Page: 2009–10 Iranian election protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SpidErxD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Original reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Recent reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

I Contacted the editor himself, and I tried to report him to an administrator. [9]

Comments:
This editor constantly puts poorly sourced and badly written content which he claims the following things on the Article Summary.

Officially, Since 2006, USA is funding Anti-Regime groups in Iran According to Russian State tv, these protests were planned and they called it a Western Media propaganda. Iranian Officials accused Western Media for giving 24x7 intense coverage to these protests. Some Iranian Officials called these protests were planned by CIA

He also removes references to Neda Agha Soltan, who is a crucial part of the protests, from the summary and argues makes ridiculous arguments to his summaries that Fox News is wrong or HRW is not explicitly state that the government was responsible.

I told him to stop it, but instead, he starts debating with me over whether or not Neda (who was a symbol of the protest) was actually killed by pro government forces, or whether the protesters in other cities were even Iranian, then he accuses me of being Anti-Iranian and he threatens to have me blocked for Vandalism. His editing is disruptive, he is using the summary of the page to promote Pro-Iranian Government Conspiracy theories, and this guy clearly does not understand that Wikpedia is most certainly not the place for philosophical debates or fringe discussions. Rezashah4 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Both parties have clearly broken 3RR here, but I think it's best to protect it instead of blocking. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a/c to HumanRightsWatch, "Neda Agha was several kilometers away from protests, she was struck in a traffic jam, and there were no Basij forces when she was killed". a/c to FoxNews,CNN etc. "She was going to protest and she was killed by Basij". a/c to FoxNews,CNN "1st chemical attack in Syria was carried out by Assad" , but a/c to UN report it was rebels who carried out that attack. I believe HumanRights,United Nations reports are more authentic then Corporate lies. Whenever i mention Russian,Iranian point of view Rezashah4 removed it. Why cant you make article neutral by mentioning both point of views? Why only American point of view is important? SpidErxD (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Indian Forest Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Anup patra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC) to 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 16:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "/* See also */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC) to 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 10:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "/* See also */"
   2. 10:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC) ""
   3. 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "/* See also */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Can you explain to me how you are not also edit warring? Both of you are doing a terrible job explaining your reverts and neither of you are discussing the issue. The reference you are providing only says that some people went to the National Academy of Direct Taxes for a three-day training course, which is not what you are writing in the article text. Open a dialog on the article talk page. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: NaturalNews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael0156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

• Blocked Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Kunchacko Boban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Kunchacko Boban filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Clock 12:13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff of Kunchacko Boban

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:16, 20 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 577976330 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)no need of source for wiki tables)
2. 15:46, 21 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 577985663 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)Hee man see this WP:FILMOGRAPHY)
3. 12:49, 22 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 578138905 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)Vandal)
4. 14:31, 24 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 578255903 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk))
5. 16:34, 24 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 578555577 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)ok sir)
6. 16:37, 24 October 2013 (+2,522)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban filmography ‎ (Undid revision 578568173 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)sir....)

09:25, 25 October 2013‎ Sam Sailor (12,106 bytes) (+3,188)‎ . . (Boldly merging Kunchacko Boban filmography. I see no benefit in the undiscussed 19 March split and it is not justified under WP:LENGTH)

1. 11:28, 25 October 2013 (+2,696)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban
2. 11:32, 25 October 2013 (+2,696)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban ‎ (Undid revision 578677920 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)Ok wiki master)
3. 13:16, 25 October 2013 (+2,631)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban
4. 03:42, 26 October 2013 (+2,631)‎ . . Kunchacko Boban ‎ (Undid revision 578693196 by Sam Sailor (talk))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Diff of User talk:Clock 12:13
2. Diff of User talk:Clock 12:13
3. Diff of User talk:Clock 12:13

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kunchacko_Boban#unsourced_trivia

Comments:
While Clock 12:13 "only" has made 3 reverts in Kunchacko Boban filmography and 3 reverts in Kunchacko Boban within the last 24 hours, the former article has been merged into the latter within these 24 hours, essentially making it 6 identical reverts without talk page discussion. Attempts by TheRedPenOfDoom and myself to engage Clock 12:13 in further talks have been met with silent deletions on his own talk page. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note that it has become pretty obvious that Clock 12:13 is merely another sock from the Mealwaysrockz007 drawer. A case has been filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mealwaysrockz007 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clock 12:13 returned only to make the 03:42, 26 October 2013 revert in Kunchacko Boban (added to diff list above). That's a clear 4th revert in the article within 24 hours. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you count the edit on 25 October at 11:28 UTC as a revert. As far as I can tell, that edit was, with minor trivial exceptions, additions to the filmography. I can see that the filmography has bounced around a bit, but it doesn't look like what Clock added had been removed before. If you can point to a diff where it was, then the edit would count as a revert, and they would have breached WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: The reverts they make to the filmography table are 100% identical. I assume this is obscured by the fact that all above diffs are not identical in size. Solution: Take the filmography from Revision as of 11:28, 25 October 2013 of Kunchacko Boban and the filmography from Revision as of 16:37, 24 October 2013 of Kunchacko Boban filmography and compare them in a file editor and you will see that they are identical. I can copy-paste to two sandbox files so you can run Dupdet, if that makes life easier. --Sam Sailor ^Sing 16:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Ah, thanks, I forgot about the interrelationship between the two articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Haseebv30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 19:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC), For 1st, 3rd and 4th revert
2. 19:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC), For 2nd revert

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC) "Shaikh ul Islam شیخ الاسلام"
2. 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "Hanafi"
3. 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "Shaikh ul Islam شیخ الاسلام"
4. 19:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "Shaikh ul Islam شیخ الاسلام"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. (TW)"

Comments:

Persistently adding unsourced content to article. -- SMS ^Talk 15:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours - However I do fear that this fellow is poorly literate in English and s/he may not understand the reason for being blocked. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I forgot to note here that the reported user started to use the talk after this report was filed and is yet to receive a response. -- SMS ^Talk 02:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Virgosky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts (all dated today 25 October 2013):

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19] [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:
An administrator has protected the page but I believe that sanctions are also necessary to deter further edit warring after the page protection has expired. HelenOnline 16:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion and the result at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Administrator comments/page protectionVirgosky (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI discussion is about a pattern of disruptive editing by Virgosky involving several articles and more than edit warring. This discussion is about a single WP:3RR violation which happened after I opened that discussion. HelenOnline 17:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. As noted by the participants, there's been a discussion at ANI, and an administrator locked the article. I'm not going to (preemptively) block Virgosky based on Helen's fear that they will continue the war after the lock has expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your assistance. Virgosky (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
Uncivil and disruptive behavior in an otherwise stable FA article. • Astynax ^talk 08:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected. Article locked for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user is edit-warring over a section in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities.

I don't want him blocked.

I just want an admin to tell him to STOP IT!

Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC) ‎[reply]

See Wikipedia:RDH#Sweden. This user, Baseball Bugs, has persistently and blatantly violated WP:SOAP to carry on a debate on US politics that no relevance to the OP's question. He continued adding to the debate even after it had been put under a "hat" tag. I therefore deleted the vitriolic debate so that the OP's question can get more attention.

The only two editors that have expressed any objection are Baseball Bugs and User:Medeis, both of whom were participants in the debate and were therefore violating both Wikipedia and Reference Desk policy. Medeis, it should be noted, also reverted my hatting of the debate before another editor agreed with me and re-imposed the hat.

I've raised this issue on the talk page, inviting any non-participant in the debate to revert my deletion. Medeis replied with "There's a good consensus we don't delete remarks except for personal attacks, BLP violations, req's for medical advice (in which case a template is used), and egregious trolling, not a long-multiple user thread". In the immediately preceding section of the talk page, this same user said about a user's questions, "I am not sure what you want to call the 'questions' on cancer closed by andy the grump. Given the OP won't stop opening them I have deleted them." Clearly, since Medeis doesn't know what to call the questions, he/she does not know that they fulfill his own criteria for deletion, but proceeded to delete them anyways. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Now that the editor has decided to talk instead of just blindly reverting, you all can probably close this section down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These shenanigans have gone on long enough. It is time for action. 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back. Please block the editor for edit-warring and leveling personal attacks on the talk page; and please block the IP just above for trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that we now have three reverts by a single-purpose IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.68.228.99 account re-deleting the section:

20:57, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (removed chat room BS by Buggs and company)

20:53, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (removed chat room BS by Buggs and company)

20:51, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities ‎ (removed chat room BS by Buggs and company)

• Please also note Bowlhover is quoting non-existent policy about editors not editting or opining on a thread they have participated in. Given it's his behavior that is at question here (and is now continuing through proxy) I am confused as to what the point of random diffless accusations against me from other times and places is, other than to show Bowlhover seems to think he is morally justified in edit warring. I am not sure if anyone here can do an SPI, but it seems warranted given the IP's fortuitous sudden appearance. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and Buggs request for admin action will bring scrutiny on both of you for your editing behavior as well. 94.68.228.99 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. We're stand-up guys. You, on the other hand, are hiding behind a brand-new IP. Which, by the way, I've reported for attempted impersonation of the user Bowlhover.[29] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

94.68.228.99 is a troll, not affiliated with me in any way. If the differences in writing style don't make this clear, please do a SPI. --Bowlhover (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers won't do anything with IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now we apparently may have a banned IP user who identifies as "wickwack" who edits from Western Australia on variable IP's involved. See the edit by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.124.242.10:

21:41, 26 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-13,714)‎ . . Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities‎ (Undid revision 578897032 by Baseball Bugs (talk)) (current)

and Prior discussion of him and his unsigned response about his IP address at the bottom of this thread where he edits as 203.54.115.88 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_102#Is_IP_120.145.70.130_Wickwack_again.3F

• I think we may need a block of both IP users. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st diff
2. 1st revert, putting back a version with unsourced content (after I added a 1st RS (BRILL's First Encyclopaedia of Islam))
3. 2nd revert to the version with unsourced content
4. 3rd revert to the unsourced version (even if I added a 2nd RS (Annales de Géographie, a French study focusing on linguistics))

Note: the same user was edit-warring a few hours ago (link)

Note(2): the same user is also warring (and removing RS) on the article Ghomara language in what seems to be a WP:OWN case ([31][32][33][34])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this doesn't look like a comment by somebody who wants to discuss. --Omar-toons (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The source was already in the article, and as I explained, linguistic claims require linguistic sources. If Omar wants to change the article, he should justify the change when it's challenged. (I have no idea who's right, but that's why we follow sources.) — kwami (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omar is using an "encyclopedic dictionary" from 1927, arguing that it trumps a preliminary linguistic classification from 2006, and has tagged the article as OR for citing the latter. A bit ridiculous, but he doesn't seem to get it. — kwami (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation Up against the line, but not over it. Please work this out, or locks and/or blocks will follow. KrakatoaKatie 06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Sock where were you then?"
2. 09:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 578931893 by Socktabhaya (talk) per WP:WPC"
3. 08:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 578929058 by Thomas.W (talk)"
4. 08:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Consent of one or two editors is not a valid reason. what is the policy behind your move?"
5. 07:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Where were you hiding when the discussion was going on? - Remove the odd section per WP:WPC"
6. 03:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Remove the odd section per WP:WPC. No valid reason was given in the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Sri Lanka. (TW)"
2. 08:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sri Lanka. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User repeatedly trying to remove all mention of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. There has been a discussion about it on the talk page of the article, with DinoGrado failing to get a consensus supporting his removal. Which hasn't stopped him from repeatedly removing it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, got it. Got your multiple additions to this report. Got your WP:AIV filing on this same topic too. Blocks are last resort - anyone who's working this hard to get another editor blocked should probably logout for a couple of hours and take a walk - obviously either too involved in the topic, or forgetting the overall purpose of this project temporarily. Let the process take its course, and don't try to circumvent it - the article and the evidence will still be here ES&L 10:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to your comment on WP:AIV. It's not forumshopping, and I'm not "working hard to get another user blocked". I'm trying to put a stop to a clear violation of the rules, making six reverts against consensus in less than 24h. So thank you for your concern, but I don't need a rest. But maybe you do. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, DinoGrado has now made seven reverts, and shows no sign of stopping. So maybe my attempts to put a quick stop to him weren't such a bad idea after all. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong - a block for Dino is definitely in order. However, the reviewing admin will need to take the actions of all the other parties into account as well. This isn't the first time this editor has edit-warred on this article - and oddly, they escaped a block the first time. This time it's a slam dunk - however, there's a tag-team of editors who are enabling them to edit-war right now. In my mind - 3 day block for Dino ... not sure yet for the enablers ES&L 10:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "enablers" nor is there a tag-team, only four different and totally unrelated users who, in total accordance with the rules (including issuing proper warnings), have reverted a repeated removal of properly sourced content (a removal that does not have the support of other editors, as can be seen on the talk page of the article...). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psst...when you lack a bit of a clue, and a recommendation from an admin has been made, it's usually a good time to keep quiet and quit while you're ahead ES&L 11:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]