find good sources and was able to restore some of the content Fonsyn74 wanted but sourced to MEDRS sources - see here. Today Fonsyn74 showed up and edit warred back in the content (actually incorrect) based on the poor sources. They also came to the Talk page and made an argument that shows they lack competence in the underlying science, as I explained here. WP:CIR and this user and its IP do not understand the science nor the policies and guidelines, nor are they interested in working within the policies and guidelines. (they explained here that they are a software person who is interested in nootropics, which is a topic that unfortunately attracts a lot of cranks and advocates)Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- note - added 2 IP addresses this user has worked from as well. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homotaurine&oldid=709390872 This is the summary of the discussion. Sorry if I've done something wrong, anyway it is necessary that an external person decide for my contribution or the other. We need a administrator. This is my humble opinion, Sorry to all wikipedia users to see the discussion and thanks. Fonsy74
- Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts. I've blocked the two IPs each for a week. I tried to negotiate on the user's talk page but got nowhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- follow-up - Special:Contributions/Wintryce - obvious sock of User:Fonsy74 who was blocked this morning. Would you also please block the sock, and would you please consider protecting the article? Thanks. (Note - I posted this first at :EdJohnston's talk page here. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Deffrman reported by User:Onel5969 (Result:36h )
Page: Sukhumi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deffrman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Deffrman#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sukhumi#Edit-warring by Deffrman
Comments:
Several editors have tried to explain this poor behavior through the edit summaries and on the talk page. All to no avail. Onel5969 TT me 04:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Deffrman reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )
Page: Sukhum ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deffrman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [36]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [37] 03:48, 10 March 2016
- [38] 03:50, 10 March 2016
- [39] 03:57, 10 March 2016
- [40] 03:58, 10 March 2016
- [41] 04:05, 10 March 2016
- [42] 04:06, 10 March 2016
- [43] 04:10, 10 March 2016
- [44] 04:13, 10 March 2016
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]
Comments:
No fewer than four editors have had to revert his contentious edits, which remove https from link and adds pictures that are entirely too large for the infobox. Additionally, he is editing another editor's comments (mine) on his talk page to make it seem as if I am saying the opposite of what I wrote — blatantly misrepresenting another editors. [47]]
User:VanEman reported by User:Debresser (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Western Wall ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tallit ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) <br/ ) Tefillin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VanEman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts at Western Wall:
Then he started to add the same Tallit:
- [51] First addition of material that was contested at Western Wall
- [52] Revert of undo
And here at Tefillin:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
On his talkpage: [55], [56] In discussion: [57]
Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk pages: Talk:Western_Wall#Photos_of_the_Wall_and_gender_discrimination, Talk:Tefillin#Tefillin_and_the_Western_Wall Talk:Tefillin#Tefillin_and_the_Western_Wall
Comments:
VanEman has huge POVs, every few months a new one, which various editors have told him on numerous occasions. His talkpage shows a lot of edit war warnings. This editor is a hothead who edit wars about all kinds of subjects in Judaism related areas. I recommend of temporal block and a topic ban from Judaism-related ares. This editor has proven himself to be unable to participate in community editing. We, the other editors active in the field, have tried to reason with him, he will not improve his behavioral problems. It is now time to say goodbye to this editor, at least in the field where he has proven he can not keep cool. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks — MusikAnimal talk 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I was just going to comment that I don't see much, if any, edit warring here. The edits were sequential and when reverted, it was not always the same content that was replaced. Am I missing something? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Reverts can not be sequential. There is always an undo in the middle.
- Please also note that "3RR" means three reverts, not necessarily of the same edit.
- The edits were analogous, even if they weren't identical.
- The point I am trying to make is that this editor is a POV edit warrior, and unfit for editing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Mezzi10 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
- Page
- Libby Schaaf ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Mezzi10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 18:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC) to 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- 17:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
- 05:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"
- 17:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"
- 17:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 17:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Promo fluff */ reply"
- Comments:
Editor repeatedly inserting promotional material to an active politician's page, previously blocked for socking to enter this material. Ongoing problem, and the editor refuses to discuss. Scr★pIronIV 18:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for soapboxing and edit warring, with no engagement on the talkpage at all. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Adamstraw99 reported by User:Ankisur2 (Result: )
Page: Template:Astra ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamstraw99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_%28weapon%29&action=history
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]19:59, 10 march 2016
- [diff]16:09, 10 march 2016
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_%28weapon%29&action=history Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]19:59, 10 March 2016
Comments:
The user is posting personal opinions calling them "general view" and deleting sourced material.He has been duly warned in the edit summary page,but continues to edit without referencing and deleting materials that have been referenced.
User:Herakliu reported by User:Zoupan (Result: )
Page: Origin of the Albanians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Herakliu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User insists on returning "In the 7th century AD, there is a reference to the "Ducagini de Arbania" on a Bosnian manuscript; the clan of the Dukagjini were engaged in a quarrel with the Byzantine Empire after stirring up a revolt in Bosnia." to the article, when this has been refuted on the talk page (see main discussion here). The faulty assertion was removed on 1 January 2016, an IP reverted it, but was reverted by another user, the article being stable until the coming of Herakliu, who sneak-added it on 10 March. The user refuses to acknowledge that the "Ducagini" were first mentioned in 1281, and Albania in the 11th century, and that the faulty assertion has its origin in an alleged 14th-century manuscript which lists a number of South Slavic princes, none of whom existed (one lived for over 200 years). The manuscript is not used in scholarship.--Zoupan 07:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments: