Page:Greek genocide (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: see explanation below
Each revert is to a different version, however there is a clear cut vio as there are four in total. First, SIYKB adds this[5], which is reverted byUser:Dr.K.[6]. SIYKB reverts Dr.K. (1st revert)[7]. Second, SIYKB removes this image, on spurious grounds[8], I revert him[9], he reverts back (2nd revert)[10]. Next, SYIKB adds the following text to a figure caption[11], but I remove it on the grounds that it is off-topic and the caption is getting out of hand. He then reverts my removal[12] (3rd revert). At this point I leave warning on his page. His fourth revert[13] undoes the a change I made to the wording a while back[14]. That is a revert, and that's four in less than 24 hours.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[15]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[16]
Comments: Seksen iki yuz kirk bes is concurrently edit-warring at here[17] and here[18]. There has been a pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing to Greco-Turkish topics of late[19]. It's all about Turkish victims of Greeks[20] and not much else. AtSiege of Tripolitsa he cropped the infobox image[21] to this[22] so he could addagain to the article[23] to "focus" on the massacre. While not necessarily edit-warring, I find such edits indicative of a tendentious mindset and definitely not a good sign. I think a short block, with a warning of AE sanctions is in order.Athenean (talk)23:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) I note the edit-warring continues. As of this writing he is edit-warring atOccupation of Smyrna[25][26][27] (already 3 reverts today) andGreco-Turkish War (1919-1922)[28][29], insistently and repeatedly calling other editors' edits "vandalism" on top that. This needs to stop.Athenean (talk)17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:DontDateHimGirl.com (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:WriterEditorPenn (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[30]
(plus additional minor edits)
Note: above are principally part of an edit-warring campaign to remove content, reverting back to an editor's preferred, non-critical version of the article.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[36]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[37][38]
Comments:
Unfortunately, yet anothersingle purpose account has appeared to "defend" the article for DontDateHimGirl.com against any criticism. Shortly after removal of the previous semi-protection last week, WriterEditorPenn appeared and rolled back/removed all critical content. This individual did so again in the series of reverts shown above. WriterEditorPenn has made no additions, improvements or corrections to the article. S/he has, however, posted inappropriate accusations, claiming that the removed, sourced content was from an editor who was "totally biased" and seeking "revenge."[39] --HidariMigi (talk)00:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Karen Armstrong (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Sleetman (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[41]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[46]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Note that in the last edit the editor also restores material that s/he has been told is inappropriate for a BLP (something he has done repeatedly) - both the material fromCAMERA's website and the Sam Harris blog post from HuffPo.Guettarda (talk)23:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Birthright citizenship in the United States (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:74.192.46.84 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log),74.192.42.102 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[47]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[52]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[53]
Comments: The user in question appears to have started using a new IP address. Note (in the talk page discussion) that there is reason to believe the same person previously edit-warred under a different IP address (and was blocked at that time). If this user is going to insist on his version of the material and refuses to acknowledge or participate in discussion on the article's talk page, it may be necessary to request long-term semi-protection.Richwales (talk ·contribs)06:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Further Comment: The IP continues to ignore any constructive discussion. This recent edit[54] to the article's discussion page is largely a personal attack alleging a conspiracy among three editors that disagree with him/her. This type of personal attack led to first a 24 hour block and then a 48 hour block when the IP was using a different IP address (seeUser talk:74.192.7.135).Tom (North Shoreman) (talk)23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Extended content |
|---|
Odd that this occurs, after I responded on the Talk Page and alleged that RichWales, Tom NorthShoreman, and Will Beback coordinate their efforts to enforce their point of view which I specifically suggested "violates the spirit of Wikipedia's rules, much like sockpuppetry." The truth does not matter to these guys, enforcing their point of view must prevail at all costs. Richwales refused to negotiate, after using a bogus citation attributed to Professor Kermit Hall and posting redundant material. He then invites his friends Tom NorthShoreman to enter the discussion to back him up. Then Tom NorthShoreman claims three editors disagree with me and all the sudden Will Beback appears. Finally, when I respond to their posts, in a timely fashion, on the discussion page they resort to this shameful tactic. Life is too short to let a liars bother me. Now watch Tom NorthShoreman throw an editorial temper tantrum--I seen it before.—Precedingunsigned comment added by74.192.46.84 (talk)02:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC) My apologies, Tom North Shoreman had Looneymonkey execute the temper tantrum on his behalf by deleting the entire entry which has been there for months. Clearly, these guys are only interested in indoctrinating readers with their own POV while they feign concern for the rules.74.192.46.84 (talk)03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC) |
Page:Karen Armstrong (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Sleetman (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 07:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Comments:
The first edit restores "criticism" language and section heading, the latter first added by Sleetman several days earlierhere. At 16:02/3, straightforward removals. At 16:09, an undo of Guettarda's immediately preceding edithere. And at 22:58, "re-add" and "delete". These are the highlights in a series that includes a number of other edits in this period.
—Nomoskedasticity (talk)07:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:3rd millennium (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:
Previous version reverted to:21:13, May 21, 2011 [by IP 1]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:13:38, May 22, 2011
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
All edits state the world will end / has ended on May 21, 2011, per2011 end times prediction. Suggest the IPs be blocked until the end of October 21, 2011, by which time they will have undoubtably found something else to do. At the moment, they seem to have stopped,but they are likely to resume before I finish editing this. —Arthur Rubin(talk)13:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Rivaldo (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:189.31.107.221 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
and others.
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Rivaldo#Recent_edit_war
Comments:
All of these IPs resolve to Brasil Telecom.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk)03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Battle of the Falkland Islands (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Hubertgrove (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[65]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[66]
Comments:
Two months ago, I made an edit to the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands
The edit was a new section called 'Secret Service Trap'. This section dealt with the influence of British secret service codebreakers on the battle. This small - two paragraph edit - was properly verified and sourced. However, the facts that I presented were disputed by the editor Tirronan (the same editor who has reported me for 'Edit War' now). The editor Tirronan presents himself as an expert in naval warfare and in espionage techniques. He is one of the major contributors to the article. For the next six weeks, he argued that the edit was a "hoax". He continually threatened to report me and to ban me. He persistently reverted the edit. He tried to discredit my sources. Throughout, his intention seemed to rubbish my edit. He attacked me on my talk page and on the talk page of other editors who came to my (eg Jezhotwells (talk) )
You can see the "discussion" I had with him here in discussion page. I had to justify every sentence in my edit - the discussion extended to 7500 words!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Secret_Service_Section
Eventually, I became exasperated at this harassment and requested the assistance of other editors. One of them suggested a compromise: that the "Secret Service Section" of the article be arranged in the following way:
That the section comrpise one large sub-section comprising the "mainstream" opinion.
That this be followed by a smaller sub-section summarising my edit which Tirronan insisted be presented as a "minority opinion".
I agreed to this. I wrote up the section as three paragraph text (two paragraphs for the "mainstream" opinion, one paragraph for the "minority" opinion). This section contained all the citations that Tirronan wanted. It removed some copy to which he objected. It dealt with British secret service code warfare as it related to the Battle of the Falkland Islands and to the pursuit and destruction of the remaining German ships following the battle.
I prepared this new section for the review of Tirronan and other contributors last week. I did this on the discussion page of the article. Tirronan made revisions which I accepted in entirety - and then made a final comment:
Perfect.Tirronan (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Today, I posted the section as previously agreed with Tirronan.
Immediately - within a few minutes of posting - I found that the section was edited by the editor Binksternet. His edit made a stylistic change and deleted a final sentence that he argued was irrelevant. He added TWO new sections to the Discussion page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Similarly..._Dresden
I undid this change - and placed my reasons, with citations and evidence, on the discussion page.
After a while, I found that Tirronan had restored the edit. His reasons were not clear. I reminded him that the original text was the one he had approved on Friday - "Perfect!". I once again, went through this argument point by point. I got the following answer:
Yes I disagree and your edit is reverted.Tirronan (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I told him that he was using a spoiler edit to rubbish the section and that I would revert to the original text he had already accepted. He reverted the text again which I undid. I warned him that I would use the dispute resolution procedure if he had not undone the spoiler edit. Before that could happen, I was notified that I had been referred to an Edit Warring section. Here I am.I only reverted to the text that he had already approved less than two days ago!
Tirronan has told me he is a senior editor. He has been in a number of other disputes. I found his behaviour harrassing, bullying and deceitful. I genuinely have tried to be flexible and to offer compromises. I am glad that this issue will now be reviewed by other editors since I genuinely believe that Tirronan's behaviour in this case will be admonished.Hubertgrove (talk)02:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
While the claims of content dispute are amusing, they have no place in the 3RR notice board. However if an admin cares to read the Secret Service Trap section there are ample examples ofWikipedia:Civility violations, by said user again yours truly. However to make this case quickly Hubertgrove decided in his wisdom that he needed to revert again yet a 5th time here[67] when I attempted to add additional cited content noting this in the talk page and noting in the edit that no revision took place whatsoever. Apparently I am not allowed to make edits to the article by Hubertgrove. I'm sick unto death of this fellows actions seeWikipedia:Ownership of articles. His claim this time being that the section was out of context when in fact it covers a period starting in Sept, 1914 through a period ending in 1917, so I find myself at a bit of a loss.Tirronan (talk)04:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Page protected For three days, with warning. It was just good luck that both of you, Hubertgrove (especially) and Tirronan, avoided blocks. Please consider each other more and remember thatWP:AN/3 is not a forum of dispute resolution.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)Page:2011 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Jack11111 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[72]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[73]
Comments:
Attempts to resolve have been via edit summaries.ttonyb (talk)05:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Warned Reluctant to block when the user is relatively inexperienced/hasn't been interacted with much, and has clearly been in bed the last while. I'll give the user a warning and keep an eye on it.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)15:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Wikipedia:Article titles (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Pmanderson (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[74]
Diff of edit warring:[80]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[81] (There's an entire thread started by somebody else other than me.)
Comments:
Mostly me actually undoing his edits, andanother user Kwamikagami has reverted it on the policy page itself as well, and a further different user Tony has also expressed concern on the talk page:Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#generally where he started an entire thread on it. There genuinely seems no overall consensus for this on the talk page, So far as I've noticed, only one other user, Blueboar, has supported him, but Pmanderson (and to a rather lesser extent Blueboar) has been trying to simply edit war it through anyway. So that's three people that think it's a bad idea, and only two supporting it, but Pmanderson has evidently justgone to war to push it through, and they're no longer even responding on the talk page. They're at the point they don't care about establishing consensus for it; in fact (regrettably) Pmanderson in particular doesn't seem to have cared about consensus at any point.
He's repeatedly rewriting the policy and edit warring the policy literally to however he wants it, and is not supporting his edits well, he's been reverted by numerous people, and he's not caring about consensus.Rememberway (talk)07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This is really, seriously not ever how it's supposed to work on policy pages!!!Rememberway (talk)07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I just want him to start editing sensibly to be honest, and staying within consensus! He's more like 'I know the only answer I'm rewriting the policy, and I will edit war until you leave it like I wrote it.' All I've been trying to do is revert back the things that are obviously non consensus, but he just sticks them right back in again. He's made lots of other fairly dubious recent changes that I didn't even dare touch.
It may sound trivial 'generally' but in fact Pmanderson and blueboar seem to be trying to remove the policy by equivocating it out of existence, and without bothering to get consensus to do that. It went from a 'should be a noun' to 'preferred to be a noun' to 'generally preferred to be a noun' which probably doesn't mean anything at all any more. There's no way you could argue with a title not being a noun.Rememberway (talk)07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a report of six different edits, over a period of twelve days; all of them are alternatives - not always the same alternative - to an edit by the complaintant, who has always made the same one; he has therefore reverted more often than I have. No dates or times are given (this list begins and ends with edits on the same day, but they do not even resemble chronological order), nor did Rememberway bother to inform me himself. (Thanks for installing a bot.)
The "effort to resolve on the talk page" consists ofthis section in which three or four editors tell Rememberway that his preferred text doesn't belong in the nutshell, depends on a non-consensus view of what article titles are, and is factually incorrect.
In short, this is a pretended conduct offence, invented to get a fringe view into Wikipedia.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No violationDeacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)15:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported:DerbyCountyinNZ (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide completediffs. Reported user doesnot exist. -=-Adam Walker -=-09:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
CommentWe of course would also have to block the reporter, and I note that the reported editor is not the only editor reverting Jack1111q at what I presume is the article,2011 nor did he notify DerbyCountyinNZ. Another editor has warned Jack11111Dougweller (talk)16:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Page:The Great Mom Swap (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:24.128.247.159 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[89]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[90]
Comments:
I know my actions were not perfect either, because I was too lazy to find out how I should behave in these kind of situations. I apologize for that.File:The poster of the movie The Great Mom Swap.jpg was a good poster of the film which since got automatically deleted because it was not used in the article for 7 days.--tired time (talk)11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Please also note that this is not the first time user makes edits claiming that a movie or a show won an award which it did not win:[91],[92]. Also, it is not the first time he participates in edit warring. However you can not see that in his talk page because he always blanks it:[93],[94],[95],[96]--tired time (talk)11:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours No 3RR vio, but a block is probably needed to get this user's attention.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Page:John Edward (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:OptimusPrimeRibs (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[97]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[98]
Comments:
User only has edits to the John Edward article, no others. Apparent disruptiveWP:SPA account. User has indicated that he will continue edit warring until banned.[99]Dreadstar☥ 17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Sidebar comment: You pointed us to a clear cut edit war between you two. You at 3, them at 4. Them trying to scale back a controversial statement.North8000 (talk)17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Not necessarily an SPA;Page:Los Angeles Unified School District (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Gerardw (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[100]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[103]
Comments:
Page:So Random! (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Dcupdates11 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[104]
New version being reverted to:[107]
New version being reverted to:[110]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[113]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. There have been numerous posts atUser talk:Dcupdates11 trying to resolve various issues, including those related to this report, with this editor.
Comments:
Dcupdates11 has been editing disruptively at several articles virtually since he first started editing on 8 May 2011. Attempts to resolve numerous issues on his talk page have been fruitless so I started an ANI discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dcupdates11 editing disruptively. However, Dcupdates11 has since breached 3RR atSo Random!.
First and second reverts restored factual error and a previously removed uncited claim to the article. I'm unwilling to get into an edit-war so the content is still in the article. Dcupdates11 then added more unsourced claims to the article resulting in the third and fourth reverts. After this I warned the editor.[114] The fourth revert included the use of a citation that does not in any way support the claims made so I tagged it with{{failed verification}} rather than deleting it, as I knew deletion would just prompt an edit-war. The fifth revert reverted that edit. A subsequent restoration of the tag by another editor was then reverted (sixth revert). All reversions were made over an eight hour period today. --AussieLegend (talk)03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Rivaldo (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:189.31.107.221 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
and others.
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Rivaldo#Recent_edit_war
Comments:
All of these IPs resolve to Brasil Telecom.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk)03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Battle of the Falkland Islands (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Hubertgrove (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[125]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[126]
Comments:
Two months ago, I made an edit to the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands
The edit was a new section called 'Secret Service Trap'. This section dealt with the influence of British secret service codebreakers on the battle. This small - two paragraph edit - was properly verified and sourced. However, the facts that I presented were disputed by the editor Tirronan (the same editor who has reported me for 'Edit War' now). The editor Tirronan presents himself as an expert in naval warfare and in espionage techniques. He is one of the major contributors to the article. For the next six weeks, he argued that the edit was a "hoax". He continually threatened to report me and to ban me. He persistently reverted the edit. He tried to discredit my sources. Throughout, his intention seemed to rubbish my edit. He attacked me on my talk page and on the talk page of other editors who came to my (eg Jezhotwells (talk) )
You can see the "discussion" I had with him here in discussion page. I had to justify every sentence in my edit - the discussion extended to 7500 words!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Secret_Service_Section
Eventually, I became exasperated at this harassment and requested the assistance of other editors. One of them suggested a compromise: that the "Secret Service Section" of the article be arranged in the following way:
That the section comrpise one large sub-section comprising the "mainstream" opinion.
That this be followed by a smaller sub-section summarising my edit which Tirronan insisted be presented as a "minority opinion".
I agreed to this. I wrote up the section as three paragraph text (two paragraphs for the "mainstream" opinion, one paragraph for the "minority" opinion). This section contained all the citations that Tirronan wanted. It removed some copy to which he objected. It dealt with British secret service code warfare as it related to the Battle of the Falkland Islands and to the pursuit and destruction of the remaining German ships following the battle.
I prepared this new section for the review of Tirronan and other contributors last week. I did this on the discussion page of the article. Tirronan made revisions which I accepted in entirety - and then made a final comment:
Perfect.Tirronan (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Today, I posted the section as previously agreed with Tirronan.
Immediately - within a few minutes of posting - I found that the section was edited by the editor Binksternet. His edit made a stylistic change and deleted a final sentence that he argued was irrelevant. He added TWO new sections to the Discussion page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Similarly..._Dresden
I undid this change - and placed my reasons, with citations and evidence, on the discussion page.
After a while, I found that Tirronan had restored the edit. His reasons were not clear. I reminded him that the original text was the one he had approved on Friday - "Perfect!". I once again, went through this argument point by point. I got the following answer:
Yes I disagree and your edit is reverted.Tirronan (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I told him that he was using a spoiler edit to rubbish the section and that I would revert to the original text he had already accepted. He reverted the text again which I undid. I warned him that I would use the dispute resolution procedure if he had not undone the spoiler edit. Before that could happen, I was notified that I had been referred to an Edit Warring section. Here I am.I only reverted to the text that he had already approved less than two days ago!
Tirronan has told me he is a senior editor. He has been in a number of other disputes. I found his behaviour harrassing, bullying and deceitful. I genuinely have tried to be flexible and to offer compromises. I am glad that this issue will now be reviewed by other editors since I genuinely believe that Tirronan's behaviour in this case will be admonished.Hubertgrove (talk)02:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
While the claims of content dispute are amusing, they have no place in the 3RR notice board. However if an admin cares to read the Secret Service Trap section there are ample examples ofWikipedia:Civility violations, by said user again yours truly. However to make this case quickly Hubertgrove decided in his wisdom that he needed to revert again yet a 5th time here[127] when I attempted to add additional cited content noting this in the talk page and noting in the edit that no revision took place whatsoever. Apparently I am not allowed to make edits to the article by Hubertgrove. I'm sick unto death of this fellows actions seeWikipedia:Ownership of articles. His claim this time being that the section was out of context when in fact it covers a period starting in Sept, 1914 through a period ending in 1917, so I find myself at a bit of a loss.Tirronan (talk)04:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Page protected For three days, with warning. It was just good luck that both of you, Hubertgrove (especially) and Tirronan, avoided blocks. Please consider each other more and remember thatWP:AN/3 is not a forum of dispute resolution.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)Page:2011 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Jack11111 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[132]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[133]
Comments:
Attempts to resolve have been via edit summaries.ttonyb (talk)05:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Warned Reluctant to block when the user is relatively inexperienced/hasn't been interacted with much, and has clearly been in bed the last while. I'll give the user a warning and keep an eye on it.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)15:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Wikipedia:Article titles (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Pmanderson (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[134]
Diff of edit warring:[140]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[141] (There's an entire thread started by somebody else other than me.)
Comments:
Mostly me actually undoing his edits, andanother user Kwamikagami has reverted it on the policy page itself as well, and a further different user Tony has also expressed concern on the talk page:Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#generally where he started an entire thread on it. There genuinely seems no overall consensus for this on the talk page, So far as I've noticed, only one other user, Blueboar, has supported him, but Pmanderson (and to a rather lesser extent Blueboar) has been trying to simply edit war it through anyway. So that's three people that think it's a bad idea, and only two supporting it, but Pmanderson has evidently justgone to war to push it through, and they're no longer even responding on the talk page. They're at the point they don't care about establishing consensus for it; in fact (regrettably) Pmanderson in particular doesn't seem to have cared about consensus at any point.
He's repeatedly rewriting the policy and edit warring the policy literally to however he wants it, and is not supporting his edits well, he's been reverted by numerous people, and he's not caring about consensus.Rememberway (talk)07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This is really, seriously not ever how it's supposed to work on policy pages!!!Rememberway (talk)07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I just want him to start editing sensibly to be honest, and staying within consensus! He's more like 'I know the only answer I'm rewriting the policy, and I will edit war until you leave it like I wrote it.' All I've been trying to do is revert back the things that are obviously non consensus, but he just sticks them right back in again. He's made lots of other fairly dubious recent changes that I didn't even dare touch.
It may sound trivial 'generally' but in fact Pmanderson and blueboar seem to be trying to remove the policy by equivocating it out of existence, and without bothering to get consensus to do that. It went from a 'should be a noun' to 'preferred to be a noun' to 'generally preferred to be a noun' which probably doesn't mean anything at all any more. There's no way you could argue with a title not being a noun.Rememberway (talk)07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a report of six different edits, over a period of twelve days; all of them are alternatives - not always the same alternative - to an edit by the complaintant, who has always made the same one; he has therefore reverted more often than I have. No dates or times are given (this list begins and ends with edits on the same day, but they do not even resemble chronological order), nor did Rememberway bother to inform me himself. (Thanks for installing a bot.)
The "effort to resolve on the talk page" consists ofthis section in which three or four editors tell Rememberway that his preferred text doesn't belong in the nutshell, depends on a non-consensus view of what article titles are, and is factually incorrect.
In short, this is a pretended conduct offence, invented to get a fringe view into Wikipedia.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No violationDeacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)15:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported:DerbyCountyinNZ (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide completediffs. Reported user doesnot exist. -=-Adam Walker -=-09:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CommentWe of course would also have to block the reporter, and I note that the reported editor is not the only editor reverting Jack1111q at what I presume is the article,2011 nor did he notify DerbyCountyinNZ. Another editor has warned Jack11111Dougweller (talk)16:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Page:The Great Mom Swap (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:24.128.247.159 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[149]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[150]
Comments:
I know my actions were not perfect either, because I was too lazy to find out how I should behave in these kind of situations. I apologize for that.File:The poster of the movie The Great Mom Swap.jpg was a good poster of the film which since got automatically deleted because it was not used in the article for 7 days.--tired time (talk)11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Please also note that this is not the first time user makes edits claiming that a movie or a show won an award which it did not win:[151],[152]. Also, it is not the first time he participates in edit warring. However you can not see that in his talk page because he always blanks it:[153],[154],[155],[156]--tired time (talk)11:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours No 3RR vio, but a block is probably needed to get this user's attention.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Page:John Edward (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:OptimusPrimeRibs (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[157]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[158]
Comments:
User only has edits to the John Edward article, no others. Apparent disruptiveWP:SPA account. User has indicated that he will continue edit warring until banned.[159]Dreadstar☥ 17:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Sidebar comment: You pointed us to a clear cut edit war between you two. You at 3, them at 4. Them trying to scale back a controversial statement.North8000 (talk)17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Not necessarily an SPA;Page:Los Angeles Unified School District (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Gerardw (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[160]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[163]
Comments:
Page:So Random! (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Dcupdates11 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[164]
New version being reverted to:[167]
New version being reverted to:[170]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[173]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. There have been numerous posts atUser talk:Dcupdates11 trying to resolve various issues, including those related to this report, with this editor.
Comments:
Dcupdates11 has been editing disruptively at several articles virtually since he first started editing on 8 May 2011. Attempts to resolve numerous issues on his talk page have been fruitless so I started an ANI discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dcupdates11 editing disruptively. However, Dcupdates11 has since breached 3RR atSo Random!.
First and second reverts restored factual error and a previously removed uncited claim to the article. I'm unwilling to get into an edit-war so the content is still in the article. Dcupdates11 then added more unsourced claims to the article resulting in the third and fourth reverts. After this I warned the editor.[174] The fourth revert included the use of a citation that does not in any way support the claims made so I tagged it with{{failed verification}} rather than deleting it, as I knew deletion would just prompt an edit-war. The fifth revert reverted that edit. A subsequent restoration of the tag by another editor was then reverted (sixth revert). All reversions were made over an eight hour period today. --AussieLegend (talk)03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Fingerpoke of Doom (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:74.47.103.42 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[175]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[180]
Comments:
The user is consistently trying to replaceverifiable content withoriginal research despite warnings.GaryColemanFan (talk)04:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Warned. The IP hasn't reverted since the last time you warned them. So giving another warning for now. Do come back if this continues; it'll be an immediate block then. Wifione....... Leave a message18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Los Angeles Unified School District (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Gerardw (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[181]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[185]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[186]
Comments:
User Gerardw has reverted and revised the work on this entry 3 times within the last 24 hours. I have repeatedly asked the user not to delete the work wholesale, but he continues to do so. The reasons he has given is that the work does not fall withing wikipedia guidelines of verifiability, but the materials deleted by him come mostly from sources like the Los Angeles Times.— Precedingunsigned comment added byPangurban1 (talk •contribs)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution.SarekOfVulcan (talk)18:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)71.85.120.252 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
With the semi-protection onCharles Whitman inexplicably removed, the IP has resumed his edit war. He's at about 5 reverts now, in the last 24 hours. Either block or semi-protect, or both, please. Thank you! ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→04:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Note Repaired header for report, please remember in the future that new reports go at thebottom of the page and please try to use the template provided to make the administrator's job easier. -=-Adam Walker -=-07:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Blocked – for a period of48 hours *Page protected (all by another Admin)Dougweller (talk)10:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Keith Raniere (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:U21980 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[198] (see also talk page)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see conversation on talk page
Comments:It's hard to see the forest for the trees; I came to this when this edit war was already going on. I issued 3rr warnings (User:Intoronto1125 issued one to this editor), and U21980 proceeded to revert again anyway. It is entirely possible that the other users crossed the line earlier, but not since the warnings were issued. Thank you, and good luck--please don't get a headache looking at the history. (I also put a note on the BLP noticeboard, by the way.Drmies (talk)17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I apologize for the inconvenience!— Precedingunsigned comment added byU21980 (talk •contribs)17:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In an attempt to chronicle the events that were occuring on these pages, I posted the following message to the admin noticeboard last night:
Request for Intervention in NXIVM/Keith Raniere/Clare Bronfman/Sara Bronfman pages - Users Link1914 and Keyser Sözetigho
Hi there,I am requested help on these pages especially due to the problematic edits inserted by users Link1914 and Keyser Sözetigho. In regards to the first user, he seems to be intent on adding information on the page that violates NPOV from blogs and forum posts. On top of that, his claims of living in New York and supposedly attending meetings of the organizations listed in the page make it seem like he has a personal vendetta against the individuals and organization. Keyser on the other hand does not insert the information from blog posts or forums, but has been adding uncited information. When asked to cite the information he has added (in this case - NXIVM's twelve rules) he has not complied and has not responded to my talk post in that regard. Keyser's early edits were especially problematic since there was no attempt to even make the content neutral in any sense. Keyser also posted that he believes that I am affiliated with these organizations and individuals since most of my edits are on these particular pages, blindly ignoring the fact that every single edit of his has been on the same page but for one purpose, to make NXIVM and the individuals affiliated with it look as bad as possible.These issues are especially frustrating since it takes so much time to clean the pages up while trying to maintain these pages as close to neutral as possible. I want to note that I am in no way affiliated with these individuals or NXIVM, but have basically built the pages from the ground up after noticing that there wasn't any information listed for them in Wikipedia. I just want to do my part in creating the best, neutral page that can be created in Wikipedia, a page that is built on consensus and not negatively biased claims. These individuals do not contribute to discussion pages, try to initiate conversations on talk pages, but make these edits with a clear agenda. I just want to work together with others to build consensus, not continue the editing wars which have consumed these pages in the past few days since the two aforementioned user accounts were created.I hope that you can assist me in this manner.Thank you for your help! U21980 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
An example of what I was trying to explain above:http://saratogaindecline.blogspot.com/2011/05/nxivm-info-wars-battle-for-hearts-and.htmlThe claim that I am a member of this organization is not true. The problem is that the people representing anti-Raniere/Bronfman/NXIVM views are not willing to be dispassionate when it comes to their contributions.Thanks again for your assistance!U21980 (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have tried posting on their talk pages and discussion boards but was ignored, except by a post from Keyser accusing me of being a part of NXIVM, a claim that Link also put forth. They have made no attempt to try to make the page neutral and have used questionable sources for most of their material. Keyser posted NXIVM's rules without citation and Link cited them to a blog as well as making citations from forum posts. Anyways, I figured that this post would help explain my side of the story.
Once again, I apologize for the inconvenience!U21980 (talk)18:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution. Page will be unprotected 2 weeks from this notice. -=-Adam Walker -=-11:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Really UB I thought we were making progress.All I want is a fair and balanced edit. I see you too are obsessed with Saratoga in decline and I wonder where you came to believe I was a former student? Not sure where you got that one. I have friends who took courses some say cult some not. I will put my money on the 6 various media outlets who call it a cult over NXIVM promotional material.I don't think their propaganda is neutral do you?Link1914 (talk)—Precedingundated comment added03:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC).
Page:Greek (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported: dynamic IP user:
(Identity of all three IPs seems clear from contribution profile and style; same aggressive tone, same broken English.)
Previous version reverted to: various versions; all are re-adding unnecessary disambiguation links back in
Reverts between 20 and 24 May; the last four are a 3RR vio:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[199] (note abusive response)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Greek#Pruning down, for the 3rd time. Again, note unconstructive postings by IP.
Fut.Perf.☼18:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
* IP can get an account and discuss if need be.Casliber (talk·contribs)10:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Joseph Smith, Jr. (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:John Foxe (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
comments
For a long time nowJohn Foxe has claimed some sort of absolute authority over the content of this page, he reverts every singleuncontroversial edit made to it by numerous editors, whom he does not agree with. He seems to have became the arbitrator of what is ultimately allowed into the article and what isn't, this an almost 3 year along conflict involving dozens of editors. I was attempting to somenecessary and uncontroversial changes to the page and he continually reverted me with the rude edit summary"take complaints to the talk page", I then did justify my edits on the talkpage[203] and another editor made a respective compromise edit[204] and after discussion he quickly reverted it back to his own version.
He has now violatedWP:3RR in attempting to defend his own version of the page and has not engaged in any dicussions. I did leave a warning before he made the 3rd edit, which he was quick to remove[205]. Rather than falling into his trap of me reverting him for a 3rd time, I am ceasing my editing here to report him to avoid rulebreaking on my own behalf.Routerone (talk)19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that this is the 4th time in the last month that John Foxe has violated 3RR with regards to content disputes on this page. --FyzixFighter (talk)06:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Helder Ferreira (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Cyperuspapyrus (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[211]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[212] He uncivil insulted me so I refuse the conversation with him.
Comments:
I removed rubbish and unreferenced info, and the way this guy is acting is below any decency.Oleola (talk)11:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Result: Warned. Per a comment on my talk page, Oleola has agreed to take a break from editing this article for seven days. We are trusting that Cyperuspapyrus has also got the message about edit warring. If not, further action may follow.EdJohnston (talk)18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Chinaman (term) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Mattyjacky (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)18.252.5.59 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
these are a continuation of the same edits by the IP user:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See commentshere andhere.
Note that the registered user carries on the IP user's arguments on the talk page, indicating their identity.
Please note that these edits are apparently part of a web campaign to pursue a POV at wikipedia ("the battlefield has shifted to wikipedia. Need help") described inthis ANI report. (Since these pages have been deleted, I cannot provide diffs.) Assuming the IP user is involved I suggest that should be taken into account for any sanctions.
Comments:
Please also note the user's blatant willful vandalism of this very AN3 page[221].μηδείς (talk)04:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleting Medeis's report was faulty. I planed to use his/her report as a template and add a new one. As a new user, I am in the process of being more familiar with wikipedia policies. I will take responsibilities of having revised his/her report by fault. The user Medeis has conducted many personal attacks and made above-mentioned false accusations. I have indicated on the discussion page thatI agree that it is counterproductive to argue with you indefinitely. I'd like to raise this to a third party evaluation. Mattyjacky (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC). From the 3rd reverting rule, both Medeis and I were involved in an editing war. I call for a complete review and a third party opinion on the debate in the talk page. His statement ofcarefully premeditated vandalism is a personal attack. On his imaginary false statement about the association of my ID and the IP address. This can be easily disproved by administrative board by checking the log. Thanks.Mattyjacky (talk)04:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Medeis made 4 revert within 24 hours
1rd[224]
2nd[225]
3rd[226]
4th[227]
Thanks for your compliment about me not being a new user and thanks for praising my familiarity with "NPOV" and "personal attacks", etc.Mattyjacky (talk)05:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to the talk page and see that the lengthy debate was between the two of Medeis and me.
BTW, the link provided by Medeis above[228] seems to contain a new controversy with reliable sources from a famous university website. He/she has suggested that there was a campaign about trying to include this incident. However, I will step away from that discussion since this controversial incident has never been relevant to any of my edits. My statement here is that in the lead of the article Medeis used biased judgmental language from one side of some controversies that are listed in the controversies session. This seems to result from his/her personal taste of mitigating the derisive meaning of a racial slur. I was just trying to convince him that in describing controversies in the lead,causing controversies is a better wording thanwithout intention, which is the precise statement of the offender (not the people being offended) in these controversies.Mattyjacky (talk)05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Mr/Mrs Medeis: I should not let me fall into another editing war with you again. I'll leave the point to the administrative board. You have associated me with a lot of (and ever-increasing) names already.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMattyjacky (talk •contribs)06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Chinaman (term) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Medeis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
I call for a complete review and a third party opinion on the debate in the talk page. Medeis's reports can lead to relevant links.
Medeis has made 4 revert within 24 hours
1rd[229]2nd[230]3rd[231]4th[232]— Precedingunsigned comment added byMattyjacky (talk •contribs)05:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
There seems to be something wrong with MattyJacky's diffs. In any case, this edit of mine[233] was the removal of material about a living person which had been removed from at least four deleted articles mentioned in this ANI. Also be aware that while no editor beside this user has reverted my edits, which are based on a concern for balance, among other things, the accusing editor's edits have been reverted by three separate editors[234][235][236] beside myself, along with the accusation that my motivation is racism.μηδείς (talk)06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Mr./Mrs Medeis often makes personal attacks exemplified as above. Please also review this talk page to check his interactions with other users.
Also, Mr./Mrs Medeis is clearly involving in a online campaign, but with an opposite opinion. As indicated by C.Fred, Mr./Mrs Medeis with his awareness should have made this page protected, instead of participating the (counter)campaign and falsely assume that anyone who has a different opinion is from the "enemy". In the talk page, he has indicated that he is Chinese and not familiar with California, this explains his ability to find the campaign link in the Chinese language. However, his racism accusation above is simply absurd and is a blatant personal attack. I don't believe he has a neutral standpoint in editing the article.
He/she had already provided a source of the online campaign.Mattyjacky (talk)06:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Trance music (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Danceking5 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[237]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[243] and[244]: Note that the 4th revert probably came before the user received the first warning, thus the pass and clarifying of the warning in the second diff.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this issue directly (saw it come up on ANI). I do see that Roux has attempted significant discussion at bothTalk:Trance music andUser Talk:Danceking5
Comments:
Qwyrxian (talk)06:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period ofone week Originally added a 48 hour block thinking it was lenient but I missed his last revert. He's clearly reading edit summaries and his talk page. A week might given him time to think more deeply about both the warnings and the good advice accompanied with offers of help that he's been given.Dougweller (talk)06:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Morinda citrifolia (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Zefr (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morinda_citrifolia&oldid=430175733
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morinda_citrifolia#Categories>Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Both editors blocked – for a period of24 hours Both editors have been edit-warring. Once your blocks expire, please seekthird opinions instead of continuing to revert each other. Sandstein 15:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Battle of Königgrätz (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:rpeh (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[249]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[250]
Comments:
Keeps reverting infobox to the version without Albert of Saxony, on the talkpage sticks to his belief that "corps commanders do no belong to the infobox", does not respond to questions "Why?".Tom soldier (talk)09:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours The repeated removal of Albert of Saxony violatesWP:3RR. Sandstein 15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Comments:
There is quite a bit of edit warring happening on that page, with participants violating 3RR rather than discussing things on the talk page. While I am uninvolved, at the very least anons should be blocked and others warned.Mhym (talk)01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment Hey, would you mind re-adding the report using the template provided? It makes it easier for dealing with the reports and allows the automated report bot to notify users about reports against them! -=-Adam Walker -=-06:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Page:User talk:BelloWello (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Fountainviewkid (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Comment: there are many more, on my talk page, these are just the simplest ones since he actually hit revert, if I included the others, I would assume the number comes close to twenty.bW18:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Southern Adventist University (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Fountainviewkid (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[258]
Has previously been blocked for 3RR, is well aware of 1RR sanctions on the page. I alsogave him an opportunity to self revert which heremoved from his page and thenleft a demand to stay off his page on my page.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: all over talk page.
Comments:
Extended content |
|---|
If someone could please notify him, that would be great. He told me to stay of his page, and I don't want to be accused ofWP:HARASSing him.bW16:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Note, this editor was previously blocked twice for edit warring, the first for 24 hours, the second for 48 hours. Furthermore, note that yesterday, this editorgamed the system bycanvassing[262] others make edits he wanted after he used his 1RR.bW16:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay so basically I can delete, I just need to do it in the proper format and put something like "stupid comment"? Because that's the impression I'm getting.Fountainviewkid18:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment - This sounds like a major case of Wikilawyering where both parties need to be dealt with. Technically Fountainviewkid is deleting their comment, but it first deleted within a minute of placing it on the page. Self reverts are one of the main principles of WP, to say you can't have second thoughts within a minute of placing something on someone's page sounds due to the Talk page guidelines goes against that ideal. The Talk page guidelines specifically talk about not deleting things once they have been quoted and things like that. Nobody within a minute was quoting that item. It sounds like both parties are in the wrong here. Both parties continued the edit war, but Fountainviewkid should have the right to remove a post within a minute of posting it.Marauder40 (talk)18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
|
Page:Isbisa (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Brian Boru is awesome (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
This user is a habitual edit warrior, and I have had numerous problems with him before, reverting without discussing.129.33.19.254 (talk)17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
—129.33.19.254 (talk)17:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Berber people (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Omar2788 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[270]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[276]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[277][278]
Comments:
Editor has been edit warring against multiple editors for over a week.O Fenian (talk)20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page:Spock (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Erikeltic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[280] and[281]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[287] and[288]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[289] and[290]
Here's the links to the full discussions diff'd above:[291] and[292]
Comments:
--Jake Fuersturm (talk)05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No violation You seem to be claiming that another editor's reverts count against him? That's a fairly innovative position. The last revert also contains a copyright dispute claim, which is generally given a wide berth until the claim is settled.Kuru(talk)05:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Southern Adventist University (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:BelloWello (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[297]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[300]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[301]
Comments:
Further to the aboveUser:BelloWello has again transgressed the 1RR on the page withthis edit less than 24hs after his last one, I have asked him to stop editing the page for the time being.Mtking (talk)02:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Kent Hovind (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:120.20.51.50 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 15:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[303]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Various warnings atUser talk:120.20.51.50
--NeilNtalk to me15:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Administrator note Graduated to ordinary vandalism withthis and got blocked for 31 hours.Favonian (talk)15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Crucifixion (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Kristhehistorian (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[304]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[310]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[311]
Comments:
User is clearly the same as174.49.107.208(talk ·contribs ·IP contribs ·WHOIS).Favonian (talk)16:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Self admits to being the IP; was warned about 3RR.Kuru(talk)16:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Climate change policy of the United States (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Users being reported:
Previous version reverted to:19:00, May 25, 2011
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: difficult. I'm sure someone in the 99.181 range has been warned before.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm getting tired of trying to resolve disputes with these non-English-speaking link-spamming IP editors, still, I tried, at11:29, May 29, 2011 and19:16, May 29, 2011.
Comments:
After further consideration, I removed the entire sentence with the disputed Wikilinks, as an unsourced opinion about the motives of a living person. But perhapssomething can be done about the IPs. —Arthur Rubin(talk)20:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:False flag (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Shurusheero (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
—Jayjg(talk)20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours and placed on formal notice of ARB911 sanctions.Courcelles00:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Vext (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Brian Boru is awesome (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[312]
Diff of user-talk-page warning:[316]
Comments:
Please excuse my ignorance, but I'm not sure what to do here, so I am asking for advice. Here is what happened:
—TommyjbTalk!(21:34, 29 May 2011)
Note User hasalready been reported forWP:3RR violationhere. -=-Adam Walker -=-00:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Blood type diet (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:173.2.46.41 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
All edits made by this ip to article space are reverts toBlood type diet
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:5 May 2011
Discussions related to dispute on article talk page:Talk:Blood_type_diet#POVTalk:Blood_type_diet#POV_concern --Ronz (talk)03:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of31 hours --slakr\ talk /11:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Eden Gardens (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Iamgymman123 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[321]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[326]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[327]
Comments:
I have tried to engage the editor in discussion, both at his talk page as well as the article's talk page. Have suggested him to go through the diff. WP policies, to which the editor has not paid any attention. I have not reverted the latest edits by the user and wanted an uninvolved admin/experienced user to take a look. Thanks.Shovon (talk)13:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Warned. I see no evidence of a previous warning against edit-warring, which I think is a requirement for a block.Blocked – for a period of24 hours. By making this request, Shovon76 has demonstrated their knowledge of the edit-warring policy, so no warning is necessary for them. Also, at[328], Shovon76 has mischaracterized a content disagreeement as vandalism, seeWP:NOTVAND. Sandstein 21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Page:South China Sea (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:113.166.111.12 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[334]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. I have not touched that page for 16 days. Note that although the IP in the first 2 reverts may be numerically different, it is most definitely the same person, given the insistence and persistence on changing every instance of "South China" to "East Vietnam", which violates WP:COMMONNAME and is POV pushing... —HXL's RoundtableandRecord15:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
Blocked – for a period of24 hours and semiprotected for a month. Sandstein 21:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Thurmaston Bus (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Fatty2k10 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[340]
The user has also tried to make the changes while adding new content.[341] I have twice tried to start a discussion with them rather than using templates, asCasliber had told me that it would not be helpful,[342] but the user simply removes them. I didn't edit for a day to allow for a cooling off period. The user did finally contact me after their third revert of the day but when I disagreed referring to MoS and another editor made similar changes to mine, Fatty2k10 simply sent me an edit warring/3RR warning instead of continuing with discussions as requested. Fatty2k10 has previously been blocked twice for editing warring, including a 3RR violation. The user is currently claiming to have retired but has being doing so a long time. -Jasmeet_181 (talk)19:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
Stale Fatty2k10, please keep in mind that your own observations areoriginal research, and thatedit warring is still verboten even in the case where you are objectively correct. Please listen to the advice on your talkpage and the other article talkpage - there are some sage words there that will make editing here a great deal more fun. -2/0(cont.)12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Talk:Falkland Islands (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falkland_Islands#History_Section
User being reported:Wee Curry Monster (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 21:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
These are discussion page comments, not page edits – user has reverted discussion posts 3 times today, Revision History of Talk: Falkland Islands has been modified to show only one instance which I’m reporting below, date is in UTC
User is a habitual EW who, with a group of other editors, has for years violated WP:GAMES with several users to establish a POV slant in violation of WP:NPOV. Engaging in discussion with them goes nowhere, only their chosen citations and interpretations count as they back up each others’ conclusions. This user particularly has a habit of citing arbitrary WP:OR reasons for excluding other editors, i.e. saying “your argument is not robust / simplistic / irrelevant / WP:FRINGE, etc”.He then proceeds to question why editors don’t WP:AGF and eventually deletes new editors’ comments from even the Talk page, and today he has violated 3RR insofar as my posts are concerned. He regularly violates WP:RFC as evidenced by the following discussion threads:
User has even reverted my discussion posts on the Talk page of Langus-TxT, I have warned user but his disruptive behavior continues; please intervene.209.36.57.10 (talk)00:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Declined --slakr\ talk /11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)I had nothing to do with this but this is the 2nd time has accused me of SP'ing or having multiple accounts. There won't be a third. Judging from the article's discussion history, apparently he's made many more enemies than me over the years and if he has any evidence against me he can present it in the ArbCom case I've just initiated over this article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Involved_parties
Though I have been absent for some time in the EN Falklands article. Thanks for peaking my interest again - I'll enjoy this thoroughly. Whomever the sockpuppet is, please stop and join the arb process.Alex79818 (talk)22:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Network TwentyOne (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Financeguy222 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[343]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[348]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[349]
Comments:
User:Financeguy222 is an SPA whose edits are primarily related to Amway and directly related topics (egAmway,Amway Australia,Network TwentyOne,XS Energy Drink,Adaptogens,Peter Island,Libby Trickett,Chloe Maxwell) virtually always pushing a "critical" POV and including removal of non-controversial sourced material that may be considered to put the company in a "positive light". In the current circumstances he has been insisting on adding a disparaging statement aboutNetwork TwentyOne using a primary source UK court document in a case in which the company was not involved. I listed the issue on RS/N for discussion and the consensus was that the source was not appropriate[350]. The user rejects Noticeboard consensus[351] and simply reverts removal of the unsupported material. The user has a history of tendentious editing and refusing to engage in constructive dialogue and working towards consensus[352] including submitting bogus COI claims to try and silence opposition to his POV editing[353][354]. His very first edit on the current article was to remove an external link to a 3rd party organisation supporting company and replace it with an external link to a personal blog (believed to be his) critical of the company.[355]. All attempts by me to engage in constructive, consensus building dialogue with this user have failed. --Icerat (talk)14:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Iraq War (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Solopiel (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Long term edit warring, reverted by several other editors.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[391] - User has been warned and blocked for the same disruption.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[392] (same link as warning)
Comments:
This user has been warring over essentially the same edit since January. Has been blocked for same twice, restarts after block expires. (Hohum @)17:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Warned For relatively clear cut cases ofWP:EW even withoutWP:3RR, this board should be fine. Since nobody seems to be discussing these edits, I am going to try a firm nudge in the direction of the talkpage. Hohum, I encourage you to participate there as well. As Solopiel has quite clearly been edit warring for quite a while, including some of the same material as just prior to their previous block a few weeks ago, I support a longer block (a month or so, maybe) in the event of any further edit warring. -2/0(cont.)13:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Page:Cyprus (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: See explanation below, rv to two different versions
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[397]
Comments: Fresh from a block for edit-warring just last week, SIYKB has again broken 3RR. His first revert is a revert to this version by User:Basilwiki[398]. He restored the same text ("and elements of the (mainland) Greek Army"). However, when I add something from the same source[399], it is not to his liking and he removes it[400]. His second revert is so quick that I am not even finished adding, so then he reverts again (3rd revert)[401], and then one more[402]. His reasoning goes something like this: The source is Greek, therefore it can be used to "confess" that coup in Cyprus had backing from mainland Greece, however, for the same reason it cannot be used to source Turkish intentions. One can only describe this as tendentious editing. He has reverted 4 times in 30 minutes, so a clear cut vio, and on the back of a block for the same exact kind of behavior a week ago. I believe a warning of arbitration enforcement is in order in order in addition to a block.Athenean (talk)22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:Susan B. Anthony List (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:NYyankees51 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[403] May 25, 2011
Comments:
This article, like all abortion-topic articles, is subject to 1RR editing restrictions. Thus, the infraction was incurred so quickly that there was no time to warn the user beforehand or solve the problem by way of talk page discussion. NYyankees51 is well aware of the 1RR status of the article as it was marked as being under such sanctionsa few months ago. NYyankees51 makes many edits to abortion-related articles and was reminded of the 1RR sanctions last month onApril 28 and onApril 19.Binksternet (talk)13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Page:George Galloway (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Eclipsemullet (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[408]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[413]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[414],[415]
Comments:
Both editors blocked – for a period of24 hours That wasn't a BLP violation.Courcelles19:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Why not? George Galloway is a living person?PatGallacher (talk)20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Page:ISO 9001 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Trustjs (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)Time reported:19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
1.06:30, 1 June 2011(edit summary: "")
2.07:03, 1 June 2011(edit summary: "←Redirected page toISO 9001")
3.15:04, 1 June 2011(edit summary: "Undid revision 431998466 byC.Fred (talk)")
User is engaging in related and similar EW behavior atISO 9001 QMS, but has not violated3RR
—TransporterMan (TALK)19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Page:User talk:Nipsonanomhmata (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[417]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Has been blocked twice already for 3RR in last few days, no further warnings necessary
Comments: Fresh from a 3RR block on May 31st (the report is still visible on this page above), this user is now edit-warring by over his posting of an edit-warring template on another user's talkpage. He is also reverting across multiple articles[422][423][424][425][426][427] (this is a revert to this[428] version). All this pretty much the moment his previous block expired. This is getting out of control and needs to stop. Seems like the previous block had no effect. At this point I also think a formal warning ofWP:AE sanctions (either ARBMAC, DIGWUREN) seems definitely in order.Athenean (talk)00:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 1 week Editors are generally allowed to remove warnings from their talk page; really not sure what the warning was even for - the edit warring from a few days ago? Odd. Will look at the AE options, but I usually don't mess with that.Kuru(talk)01:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)![[21]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aFall_of_Tripolis.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aFall_of_Tripolis_crop_massacre.jpg){kind=link}
![[296]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%253AStar_Trek-Jacob_Kogan-Child_Spock.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistorysubmit%26amp%3bdiff%3d431430037%26amp%3boldid%3d422145846){kind=link}