Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin

Administrator instructions

Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Shortcuts:
You must notify any user you report.
 You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • WP:1RR violations may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

User:Alphama reported by User:Hanam190552[edit]

Page
Thảo luận:Hiệp ước Matignon (1954) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Alphama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:Alphama had an action of violation the talk page of Hiệp ước Matignon (1954) and an action of violation against regualtion of wiki. User:Alphama had deleted discussions of User:Hanam190552 with out any eligible reasons. The reason proposed by User:Alphama was that the discussion of User:Hanam190552 was too long. [1]

User:MYS77 reported by User:TonyStarks (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
Rachid Aït-Atmane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MYS77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688937546 by TonyStarks (talk) No. They're still called Modric and Benzema while playing. RACHID is how he's called since he arrived in Spain, and thus, to football. Respect that"
  2. 20:51, 3 November 3 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688946429 by TonyStarks (talk) 1) Search: "Rachid Sporting Gijón" produces more results than "Rachid Ait-Atmane". 2) His SHIRT NAME is Rachid, RESPECT THAT."
  3. 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689262757 by TonyStarks (talk) Until you don't show some sources, I'll keep reverting. Learn to respect other people."
  4. 19:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688952070 by TonyStarks (talk) Sources were given to the user. No replies were made. So, I tend to conclude that's an agreement."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User reverted my changes four times in a 48-hour period (he waited until the 24 hour period was over to revert again). He used the revert function twice to revert my change and manually reverted the content twice to revert my changes (see page history). I won't touch the article anymore until an admin intervenes. TonyStarks (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply: User clearly lacks interpretation. I provided sources to back up my edits, while he had none even with me asking for it through edit summaries and through messages in his talk page (which I got nothing but another revert as a response) until today, which he started a WT:FOOTY discussion and was in an extreme rush to see me blocked. User clearly wants to WP:OWN the page only because he edits Algerian football-related pages. MYS77 ✉ 22:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Funny that you mention WP:OWN when your messages on my talk page are the following: "You edited the guy once or twice a year, while I was the one who bring all the info together. Show some respect, please." and "RESPECT, R-E-S-P-E-C-T other people's work. When he leaves Spain (and only WHEN), then you can call him whatever they'll call him in other countries. Until that, he's known as RACHID and will stay that way." To me, that sounds like you're the one that wants to own the page, as you put in the work so it's your way or the highway. TonyStarks (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Strange, isn't it? I asked for sources, and you only provided it when creating a discussion at WT:FOOTY. Why you didn't bring me the sources instead of doing unsourced reverts? You were the one asking for all of this. MYS77 ✉ 01:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposal, mainly to avoid this extremely unnecessary mess. What about this lead: Rachid Aït-Atmane (born 4 February 1993), simply known as Rachid, (with this reference) is an Algerian professional footballer who plays for Spanish side Sporting de Gijón as a central midfielder. and then the rest of the page will stay your way. Fine? MYS77 ✉ 02:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale - seems to have de-escalated (but this is at risk of going on WP:LAME). Stifle (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Scjessey reported by User:Bongey (Result: )[edit]

Page: Hillary Clinton email controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diffs of the user's reverts just in the last 24 hours:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5] (content removal and adding the word "Republican", without source)Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Comments: This is only for last 24 hours. The majority of the edits by User:Scjessey on the page are reverts of others users[6]. The majority of edits by [User:Scjessey] are political related removing content edits, under the false pretense of removing "vandalism". Bongey (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Spurious, bad report by a new editor who recently showed up to the page to advocate some partisan political positions.[7] This page has been the subject of a lot of rapid editing by a number of editors, many of whom seem to be trying to promote WP:NOT#NEWS-style scandalous material about this presidential candidate (and hence, many to most proposed additions being reverted by one editor or another). The diffs show three two different reverts, not four, each on a different part of the article — whereas the reporter has joined an edit war and done 2RR on the same section.[8][9] Whether the reported edits count as one or three two reverts is a technical question due to the timing of intermediate edits, so it is questionable, but in no case do they appear to try to repeat a reversion. It would be helpful, though, if an administrator came in and gave some editors cautions about discretionary sanctions that apply to the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the reporting editor's edit history is very odd, either an extremely sporadic novice editor or sock-ish. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The majority of edits by [User:Scjessey] are political related edits, under the false pretense of removing "vandalism".
How is how much a person edits relevant to the argument? Its not. Yep I am a sock, that uses the same handle on multiple web forums.
Reality I spend my time on slashdot , were discussions are actually discussions 68.184.247.218 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Accurate report considering User:UW Dawgs and User:Scjessey both reverted my exact change, but User:UW Dawgs reported User:Scjessey in the last 20 days. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikidemon citation needed, every single line of the talk section was cited. When a anonymous source statement to politico is used as a source over two federal judges and two government websites, I don't know of clearer example of a violation of NPOV rule. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Fixed wrong link on the last diff. Also the 3RR rules says content removal and it doesn't have to be from the same section.Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
FWIW There seems to be some coordination between Wikidemon and User:Scjessey. Wikidemon has been removing content on the same page. I report User:Scjessey and Wikidemon comes to his defense. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Bongey, this report is going to get closed down soon, but please develop some WP:COMPETENCE editing the encyclopedia and dealing with its customs before trying to play process games like this. Your help actually editing and improving articles in neutral fashion, keeping content policies in mind, would be appreciated. Jumping feet first into current politics disputes with a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach in your account's first edits in years, a sloppy attempt to lob accusations and have other editors blocked, is not constructive. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • block me also for a few days if you want,but it is toxic for any community when to have groups of "individuals" consistently making politically slanted statements and immediately resorting to personal attacks.Bongey (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A couple notes about this bizarre editor. On the sock front, they seemed to admit to it (though perhaps sarcastically) from an IP address,[10] which they subsequently removed.[11] On the BATTLE front, they just filed an AN/I report against me for my participation here. Can we cut to the chase here and do something about this one? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Only two of those edits listed are reversions (and not for the same thing), so I'm going to just ignore this. Ping me if you want me to comment on anything specific. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:159.203.114.77 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
Publix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
159.203.114.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689670936 by 174.70.73.68 (talk)"
  2. 19:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 19:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689676495 by Loriendrew (talk) Vandalism change"
  4. 19:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism and spam edits made by previous editor."
  5. 19:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Please note that the Publix Twitter that responded is verified; it was retweeted by an unverified source. You are in an edit war and should heed your own advice."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Publix. (TW)"
  2. 19:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Publix. (TW)"
  3. 19:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Publix. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP seems to think a twitter account trumps the WP:RS present at George W. Jenkins, also blanked own talk page removing warnings. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that Loriendrew has made one, two, three and then four reverts all on the very same day, note that on edit number 4 where he breaches 3RR, he cites the legislation in the same summary. This needs to be taken into consideration when examining editwarring from anons reported by established editors. Para Forts (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism reversal is an exemption of 3RR. If you note user also changed company formation date ahead 60 or so years. It is nice to know brand new users are getting interested in 3RR discussions.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Looks like the IP has moved on. Loriendrew, if they come back let me know and I will block for vandalism. NeilN talk to me 19:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:popcornduff reported by User:capuchinpilates (Result: )[edit]

Page
Under the Skin (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
popcornduff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
[12]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [13]
  2. [14]

I did 1 revert between his 2 reverts - [15] , where my edit summary said, "Please don't revert edits, use talk instead." He reverted anyway, with an edit summary accusing me of being the reverter, and saying that my edits have already been talked to death. It's true, I have talked about them at length in the past, because my 3 edits in the past have been reverted by him/her, so each time, instead of undoing his reverts, I try to explain myself. All of my edits have been substantially different, as all have tried to take into account his criticisms of my edits. Here are his previous reverts of my edits on this page -

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
[19]

Comments:

The recent talk is only the latest in a lot of talk I've done on the page, as you can see in the whole discussion - [20]

Here is the talk where I tried previously, at length to compromise with popcornduff [21]

When he didn't respond to these attempts to compromise on the talk page, I opened a dispute resolution here: [22]

I tried to explain my positions in the noticeboard, but to me, popcornduff put only as much energy into it as necessary to make it look like he was participating. It didn't go anywhere, nothing was resolved, and the moderator gave no concluding thoughts or any suggestions.

Near the end of the dispute, here is what I wrote to the moderator: "I'd be interested in what you have to say, but I fear you might simply say that, in the absence of consensus it should just remain the way it is, or it shouldn't include any language more complex than it has now. But there's a few problems with that. One, is that the language I'm interested in using is not against policy; there are no rules against using "weasel words" and "purple prose." Two, there are other issues we haven't gotten to here; Popcornduff says language I've used is purple prose, I say it's not (and I'd be happy to say more about that). But the biggest problem is with being able to make any improvements to the plot summary at all. Popcornduff wrote the original summary, and he seems to me to be blocking anyone else from making any substantial changes. S/he's reverted many, many editors, and while many of the reverts I would probably agree with, he seems willing to edit war where others aren't. So if one editor protects their own editing, then how can a WP page ever improve? For an obscure movie like this, I don't think there's ever going to be some troupe of like-minded editors who show up on the talk page at the same time and demand the same changes."

Here are places where popcornduff has removed things I've written on an entirely different page -

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

There are also instances where I have corrected basic errors on WP, and popcornduff has reverted them (after I explained the errors he has gone back to fix it, but in his words, not mine). [26]

Popcornduff engages in liberal reverting on other sites I've happened to edit, but I might be the only one who has called him on this. Most editors probably never noticed he has reverted them, but some other editors have tried undoing his reverts of them, or talking to him, but he often keeps reverting until they get frustrated and go away, such as here -

  1. [27]
  2. [28]

These are just a few of the many, many undos he's done on Under the Skin and elsewhere. But if I've randomly bumped into these few, I can imagine how many other sites he must be engaging in this behavior on. Personally I think most of his reverts and excisions that I've seen are good, and that he does protect many sites from illegitimate and unproductive additions. Before My first edit of Under the Skin was ill advised, and my first points on the talk page were overbearing, and I’m sure this did not help the situation, but now I wish he would stop reverting me and taking out my edits. Popcornduff is a much, much more dedicated, prolific, and decorated editor than me, but the two of us are enmeshed in a long term power struggle. Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

On the Under the Skin page in question, in the last 18 months popcornduff has made 191 edits, 80 of which were where he cut more than he added, of which most of those I suspect, but do not know for sure, he was cutting other editors materials, such as mine. He hit the undo button 34 times, of which a few were back and forth reverts with another editor, including me. Capuchinpilates (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

2404:E800:E602:BE:545A:7FEC:ED83:7302 reported by User:116.14.128.14 (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page:List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2404:E800:E602:BE:545A:7FEC:ED83:7302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]

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


[34] (I didn't know there was a talk page so I tried to communicate with her on the wiki page)

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

Comments:


I have reason to edit it the way I did. I did it according to the names of the cast provided by MediaCorp. Here is the link. [35] 116.14.128.14 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor Blackmane[edit]

I'm just going to post a comment here to say that I fixed the malformed report. I have no view on the content itself. Blackmane (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Semi-protected for a week. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2‎ and User:2606:6000:610A:9000:888E:4ADD:E8AC:2B25‎ reported by User:LjL (Result: )[edit]

Page: Baby boomers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 2606:6000:610A:9000:888E:4ADD:E8AC:2B25‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [36]

The above #96 has nothing to do with 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) at all. 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [37]
  2. [38]
  3. [39]
  4. [40]
  5. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42] and [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: explanations have been given with extensive edit summaries

Comments:
I am making the (I believe) very reasonable assumption that these two IPv6s are the same editor.

LjL (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that Millennials and Generation Z had to be protected last week because of edit warring from an IPv6 IP address ignoring 3RR warnings. I'd already requested temporary semi-protection of baby boomers, since this seems to be the same person. --McGeddon (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
McGeddon it seems like a conflict of interest to request a lock and then continue to edit the Generation Z page at-will. Especially since the lock was for an extra long time (11/4 to 11/11). Do you see how that appears to others?2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A WP:Conflict of interest? Have you read that page? Because it says something completely different. Requesting page protection and then editing is patently not a conflict of interest. Let me ask you though, what do you think hopping IPs and edit warring on them is, apart from - obviously - the thing that causes pages to get protected in the first place? LjL (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm bringing up a different issue than what is on that page. Outside of the walls of Wikipedia people do care about conflict of interests. We have been talking about the disputed issue for days on the talk page, the page was requested to be unlocked and the locking editor apparently did not take the time to consider that the disputes were being talked out meanwhile McGeddon still gets to edit the page at-will. 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Well uhm maybe you shouldn't have edit warred? It's pretty normal that when an editor breaches 3RR they get blocked, or, in this case, since you're IP hopping, pages get protected; and then, other editors can and do keep editing. Consider following Wikipedia policies when editing, maybe... LjL (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely agree about following Wikipedia policies. The page should be unlocked immediately though. 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Icarus of old reported by User:194.145.208.20[edit]

Guys, I'm having a serious problem here: I've tried editing this page's IPA following Wikipedia rules about Italian phonetic transcription and linking a more than clear example too (ref-8). The matter is the phonetic transcription of the labiodental nasal /ɱ/: as said in both pages, a nasal (N, M) before a labiodental fricative (F, V) is always a labiodental nasal (/ɱ/). Incredible, uh? The example used in the 2nd page for Italian is iNVece, where the sequence 'NV' is phonetically transcripted /ɱv/. It's the same, identic case of iNFamante (except that, ovbiously, the fricative is F instead of V).

BUT there's a but: mr. Icarus of old doesn't agree. Both with me and with en.wiki. He's keeping reverting my edits since yesteday. He asked me to provide sources: I did it. I wrote civilly on his talk page, trying explaining why he was wrong. He undid my edits, came on my talk page and wrote first quite politely and then quite rudely also because English is not my mother language (I bet he can speak franco-provençal better than me...).

He keeps saying that en.wiki cannot be a source for itself... But this is not about sources: in such provided pages is indicated 'how' to represent the phonetical transcription of Italian. For example, to represent the Italian sounds written ZZ ('aZZurro') it's not used this sequence /d͡ːz/ but this one /ddz/. And this isn't even exactly the matter: because there's no issue about the phonetic transcription of /ɱ/, it's just /ɱ/, period. It's not /n/, it's not /m/, it's /ɱ/. What do we have to discuss about? I really don't understand...

And, if he didn't cancel what I've written on his talk without first reading it, he could see the external source provided by me, the same source cited on the 2nd page I linked: Journal of the International Phonetic Association - Italian - Cambridge Journals Online. Not the newspaper my dog stole from the old woman who lives in the house next to mine: the 'Journal of the International Phonetic Association - Italian - Cambridge Journals Online'. He just has to buy it, or even just read it for 4.49 €, if he can't trust my surced words.

What can I do? Anyone can help me with this nuisance? I don't know how to behave, I don't want to go against wikipedian rules, I've stopped reverting his edits because he called a friend who can keep reverting for him so that he doesn't appear to be edit warring nor going against the 3 revert rule... Please, tell me what to do, I've provided all the information I could to explain my point, to explain why /ɱ/ is correct while /m/ and /n/ aren't. Please, answer soon, anyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.208.20 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was not informed of this by the IP user, as is made clear at the top of the page, nor did I "call a friend" to help out. Icarus of old (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Your activity on Wikipedia is not constructive and I'm having a really hard time understanding the points you are trying to get across. No need to be so dramatic. I highly doubt this post will gain any traction. Meatsgains (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I have never interacted with either of these editors; I reverted an unsourced change that is being defended with WP:CIRCULAR logic. There is no collusion or edit warring going on. I will WP:AGF and try to believe that the replacement of my entire talk page[44] by this IP with another's editors contents was some kind of mistake. Scr★pIronIV 20:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:MetallicaMan800 reported by User:LjL (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Douglas Fir the Talking Tree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MetallicaMan800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [46]
  2. [47]
  3. [48]
  4. [49]
  5. [50]

There is also a number of other reverts on this same article, mostly (but not exclusively) removing maintenance templates; not linking any further ones since, basically, the article's entire history is made up of this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no response from user to edit summaries

Comments:
User created this article, and is WP:OWNing it; has also been reported on WP:AIV because of seeming like a vandalism-only account (has defaced a user's talk page among other things).

LjL (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I'm convinced the user knowingly continued to edit war (after being warned), but you'll also note they have engaged in discussion on the article talk page in the past. Edit summaries are not how you communicate with other users. Not sure about it being a vandalism-only account; let's start with a brief block and go from there — MusikAnimal talk 21:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear-cut vandalism since they actually created an article about an existing product... but I have just proposed it for deletion on the basis of lack of notability, and I'm seeing other articles speedy deletion has been filed for: they seem to make articles that are just short of hoaxes (existing but extremely minor things, "sources" being Amazon product pages, and so on). LjL (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Brad90210 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: )[edit]

Page
Bloomingdale's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Brad90210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "check again, source was not removed twice. thank you. Undid revision 689863306 by Epicgenius (talk)"
  2. 21:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "Source was removed on accident. thank you. Undid revision 689861360 by Epicgenius (talk)"
  3. 21:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "source added"
  4. 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "Not Original Reserach, Bloomingdales is an exclusive luxury brand and does not have any middle class competitors."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  2. 20:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Saks, et. al. */ new section"
  3. 20:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Albany, New York. (TW)"
  4. 21:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Bergdorf Goodman. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Removing sources */ new section"
Comments:

User has been edit warring across multiple articles. Bloomingdale's, Saks Fifth Avenue, Albany, New York and others. This is the first time today that they have violated 3RR - but the edit warring has been clear cut from IP to newly registered editor today. Despite discussion and recommendations to use talk pages, user is reverting multiple editors and passing the bright line of 3RR Scr★pIronIV 22:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I created this account to upload a picture as you can see. I am not intentionally "warring" with any one I am sorry you two did not like my edits, I made sure all of the sources were valid and credible. Brad90210 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC) I have not reverted to "multiple" editors, and I have not made any more edits. I will not be editing here any longer. Enjoy Brad90210 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Lord_.26_Taylor_editor.2C_back_as_an_anon_again. There have been repeated COI problems from anons at Lord & Taylor and related articles, and that article is now semi-protected, so anons can no longer edit it. (Lord & Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Hudson's Bay Company are all subsidiaries of NRDC Equity Partners.) This new SPA editor may be related. Is a sock check indicated? John Nagle (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I looked at that, from a behavioral standpoint I did not think it was the same editor. This one gave a name on my talk page, and looks like a low-level sales person who moves between department stores. Perhaps a little conflict of interest, but the not kind that replaced the "History" section with "A Legendary Company" Scr★pIronIV 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right. The L & T anons all seemed to have a very specific agenda, trying over and over to insert the same copy. This new editor seems more random. John Nagle (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina reported by User:Frinton100 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mabelina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version

Special:Diff/689848983/689851521

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/689869493/689870691
  2. Special:Diff/689871691/689872908
  3. Special:Diff/689873282/689874370
  4. Special:Diff/689879216/689879449
  5. Special:Diff/689876654/689876868


Diffs of 3RR warning Special:Diff/689878847/689888282

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

  1. Special:Diff/689693933/689877151
  2. Special:Diff/689576931/689869901

Comments:

There has also been a spate of edit warring at John Bickley (UKIP) and over the last couple of days at Jim McMahon (politician), the latter leading to an exceptionally long discussion on the article talk page. In the case of Oldham West, consensus does not favour Mabelina's edits, and yet they have persisted in making them. Frinton100 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

They have violated 3RR at John Bickley today as well. AusLondonder (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Strawbury17a reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: )[edit]

Page
Yunjin Kim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Strawbury17a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "clarifying her nationality and added source; her best know film in South Korea"
  2. 11:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 11:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "She is a South Korea-born american (source : source : http://speciallotto.tistory.com - moved to U.S in 1980 when she was 7)"
  4. 11:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "Kim yun jin is not a Korean; She has U.S nationality (source : http://speciallotto.tistory.com/604) and had moved to U.S in 1980, thus when she was 7 years old."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Yunjin Kim. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

attempt to communicate through edit summaries and invitation to use talk page was ignored. William Thweatt TalkContribs 12:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sakultah reported by User:Tradedia (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sakultah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR:

  • Edit 1 (Paolowalter removes town "Shekh Ahmad" and adds "Kuweires military housing", with edit summary)
  • Revert 1 (Sakultah adds town "Shekh Ahmad", without edit summary) 16:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Edit 2 (Rhocagil removes town "Shekh Ahmad", with edit summary)
  • Revert 2 (Sakultah adds town "Shekh Ahmad", without edit summary) 18:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] [53] [54] [55]

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported had been placed on notice of the remedies in place. In addition, you can notice a number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his unsourced edits. After a 5 day block for edit warring, this user found nothing better than to come back and edit war some more on the same module with unsourced edits, breaking 1RR. Tradediatalk 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    We have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The user simply resumes the disruptive activity after the block lifts, based on the edit history. He did that after my previous block lifted. The next block will be permanent. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

User:LLArrow reported by User:Gloss (Result: )[edit]

Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LLArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [57] - 00:06 November 9
  2. [58] - 21:15 November 9
  3. [59] - 14:04 November 10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning for edit warring was necessary. See the user's block log for their two previous blocks for edit warring or the previous times they've been brought to this edit warring noticeboard.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above, but there is a discussion going on at the talk page, see here where the user directly states "Oh and BTW, the only one that was in danger of being in violation of 3RR was you." in an exchange with another editor, clearly demonstrating the user's lack of understanding our edit warring policy, being that three reverts were made a little over a 30 hour period, coming from an editor who has a history of edit warring problems. The idea in their head seems to be "as long as I don't revert more than 3 times, I'm not doing anything wrong" and we're only hurting ourselves here if we let that mentality continue to brew.

Comments:
I've said just about everything up above. The user doesn't understand the edit warring policy and perhaps a longer block than last time would be helpful as well as a 1RR restriction upon return from a block. They're well aware that there is an edit war going on and that they're a part of it, but continue to revert other editors while dancing around the magic number 3 and the 24 hour period they know would be grounds for an immediate block. Also feel free to see here where I approached the admin who blocked this editor twice this year and the editor's reply there was all about me "having it out for them" and admitting to getting into edit wars due to a "passion for what [they are] contributing to". Overall damaging to Wikipedia and its' editors to let someone with this mindset continue editing this way. Gloss 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, the user Gloss has a personal vendetta against me, and I don't, for the life of me, know why. For what's it's worth I am seizing editing the article in question ([[American Horror Story: Hotel]) for the time being. I regret the fact that the situation escalated to this point. I highly recommend Gloss' own behaviour/edit history be closely evaluated. They are one of the top tier instigators on this site. LLArrow (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what behavior of mine you believe needs to be evaluated, but I'll refrain from commenting here again unless further explanations are requested by an admin. Gloss 05:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

3RR violation by Mimi C. on the "Ben Carson" article[edit]

User:Mimi C. reported by User:NCdave (Result: )[edit]

Page: Ben Carson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mimi C. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to (diff): [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [61] 19:15 Removed "where all 3rd and 4th year students receive scholarships in return for military committment," which had been inserted 23 minutes earlier, at 18:52, by Christo1234, as shown above
  2. [62] 19:59 "(Reverted 1 edit by Christo1234 to last revision by Cwobeel.)"
  3. [63] 20:48 "(Undid revision 689388498 by Christo1234 (talk) please see Wikipedia rules. Your revision is not supported by references, whereas, mine are. The title of the Politico article is not mentioned.)"
  4. [64] 20:50 "(reinserted "Carson's campaign conceded to Politico that he had never been offered a full scholarship")"

At 20:51 (one minute after his own 3RR violation) Mimi C. posted a very harsh comment on Christo1234's Talk page, accusing him of disruptive editing and vandalism, and threatening him with being "blocked from editing." [65]

At 23:47 I posted a comment on Mimi C.'s Talk page asking him to not be so harsh toward inexperienced editors: [66]

18 minutes later, instead of responding, he simply deleted it (blanked the whole Talk page): [67]

Subsequently, he has continued to edit the article; e.g.: [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

I am not involved in this edit war, but Christo1234 (whose edits Mimi C. reverted four times in 95 minutes) did try to resolve this dispute on the article talk page. Here's the diff of his/her attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Christo1234 posted that at 20:39, which was 9 minutes before Mimi C.'s 3rd revert.

At 20:44 (four minutes before Mimi C.'s 3nd revert) Christo1234's edit comment asked Mimi C. to "please see talk page" to discuss their argument: [71]

The section Christo1234 created is still there; Unfortunately, Mimi C. did not reply (neither did anyone else): [72]


Comments:

What troubles me most is the way that Mimi C. treated an inexperienced editor. I don't know either of these editors, but Christo1234 rarely edits on Wikipedia. This was the first time (s)he had edited in nearly a year. He or she only edited on one day in 2014, and two days in 2013.

Everyone on Wikipedia should be treated courteously, but inexperienced editors especially so, to encourage them to contribute. Instead, Mimi C. repeatedly reverted Christo1234's well-intentioned edits (four times in just 95 minutes), ignored his or her entreaty to discuss it on the Talk page, accused him or her of disruptive editing and vandalism, and threatened him or her with blocking.

Wikipedia should be a friendly place. That was not friendly. That's the sort of treatment which causes editors to abandon Wikipedia for long periods of time. NCdave (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

From my POV: (note, this is concerning the Ben Carson article where conflicting stories were being reported about him throughout the day, causing confusion among editors).
At the time, I found Christo1234's edits were unsubstantiated due to lack of proper references, his POV was biased towards the subject matter (which goes against the neutrality rules of Wikipedia) and quite a few grammar and punctuation issues were found in his sentences. I looked up his history and found that he had barely made any edits over the years. I had kindly asked him to please read Wikipedia rules. When Christo kept reverting back to his own erred edits, I had deduced (perhaps erroneously), that he was a troll which is why I sent out the (TW) Wikipedia Warnings of blocking to deter him from further editing, which he eventually did. I then received a note from NCdave, whom I don't know, and who was not involved in the edit war. I decided not to respond and went ahead and cleared my talk page (which I regularly do - I'm assuming I'm allowed to since it's my own?). I apologize if my actions appeared abrupt and I will be more patient and responsive in the future with editors. After being an editor for a long time on Wikipedia, and seeing common trends and trying to decipher if the person is trolling or not, we tend to jump to conclusions too easily, and forget that once, we were once Wiki novices too, in need of patience as well. Again, my apologies. Regards, --Mimi C. (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20151105172140/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Leave a Reply