Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
User:EEng reported by User:Bloom6132 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page: Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:43, November 26, 2014
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Four reverts within 24 hours, the last one made after I had warned him to stop edit warring. BlueMoonset, who was reverted the first two times, offered to discuss this on WT:DYK with EEng, but to no avail. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Note @Bloom6132: regarding your latest revert here, I must point out that 3RR exemption does not apply in this case. Quoting FPaS at [2]
"The exemption only applies to edits that were made during the block, i.e. through a sock. Edits made before the block don't count, just like edits made before a ban don't count."
You are just continuing the pointless edit warring. - NQ (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)- Indeed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies. I did not know about the specifics of the exception until now. Would you like me to undo my revert? —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually reading the exception might have helped. No need for you to do anything, since the discussion at Talk:DYK shows that sanity is prevailing and you will be reverted in due course. EEng (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unless you didn't read (or can't read; not sure which one), it's pretty obvious I read the exception given that I cited it in the ES. I was referring to how I didn't read FPaS' elaboration of the rule from 2 years ago. If you're expecting me to search through archives for comments made years before in order to correct a blatant 3RR violation, you'd be a moron. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The exception you cited, in making the reversion for which NQ quite rightly scolded you, allows "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users". I was neither a banned user, nor a sockpuuppet of a banned or blocked user, and no archived explication should be needed to understand that the exception didn't apply.
- For many months you've been expressing anger toward random people at Talk:Did You Know, beginning (to my recollection) after a shift in rules designed to raise the minimum quality of contributions there. This seems to have inconvenienced you, and since then you've felt free to call people morons, accuse them of intentionally fudging project statistics, muse that they "can't read" or "can't do math" even as you misinterpret moderately complex logical constructs (such as above) and much more. Personally I'm not distressed by such nonsense, but I know others are, and for their sake everyone would like you to cut it out.
- The pattern seems to be that if you're allowed to get the last word in, you go away and stop bothering people, at least for a while. So please be my guest. You have my permission to vent by calling me any names you like, if that helps.
- EEng (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unless you didn't read (or can't read; not sure which one), it's pretty obvious I read the exception given that I cited it in the ES. I was referring to how I didn't read FPaS' elaboration of the rule from 2 years ago. If you're expecting me to search through archives for comments made years before in order to correct a blatant 3RR violation, you'd be a moron. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually reading the exception might have helped. No need for you to do anything, since the discussion at Talk:DYK shows that sanity is prevailing and you will be reverted in due course. EEng (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Funny thing, karma [3] EEng (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
User:2.177.207.221 reported by User:SantiLak (Result: Blocked; semi-protected)
Page: State Bar of California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.177.207.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]
Comments:
Myself and other users have tried to discuss this issue with this user time and time again but they just revert edits and post walls of text in the talk page. We have told them that they need to acquire consensus but they have only ignored us. I have personally been called a "stalker and habitual vandalized of article who claimed he worked for the public entity the article is about" as you can see here and all of which is not true. I have not reverted any their revisions because I am trying to resolve this through discussion and I am bringing this here despite them copying and pasting a warning onto my talk page accusing me of such as you can see here.
- SantiLak (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Reply: If he is trying to discuss the article, he should discuss the article and refrain from making anti-semitic and homophobic slurs. The article is about a public entity - he has edited his talk page where an administrator told him to stop vandalizing the article by deleting entire sections without discussion. 2.177.207.221 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have never made any homophobic or anti-semitic slurs. This is just another example of the behavior of this user with these ridiculous things they say about other users. I also have no ideas what he is talking about when it comes to any admin. - SantiLak (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Note. I blocked the IP for 72 hours for violating 3RR, making personal attacks, and making false claims about other editors. I also semi-protected the article for one month as the same individual has edited before using a different IP address in the same range. I would have only imposed semi-protection if the IP wasn't causing such disruption in other ways.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Uishaki reported by User:Infantom (Result: Stale)
Page: Category:Arab-Israeli footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uishaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]
Comments:
Uishaki violated a topic ban[15]. He's the one that added (unsourced) content and was reverted, so he's the one that need to reach consensus. Please notice his long history of warring, violations and blocks on these topics, including a topic ban. Infantom (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Note. Infantom is forum-shopping. See this discussion between the two users at WP:ANI from a couple of days ago (the edit warring at the category also took place a couple of days ago and is itself
Stale). I have no comment on the topic ban allegation. Infantom also neglected to notify the user of this discussion as required; I have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bbb23, the other discussion was 2 days ago and didn't get a response, so i thought it would be better to report it myself. the edit warring is stale because i stopped it for now(until the issue will be settled by report), not because there is an agreement. As for notify the user, you are right, i thought the user would get a notification by mentioning him. it's the first time i'm reporting. Infantom (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Dcbanners reported by User:TheMeaningOfBlah (Result: Blocked)
Page: Talk:Sonic Boom (TV series) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcbanners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Violating the voluntary restriction which prevented him from editing the main page / talk page for one month. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. TheMeaningOfBlah, next time please include a diff to the report in which the user agreed to the restriction. I had to go hunting for it. Also, it would have been helpful if you had reported this when it happened, as opposed to a few days later. That said, I look at it like a temporary article ban, which isn't generally susceptible to stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK. I'll try to remember it next time. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
User:2.104.112.41 reported by User:Lneal001 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Median household income (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.104.112.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Median_household_income&action=history
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [17]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user, who is not registered, has never accepted my invitation (shown in revision history) to talk about why he is reverting without explanation. [18]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The revision page contains numerous examples of me talking to the user and invited him to engage in the Talk page, to no avail.
Comments: The user is verbally abusive, see the revision he made on Nov 4: "Go fuck yourself." Also, there is no reason for him to get rid of the citation I added, which for some reason he keeps getting rid of. Also, the consensus is to use PPPs when comparing incomes, which he also keeps impeding. In the Talk page we confirmed that PPPs are the consensus.Lneal001 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Blarpkin reported by User:Seahorseruler (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Nick Studio 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Blarpkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635814915 by 123.50.114.181 (talk)"
- 20:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635807212 by Mrschimpf (talk)"
- 17:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635736922 by 87.254.229.53 (talk)"
- 05:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635718920 by Mrschimpf (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- diff
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
No warning, but user is a DUCK of 162.254.144.149 who was blocked for similar behavior, see pending Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/162.254.144.149. Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have warned the user here, however I don't see them stopping considering they've ignored and removed every other warning and notice placed on their talk page (including the notification about this 3RR thread). Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- User has reverted again after warning --Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Md iet reported by User:PolenCelestial (Result: Topic ban from Dawoodi Bohra )
Page: Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's edits:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]
Comments: User is continuing to edit war on the article about the sect he personally belongs to, removing or obscuring information about the sect's requirement that its members mutilate the genitals of their female children so that ignorance of this fact continues. The wording of the information included in the article adheres to international medical standards and the user is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI because he is personally involved with the subject matter and the intent of his edits is to protect the reputation of his sect.
PolenCelestial (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Reply:
- [24]: This correction is regarding specific information, the term FGM being forced by PolenCelestial, which is clearly written as FGC in the source.
- User:PolenCelestial is a SPA and joined Wiki for aiming partisan activity against particular community, seems to be a part of present controversy going on over Dai. FGM is a social deficiency worldwide, and Wiki cannot be used as platform for the reform targetting particular community. FGM cannot be described in isolation, it has to be described as general circumcision practice "khatna" (Circumcision which further refer to FGM). When sources are restricting themselves to word Female circumssion, we giving stress to word FGM in wiki, seems giving over weightage.
My earlier revision was intended with that motto. As per [25] User:Qwertyus also suggested “e.g., use "female circumcision" in the text like the sources do” with due discussion, and Rukn950 also felt : “I feel that this paragraph of FGM is leaning more towards one side than other. I think we should follow the practice of neutrality discussing and gaining consensus before doing any edit. One line mention is enough. with proper reference. I also feel that the references given are overkill. ( too many references, some are blogs and some internet petition which does not stand as reliable source.)”. Some source removal was done by me considering above ( I did arbitary removal, which I should have checked).
Hope admin consider the above facts, my intention was not to have edit war but to not to allow miscreant to use Wiki. SPA type editor doing mischief at Wiki may please be discouraged. It is my intention to keep Wiki norms above all.--Md iet (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Admins, I explained on the talk page that female genital mutilation is the only term considered accurate by the international medical profession. It is the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject and the term used throughout that article for this reason. I also defended my account against the WP:SPA accusation due to this not being the intent behind my account but rather I am a new editor, also I made a previous unrelated edit on the Spanish wiki and the ones I've made to Dawoodi Bohra don't violate WP:NPOV which is one of the requirements for dismissing SPA activity.
- Furthermore, the user's claim that the sources cited don't use the term female genital mutilation is false, they do use it as do 27400 Google results [26] which upon examination consist of a very large number of reputable news sources which can also be cited if this is the issue.
- The user also claims that I'm targeting a particular community, when in fact I added the information to the Dawoodi Bohra article because it's the only FGM group I'm aware of that is distinguishable by religion rather than locality.
- The entire article on FGM is written from the perspective of the information I'm trying to include in the Dawoodi Bohra article. There aren't generally considered to be multiple sides to the issue, analogous to how the article on murder isn't considered an NPOV violation due to objections by members of sacrificial cults. PolenCelestial (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The dawoodi bohra article is not the place for discussion regarding FGM issue. PolenCelestial is straying from the main topic. too much weightage is given to this issue. this article has gone through edit war several times before .Earlier we had requested that before any changes made to this article consensus should be gained by fellow editors. PolenCelestial simply ignored this request and acts as the owner of this article. We are here to contribute positively to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and not the platform for imposing partisan views.Rukn950 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Result: User:Md iet is topic banned under WP:ARBIP from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra, on all pages of Wikipedia. He seems unable to edit neutrally on this subject. This action is taken under the discretionary sanctions authorized by Arbcom. I'm also leaving WP:ARBIP alerts for User:Rukn950, User:Burhanhusain, User:Ramiericson and User:Dawoodibohra5253. Three pages are being semiprotected: List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra, Mohammed Burhanuddin and 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: )
- Page
- 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 05:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC) to 05:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- 05:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "repetition deleted."
- 05:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ""
- 05:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
this user mdiet is warring with other users also like qwertyus, he has previously being banned too. Even other users like User:PolenCelestial have reported above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)&oldid=635735930 Summichum (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- All the above revision are done with intention to streamline the topic section wise avoiding repetition of the matter, and none of the information is removed. Everything is placed as it is word by word, with all the references intact, only deleting repeated sentences/ matter. May pl. have check on the individual revert mentioned. User:Summichum has used various means to disrupt Wiki activities for his partisan activity, joining Wiki to fuel the controversy, got banned several times and also succeeded in trapping me also once.--Md iet (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- this mdiet user is a partisan user who is trying to promote Mufaddal as the daee when it is clear that there is a big succession controversy where the deputy of the daee himself was a victim. Moreover when Mufaddal can use the stroke ridden body of his father to stage a farce ceremony which all witnesses accept that nothing concievable was uttered nor could have uttered due to stroke as reported by medical reports from the doctors. Hence I request (talk) to behave in a "wikipedian" manner and dont support the claimant who is following footsteps of the Muawiya\Yazid of the time who is using similar tactics of force to occupy the throne of daee and spreading malicious propaganda. Although I don't support any claimants but it is important to state both sides of the stroy in a non neutral way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 08:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Skookum1 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )
Page: 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skookum1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] N/A
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Another now serious issue:
- It seems to me this editor is attempting an WP:OUTING He posted personal details [31] about me including what he says is my city's name, something not found on my user page or publicly disclosed on WP. He claims to have spent hours digging through my edits and appears to be doing research into my real life including Googling me), He suggests I represent an US Political Action Committee in multiple locations, and digging deep into my edit history for personal details, including posting another identity I may use online.
I've taken various steps to descalate, especially encouraging discussion of the article, not other editors, but the bad behavior has gotten worse.
- A quick review of his contribution history edit summaries indicate a person filled with rage. Since he may live in the same general area as I do (he names his own city in a thread I saw), and could easily or has discovered my real world identity, this behavior by a rage filled individual causes considerable concern to my personal safety.
- There are many very hostile comments here and here and here he tells Inthefastlane to "Go shove it and stop posting your bitching on my page". This behavior is exhibited on talk pages and in edit summaries.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32] and [33] and [34] and also [35]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] and [37]
Comments: This round of edit warring is over a minor issue, but he did trip 3RR in 24 hours giving a clear cut opportunity to take steps to change his warring ways. I would not care much except he refuses to recognize what edit warring is, or what constitutes a revert. Worse this edit warring is part of a pattern of inappropriate uncivil behavior across edit summaries, article and personal talk pages and on the notice boards. To his credit, my cursory glance at the edit summaries on geography related topics suggest an otherwise good editor. It is when he edits terrorism related content that the problems get going.
May I suggest A) a temporary ban from editing terrorism articles and B) an WP:IBAN due to the OUTING behavior. This is for my own safety and peace of mind, and because he has said more inappropriate things about me to last a lifetime already and I fear potential real world repercussions at this point.
- Reply What a load of crock, this is just another "harassment procedure" like the previous one; @Resolute: has advised me as has @Veriditas: to back off, and Resolute explained to me the technical 3RR....while pointing out and cautioning LP and the other edit-warrior who is afflicting the article in question with ongoing disruptive behaviour that they, between them, were in the 4RR range themselves. A topic ban on terrorism articles is what I've been recommending for Legacypac. He's also lying that I OUTed him; it says straight on his user page that he's a "real estate developer in British Columbia" and somewhere else had mentioned Vancouver...he may nor may not be in Vancouver, he could be in Kelowna or 100 Mile House for all I know; the nonsense above re "I fear potential real world repercussions at this point." is rank AGF and also imputes I will do something violent against him, which is offensive and paranoiacally so in the extreme (I'm on another continent right now, and have been for a while now, which makes that even more ridiculous a thing to say). I've been WP:BAITed before as Veriditas cautioned me was what was going on; this is just more of the ongoing attempt to harass me for disputing his ongoing disruptiveness, which I am not alone in observing (cf DocumentError's ANI against him). He has edit-warred on the Ottawa article talkpage, refactoring/deleting comments by others as well myself; and while bitching about my criticisms of his conduct, which @GBFan: pointed out were NOT personal attacks (comments which he refactored with his deletion of an entire section - his first abuse of NPA/RPA was reverted by GB Fan and then, after disputing GB Fan a few times, deleted the entire section without proper cause, though in his own mind it's justified; self-justification being what it is.
- He complained about his own name in a section heading, then added mine to it in the same breath (I took out both later; his own addition to the sect header in question was a rank NPA), and while he rants about "personal attacks" he has no problem at all with the other edit-warrior's direct slags of me on the same section on my talkpage he links above. This is a pot-kettle-black ANI and one in a long series of procedural hassles/kerfuffles very visible in his usercontributions. Rather than be a responsible wikipedian as he wraps himself in the flag of repeatedly, he is being the opposite in spades, here launching a second ANI against me while the other one is still open, as is the one against him by DocumentError.
- A prime example of his ongoing habit of abusing and conflating sources is here - none of what he's added is in the cited article, no mention of ISIS, no mention of the Governor-General, and nothing like the analysis/account he gives at all. I reverted it immediately as the same government position (that the shooting was a "terrorist attack") was already in the article and because of the fake/conflated content he claims to have cited. Another good example is this on the 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu article, with the POV/OR edit comment "it was a terrorist attack by a terrorist trying to leave to join the terrorists in Syria." (even the RCMP say he was headed to Libya, his mother says he wanted to go to Saudi Arabia, not Syria); I reverted it with the very true edit comment "none of the links cited by Legacypac said "it was a terrorist attack", eg NP says "the government linked to terrorist ideology". Conflation and distortion of sources is SYNTH; the 3rd link is a blog so questionable)".
- He has complained that my pointing out such egregious and dishonest behaviour is a "personal attack" but WP:DUCK is what it is, and calling a spade a spade is NOT a personal attack when it's dishonest edits and abuse of sources is involved. As for wanting a topic ban against me for all terrorism articles, I'm sure he's aware of this edit of mine today, removing SYNTH/OR/POV as provided by a SPA and putting the balance he so very much doesn't like on the Ottawa article there, rather than the overwritten semiarticle the SPA had created, out of thin air, with a clear agenda behind it and a false logic on distorted citations. He's not the only "terror editor" to behave like he does, cf. the origin of that SPA-entry or the ongoing edit war on the Ottaw article, which he has taken part in and has abetted, and now presumes to come here to seek not just a block on me, but a topic ban to get me out of "their" way entirely.
- As for the IBAN for alleging I have OUTed him, I was viciously and slanderously OUTed by User:Sunciviclee re the infamous Vancouver Sun article linked on Talk:Adrian Dix and nothing was done to ban the editor/reporter who still "stands by his article" despite its incredible lies and distortions, and he never reported that responsible wikipedians, including some who don't like me much, restored what I had done. My actual personal name was OUTed, and nothing was done. Alluding to what city he's probably from is not OUTing, when he indicates as much on his talkpage (1/2 or more of British Columbians live in Greater Vancouver, which is about 27 municipalities in total). Really he's just looking for as much ammo as he can conflate/confabulate to get me out of the way of the "terror hobby" that his usercontributions give a very clear indication of. Presumptive launching of rankly hypocritical ANIs is a habit of his, and in one of the others he whined that there were two open ANIs already, well now he's made it three. That's abuse of process, pure and simple, as well as yet more hypocrisy.Skookum1 (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment Skookum1, I've blocked the other editor you refer to above. Just wanted a clarification to understand your writing style. What did you mean when you wrote, "Yes sir, no sir, FU sir" and "Harassment by troll"? Also, after Resolute's warning to you, where have you mentioned that you're backing off from the article or from reverting? One amongst many comments that I see of yours talks about you deciding to revert as many times as the other editor places the contentious information? And why were you blocked the last time? I'm asking you to clarify the last block's information because I'm not quite clear of what personal attack did you do the last time that led to a block on you. I'll await your reply before taking further action on this report. Wifione Message 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Article protection would've been the better route, in this situation. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment This diff may provide some guidance. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: )
Page: Gojoseon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cydevil38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]
Comments:
- Cydevil38 is a long-term disruptive user whose main activity is POV-pushing and edit-warring. In addition to the current complaint filed by Cold Season, Cydevil38 has been brought to ANI or other forums at least five times by four different users, an astonishing record for someone with only about 1000 mainspace edits:
- WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive46#User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Komdori (Result:), reported by Komdori, May 2007
- WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252#User:Cydevil38 disruption, reported by Assault11, May 2007
- WP:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) (creating a POV fork), reported by Jiejunkong, August 2007
- WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#Slow edit-warring and refusal to follow WP:BRD, reported by Benlisquare, October 2011, with evidence of disturbing off-wiki racist comments
- WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time, reported by Benlisquare, December 2012
- In addition, there are many other incidents that have not been previously reported, including:
- Long term edit-warring against multiple users on Template:History of Korea, pushing the fringe ultra-nationalist theory that Dangun is historical and Gojoseon was founded in 2333 BC. [46] [47] [48] [49]
- Removal of sourced content on Mid-Autumn Festival [50], [51], [52], the last revert by an obvious IP sock
- Canvassing [53].
- I believe Cydevil38 deserves a topic-ban in Korea-related articles. -Zanhe (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't the forum to request a topic ban unless it is authorized by ArbCom or by community sanctions and, even then, this board is generally only for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Bbb23. I was going to file an ANI complaint for Cydevil38's long-term disruptive behaviour, but Cold Season acted first, so I just appended my evidence here. So let's just deal with the latest edit warring incident for now. -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't the forum to request a topic ban unless it is authorized by ArbCom or by community sanctions and, even then, this board is generally only for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I checked this all out - obvious edit warring, inserting the same thing over and over. Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
User:SunshineAwake reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)
- Page
- Wi-Fi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- SunshineAwake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */Added content"
- 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */"
- 16:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */"
- 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */Added content"
- 16:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Safety */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 15:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wi-Fi. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Also warned for copyright violation[54], username[55] and promotion[56]. NebY (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by User:Barek. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
User:173.238.79.44 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)
Page: The Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.238.79.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61] [62]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The IP has repeatedly violated WP:OR and WP:VER, changing the verifiable meaning of two reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tgeorgescu has actually violated WP:3RR, and has also refused to give any consideration to other opinions than his own. He has misrepresented the source in question by using a statement to suit his own opinion, rather than entering the wording also used in the source. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Personal attack at [67] accusing me of atheist and anti-theist agenda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)