Revision as of 12:18, 14 July 2012 editDangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits →User:PRProgRock reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: ): indef -close← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:23, 14 July 2012 edit undoDangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits →User:Andreasegde reported by User:GabeMc (Result: ): capiche?Next edit → | ||
Line 342: | Line 342: | ||
GabeMc is quite an edit warrior himself. ] (]) 12:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | GabeMc is quite an edit warrior himself. ] (]) 12:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
* The "evidence" that was supposed "warning" of an upcoming edit-war is also false. The BOTH of you should be ashamed of yourselves, especially with the crap on ANI. Grow the fuck up, or I will indeed block you both. At this point, I suggest a voluntary ]. If either of you mentions the other, anywhere on this project, blocks will be-a-coming. If there is anything OTHER than proper discussion on articles, same thing. Voluntary ] across the project would be wise as well, before the community ''imposes'' these restrcitions on both of you. ''Capiche?'' (]''']''']) 12:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result:Indef ) == | == ] reported by ] (Result:Indef ) == |
Revision as of 12:23, 14 July 2012
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
- See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
- If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.
You must notify any user you have reported.
You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~
to do so.
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
- Additional notes
- When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
- The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
- Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
- Violations of other restrictions, like 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
- Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs. |
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 |
1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
Other links | |||||||||
User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: declined)
Page: Dhimmi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altetendekrabbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 He has been repeatedly warned and blocked for similar behavior at this article and others.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: Altetendekrabbe continues to edit war at the same article that he was blocked for doing so on 29 June 2012. Typically, he does not use make use of the talk page to explain his edits but continues to revert.
Clarification: The reverts removed sourced material, "...would also face discrimination in personal law." attributed to this source which has been the subject of previous disagreements. A version was first added on June 28 and has since endured multiple edit wars. Altetendekrabbe knows that several editors support its inclusion and has made repeated efforts to remove this particular paragraph.1, 2, 3 To continue this mindful of other editors objections is disruptive.
comment: the fact is that user ankhmorpork is tag-teaming with others, re-adding content that is disputed. he is clearly gaming the system. just take a look on the "reverts" he provided. an ip added inserted content into sourced material and thereby causing misrepresentation of the sources. this has been noted by another editor as well. user ankh, frotz and estlandia are tag-teaming and reverting my edits blindly. the so-called 4. "revert" is not a revert at all. i have also filed a sockpuppet report in order to get to the bottom of this matter. there has been a dispute on the dhimmi-page for a while now involving contentious edits. the dispute was more or less settled but an ip-69.12.173.8 showed up and made contentious edits again. after i reverted the ip-account user frotz reverted me . i find it highly suspicious that frotz reverted me immediately after i reverted the ip. in addition, the ip-account has less than 20 edits and jumped right into a conflict, making edits that are advocated by user frotz. after i reverted frotz... estlandia and ankh also came along... as *always*. i have provided some of the diffs in order to established the tag-teaming here, . other editors have noticed this blatant tag-teaming as well, . THIS CAN NOT GO ON UNPUNISHED.-- altetendekrabbe 13:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The original, supposedly sourced, content was substantially changed without adjusting the sources. The sources can't both support the original content and the revised content. In addition, the changes that Altetendekrabbe reverted do appear to be POV (and have some grammatical errors) so it is reasonable for Altetendekrabbe to revert them and call for a discussion and / or validation of the sources before the changes are made. Frotz's revert of Altetendekrabbe's revert was the start of the edit war and shouldn't have been done. That is, the edit summary Frotz used "state your case on the talk page" is what Frotz should have done instead of reverting Altetendekrabbe. QU 13:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. However, the revert also removed sourced material, "...would also face discrimination in personal law." attributed to this source which has been the subject of previous disagreements. (addition) A version was first added on June 28 and has since endured multiple edit wars. Altetendekrabbe knows that several editors support its inclusion and has made repeated efforts to remove this particular paragraph.1, 2, 3 To continue this mindful of other editors objections is disruptive. Ankh.Morpork 13:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- nonsense. check my edits. in one edit, that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the reverts, i removed a direct and explicit reference, not content, to bernard lewis as his opinion is *not a mere opinion* but an established fact, as per wp:npov. the other line i removed was about muslim sentiment which i felt didn't belong in the concerned section. what is important is the way the dhimmi status was administrated *officially* by the state institutions. in addition, the line you mentioned is in the lead, and the two lines i removed are in the main text....here is a comparison between the last version from yesterday, as edited by user marek, and my first revert . you are being disingenuous as always. the line you mentioned was removed, and rightly so, due to no consensus yesterday, and *not* by me. nb! ankh is now adding other unrelated diffs in order to confuse the reader. -- altetendekrabbe 14:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- @QU, exactly, thanks. there is also enough evidence of tag-teamig, involving ankhmorpork, estlandia and frotz. i dunno what they are trying to accomplish by harassing me. -- altetendekrabbe 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your changes are reverted by anyone not because there is tag-teaming going on, but because there is something wrong with your edits.
- I agree with the above. However, the revert also removed sourced material, "...would also face discrimination in personal law." attributed to this source which has been the subject of previous disagreements. (addition) A version was first added on June 28 and has since endured multiple edit wars. Altetendekrabbe knows that several editors support its inclusion and has made repeated efforts to remove this particular paragraph.1, 2, 3 To continue this mindful of other editors objections is disruptive. Ankh.Morpork 13:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with his edits - removing obviously POV text (which is being inserted for less than decent reasons) - is exactly the right kind of edit. There is tag-teaming going on, the only question is whether it's being coordinated or not.VolunteerMarek 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- define "anyone"...-- altetendekrabbe 14:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- "...the revert also removed sourced material, ...would also face discrimination in personal law. attributed to this source" - yes, as you say (AnkhMorpork) that does seem to be supported by the quoted source. QU 14:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- i repeat, i did *not* remove that line. see my answer to ankhmorpork. please check yesterday's last version. here is a comparison between the last version from yesterday, as edited by user marek, and my first revert . ankhmopork is now *lying* in order to save his own skin. the line he mentioned was removed, and rightly so, due to no consensus yesterday. other editors have noticed the blatant tag-teaming by ankhmorpork, estlandia and frotz, . THIS IS HOUNDING AND CAN NOT GO ON UNPUNISHED. -- altetendekrabbe 14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Point of order: I wasn't stating that you had removed that content. Rather I was agreeing that the content seemed to be supported by the source and, therefore, there may be a case for including it. QU 22:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- i repeat, i did *not* remove that line. see my answer to ankhmorpork. please check yesterday's last version. here is a comparison between the last version from yesterday, as edited by user marek, and my first revert . ankhmopork is now *lying* in order to save his own skin. the line he mentioned was removed, and rightly so, due to no consensus yesterday. other editors have noticed the blatant tag-teaming by ankhmorpork, estlandia and frotz, . THIS IS HOUNDING AND CAN NOT GO ON UNPUNISHED. -- altetendekrabbe 14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I've noticed this pattern before. Although I believe that Altetendekrabbe is trigger happy with the revert-button, I also believe that in this diff (number 99) VolunteerMarek's comments are spot on about AnkhMorpork, Estlandia and Frotz' behaviour. A similar pattern may be seen in the last 50 edits on the Eurabia , Criticism of the Quran, possibly meriting some kind of WP:HOUND investigation. It should also be noted that an extremely inactive IP editor has entered the dispute on the dhimmi page the last couple of days, leading to a sockpuppet investigation. To me, this seems to be a clear case of tag teaming. --benjamil (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that there is tag teaming. And edits have inserted text into sourced material, with the result that sources are misrepresented. Reverting is correct in such circumstances. This article has been targeted by POV pushers for years. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- i want to thank benjamil and itsmejudith to pointing this out! there is absolutely NO DOUBT: ankhmorpork, estlandia and frotz are tag-teaming against me on several pages. a WP:HOUND investigation is indeed needed. by the way, another wp:spa has arrived . with total of 3 edits and a charming name. clearly, a tag-teaming duck. update: the duck has now reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours. highly suspicious that he came out of nowhere and started edit warring.-- altetendekrabbe 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I am closing this report as declined. Not that there wasn't a formal 3rr violation on Altendekrabbe's part, but in this case the POV violation on the part of the tag-teamers on the other side of the dispute was so glaring that I simply refuse to apply the normal edit-warring rules in this case. That's not to mean that Altendekrabbe is encouraged to do this again – he needs to find ways of enlisting outside help against this kind of abuse earlier, before it comes to this amount of edit-warring. But the real warning goes to the editors on the other side: AnkhMopork, Estlandia, Frotz and the 69.* IP. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Seeing several experienced editors repeatedly revert-warring an edit back in that was so glaringly and obviously tendentious, and doing so blindly and without even trying to tweak the most obviously offensive parts of it, is an absolute disgrace. If I see inexcusable behaviour like this from you again, I will block for tendentious disruptive editing alone, no matter how many or how few reverts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Allow me to explain my side of the story. In 2008 I became involved in the row over pictures in the Muhammad article. I created the skeleton of the FAQ for that article to help cool down that mess. Since then I have been watching over that and several other Islam-related articles that I felt would be prone to vandalism or whitewashing. It's not unreasonable to assume that other editors did the same. Altetendekrabbe's accusation that I was stalking him is bogus. He appeared on the scene with contentious edits, refused to discuss them in any meaningful way, and refused to accept changes that he himself requested (ie, asking for citations, but refusing to accept any). Instead he resorted to personal attacks. He then spread his discord to other articles that I was already watching. When I saw that and called him out on his actions, he accused me of stalking. I have had no public or private contact with these other editors accused of tagteaming with me save for commentary on the various talk pages. This "tagteaming" is another result of Altetendekrabbe's belligerent behaviour. Several people, myself included, saw his edits as problematic and took action. Faced with this and unable to admit fault or wrong, Altetendekrabbe accused the most convenient editors of having some axe to grind against him. AnkhMorpork's report was not about Altetendekrabbe engaging in a 3RR violation, but instead that he was going back to the same kind of editwarring he engaged in when he was banned thrice before. Rather than accusing AnkhMopork, Estlandia, and me of malfeasance, please take a good hard look at how Altetendekrabbe has conducted himself. Those you accuse have always explained their actions, offered proof, and graciously accepted criticism. Altetendekrabbe has not, to date, behaved in any similar way on these Islam-related articles. There was no tag-teaming. There was no stalking. The disruptive edits were Altetendekrabbe's. -- Frotz(talk) 00:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a serious misjudgment on the part of Fut.Perf. who has bought into the conspiracy theory that all the users who have been reverting Altetendekrabbe, are tagteaming. This decision should be reviewed by another sysop. Basically, Fut. Perf. gives license for Altetendekrabbe to continue violating the 3RR, whilst all others who revert him become the real ones blocked for supposed tag-teaming. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 08:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's probably because you're being so blatant about the tag teaming.VolunteerMarek 11:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Robert32439 reported by User:Hello71 (Result: Semi)
Page: Brad Birkenfeld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robert32439 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A simple glance at the history of the page in question and User talk:Robert32439 is I think enough evidence to warrant this. In particular, see the following diffs:
- 02:14, 5 July 2012 (Undid revision 499640120 by 188.62.188.34 (talk) Undid sabotage by Swiss IP)
- 02:16, 5 July 2012 (Undid revision 499471578 by 188.62.188.34 (talk))
- 02:20, 5 July 2012 (Undid sabotage by Swiss IP)
- 11:11, 9 July 2012 (Added back POV check that was removed by Bbb23. The wholesale edits by Bbb23 are not neutral but contain a biased view and omissions of previously referenced material.)
- 12:24, 10 July 2012 (Reverting to version by LindseyW827 because of gross censorship and omissions by Bbb23)
- 11:38, 11 July 2012 (Reverting to version by LindseyW827 because of gross censorship and omissions by Bbb23) - not User:Robert32439, but likely his IP
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning by Nageh:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning by Bbb23:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I have not personally warned the user, but two users have in the past. This seems to be (have been) a longstanding NPOV and most likely even COI issue which has either sprung up again or merely been noticed recently. Hello71 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Upon slight further investigation (i.e. I actually checked the contribs this time), it would appear that Special:Contributions/Robert32439 is purely a WP:SPA dedicated to furthering UBS and related entities thereof. Hello71 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- See also WP:BLPN#Brad Birkenfeld. From what it says there, it appears that some experienced editors have been trying to clean up the article but that Robert32439 and some IPs have been undoing their work. Active reverting of a contentious BLP article by brand-new IP editors who'd don't use Talk suggests to me that semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yesterday, I opened up a SPI report here. At the time it was based on an IP immediately coming in after Robert to revert with exactly the same edit summary Robert used. This was the IP's only edit. The IP's edit was also after I advised Robert to stop warring and to discuss whatever his issues were. I also opened up a discussion on the Birkenfeld Talk page to provide a forum for Robert to do so. He did not - and has not - responded, either to the post on his Talk page or the post on the Birkenfeld Talk page. After those edits, more edits were made by User:Luca97, a brand new account (created on July 11) who made 3 edits to the article. The effect of these WP:SPA edits was to undo a major rewrite I did in response to the BLPN post by Drmies. Regardless of what happens here, I intend to restore the article back to before these edits (as no one has discussed the issues justifying the reversion to before my (and others') edits. I also intend to add Luca97 to the SPI report to see if there is a relationship between him and Robert (the IP was obvious, Luca not as much).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected. If Robert32439 continues to revert the article without using the talk page, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Darkness Shines reported by Magog the Ogre (talk) (Result: No violation)
Page: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 02:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- 1st revert: this revision (diff from previous, reversion of my edition).
- 2nd revert: this revision (diff from previous,).
- Diff of warning: N/A, Darkness Shines has stated he doesn't want me on his talk page.
Darkness Shines is on indefinite 1RR parole, a condition he agreed to when he was unblocked at one point. (Importantly, the community didn't bother to impose it again on him only because he had already agreed to this). While he claims this was a "personal attack", it was in fact an important part of the testimony I've given in front of ArbCom (the very case itself is about his troublesome mindset and editing tendencies, so to omit something because it is offensive defeats the whole purpose). —Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are no violation here except one by Magog of making a heinous personal attack. First diff is my adding an {{RPA}} template, this does not remove content and is not a revert. The second diff is the only revert. It is troubling indeed to see an admin edit war a personal attack back into a talk page. Calling an editor a bigot is not evidence, it is spiteful and low. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- The addition of the template removes the text from the page. This is in fact a removal of the WYSIWYG, which is a de facto revert. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, it hides the text only. it does not remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- To the reviewing admin: Darkness Shines has a habit of wikilawyering in such a way that it benefits him. This is par for the course. And giving him a "warning" this time is useless, because he's had dozens of them and always ignores them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- You'll also notice the one thing DS has not done is admit any wrongdoing; deferring a block is usually done because a user has admitted fault and states s/he will not do so again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why would I admit to wrongdoing when I have done no wrong? It is you who is trying to game my 1RR restriction here in violation of WP:NPA in a lame attempt to get me blocked. I had but one revert, that is not wikilawyering it is a fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- You'll also notice the one thing DS has not done is admit any wrongdoing; deferring a block is usually done because a user has admitted fault and states s/he will not do so again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- To the reviewing admin: Darkness Shines has a habit of wikilawyering in such a way that it benefits him. This is par for the course. And giving him a "warning" this time is useless, because he's had dozens of them and always ignores them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, it hides the text only. it does not remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- The personal attack has now been redacted by an arb clerk. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I believe that this report can be closed now, as the revert has been justified by an arb clerk. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 14:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- No violation Salvio 14:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Moviebob and User:212.69.46.83 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)
Page: A Scanner Darkly (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moviebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 212.69.46.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:A Scanner Darkly (film)#Plot length
Comments:
As soon as the IP address was given the uw-ewsoft warning, this SPA account begin conveniently editing in its stead both on the article and on the talk page; both IP and account have a singular focus on this article, making the same edits on the article. - SudoGhost 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I am reverting it to the superior version - sudoghost seems intent on vandalising the page by uploading inferior content. I'll stop reverting when he / she / it stops vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.46.83 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are going to have to review WP:NOTVAND, then. Regardless of whether you are right or not, you may not edit war. I concur with SudoGhost that the summary you inserted is overly excessive in length.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Even if my edits were "inferior" and not in line with WP:FILMPLOT, they still wouldn't be vandalism under Misplaced Pages's guidelines. The similar edit summaries from the IP and the named account further demonstrate that they are the same person. - SudoGhost 19:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:Blackshod (Result: )
Page: Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parachute_Regiment_(United_Kingdom)&diff=prev&oldid=502051059
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parachute_Regiment_(United_Kingdom)&diff=prev&oldid=502064218
- 3rd revert:
- 4th revert:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I only made 2 reverts. You also made 2 reverts. Why are you accusing me of breaching 3RR? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- 89...you have already had the difference between WP:3RR and WP:EW explained - you can be blocked for edit-warring after a single edit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page 'repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" (emphasis mine). If edit warring is repeated overriding, how can a single edit be edit warring? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Bradswanson2010, User:217.33.166.226, and User:81.105.0.14 reported by User:Theopolisme (Result: )
Page: The Zombie Diaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bradswanson2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
217.33.166.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.105.0.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: This is such a long (100s of reverts) and convoluted battle, but: this is right before the battle really heated up on World of the Dead, and this is before the most recent battles on The Zombie Diaries - however,
There are honestly so, so, so many - here are some:
- 00:32, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 498978178 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 23:21, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500700423 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 11:59, 7 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500789735 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")
- 17:31, 8 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501218083 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 15:07, 9 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501360637 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 12:04, 10 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501436181 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 18:26, 11 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501620001 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 02:45, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501773550 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 12:26, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501855798 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")
- 18:09, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501893975 by CallDisp (talk)")
- 20:52, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501929884 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 23:59, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
- 00:05, 13 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reception to misleading DVD cover */")
- 00:06, 13 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reception to misleading DVD cover */")
- 16:24, 13 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 502051882 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")
Some more:
- 00:32, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 498978148 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 23:21, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500700351 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 11:58, 7 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500789688 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")
- 17:30, 8 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501218063 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 15:05, 9 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501360611 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 12:04, 10 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501436103 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 18:26, 11 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501619942 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 02:45, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501773460 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 12:26, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501855737 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")
- 12:31, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "")
- 18:09, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501912052 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
- 20:40, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501929729 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , ,
Comments:
- User: CyberGhostface filed a report over at WP:DR, however users were unable to come to a consensus and just kept arguing. Theopolisme TALK 16:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- WP:DR recommends requesting page protection, especially in cases of multiple people edit-warring ... have you done that, and what was the response? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Doing..., thanks. Theopolisme TALK 21:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- WP:DR recommends requesting page protection, especially in cases of multiple people edit-warring ... have you done that, and what was the response? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Arzel reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: )
Page: Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- 1st revert: listed as "revert" - removes Boston Globe source, along with referenced text
- 2nd revert: removes Boston Globe source
- 3rd revert: removes Boston Globe source, Houston Chronicle source, Chicago Tribune source, inserts fact check source
- 4th revert: listed as revert, removes Boston Globe source, Houston Chronicle source, Chicago Tribune source, inserts fact check source.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , amongst others
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mitt_Romney#Separation_from_Bain_Capital
Comments:
Was there consensus on talk to add this bit sourced to the Boston Globe? If the source's relibaility was in question at the time Arzel reverted then Arzel had grounds under WP:BLPSOURCES. Note that the 3RR exemption for BLP would apply. – Lionel 01:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I removed only the sourcing, not the content. Some editors seem to think that WP is the proper place to include information to push a specific political point of view. I included a superceding source which presents the information in a neutral tone and post dates the previous sources. Arzel (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- (Speaking as an involved editor, not an admin) There was no assertion of a BLP exemption, and no grounds to assert it. This isn't a BLP issue, just a garden-variety content dispute in which one editor racked up 4 reverts in a couple of hours. Being convinced that your reliable sources are "better" than the other guys' reliable sources is not a 3RR exemption. MastCell 04:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious violation of 3RR over content and sourcing, not at all protected in reversions by BLP as this person is very WP:WELLKNOWN and the sourcing was appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BLP may be implicated, but only if the Boston Globe reference were obviously not a reliable source. I haven't checked, but I don't think it's obvious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Obvious violation of 3RR over content and sourcing, not at all protected in reversions by BLP as this person is very WP:WELLKNOWN and the sourcing was appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Arzel reported by User:MastCell (Result: )
Page: Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 10:34, 13 July 2012
- 1st revert: 15:42, 13 July 2012
- 2nd revert: 18:55, 13 July 2012 (removes source added in the preceding edit)
- 3rd revert: 19:54, 13 July 2012 (undoes preceding edit)
- 4th revert: 21:02, 13 July 2012
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Arzel is familiar with the 3RR rule and our policies on edit-warring. He has two previous blocks for edit-warring, and has been reported here recently ().
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See this thread from the current version of the talkpage
Comments:
Ooops... this is a duplicate with "Arzel reported by Hipocrite", immediately above. I believe both Hipocrite and I cited the same 4 reverts. MastCell 00:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Andreasegde reported by User:GabeMc (Result: )
Page: Paul McCartney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andreasegde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: diff 05:58 13 July 2012
- 2nd revert: diff 17:33 13 July 2012
- 3rd revert: diff 17:39 13 July 2012
- 4th revert: diff 17:44 13 July 2012
- This diff from 05:06 7 July 2012, shows User:Andreasegde "warning" me about an upcoming edit-war. ~ GabeMc 00:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:37 12 July 2012
Comments:
Alas - looks like two are tangoing there - and so the OP is not a whale of a lot more innocent than the person being reported. Collect (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
GabeMc is quite an edit warrior himself. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- The "evidence" that was supposed "warning" of an upcoming edit-war is also false. The BOTH of you should be ashamed of yourselves, especially with the crap on ANI. Grow the fuck up, or I will indeed block you both. At this point, I suggest a voluntary interaction ban. If either of you mentions the other, anywhere on this project, blocks will be-a-coming. If there is anything OTHER than proper discussion on articles, same thing. Voluntary WP:1RR across the project would be wise as well, before the community imposes these restrcitions on both of you. Capiche? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
User:PRProgRock reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result:Indef )
Page: Spy vs. Spy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PRProgRock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
- 1st revert:
- 2nd revert:
- 3rd revert:
- 4th revert:
- 5th revert:
- 6th revert:
- 7th revert:
- 8th revert:
- 9th revert:
- 10th revert:
- 11th revert: (editing from IP 24.237.107.43)
- 12th revert:
- 13th revert:
- 14th revert:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (from another editor): Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (from me):
Comments:
I've been watching this one for a while, and editor PRProgRock is out of control. This editor has been told by more than one editor that thy need to use valid references and that the editor's personal opinions are not good enough - and yet PRProgRock continues to ram his versions through, edit-warring on this articles, as well as Masala chai and Bone (comics). However, the greater issue is that this editor was (until recently) indefintely blocked for exactly the same actions, and only had his block lifted on June 3, provided that "any further trolling, vandalism or sockpuppetry would lead, without warning or discussion, to an immediate and permanent block from editing". His use of editing without logging in constitutes sock puppetry, in my opinion, in addition to the rampant edit-warring and his complete lack of an ability to collaborate with others. Please deal with him.
- Blocked – for a period of indefinitely (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)