Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 390: Line 390:
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
When I notified the IP of this report, they replied: "{{tq|Needs to be described as an "Editing by an idiot (Kate Wishing)" report.}}" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.28.73.170&diff=prev&oldid=692674329] [[User:KateWishing|KateWishing]] ([[User talk:KateWishing|talk]]) 13:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
When I notified the IP of this report, they replied: "{{tq|Needs to be described as an "Editing by an idiot (Kate Wishing)" report.}}" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.28.73.170&diff=prev&oldid=692674329] [[User:KateWishing|KateWishing]] ([[User talk:KateWishing|talk]]) 13:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User KateWishing has a large number of complaints on her Talk page about changing or re-writing perfectly acceptable articles, although in this case, the original article was not mine; I have simply added few references over the last year or the odd grammar tidy. She has further stated that she has medical training, presumably an expert, in this subject, but refuses to provide evidence of such, or links to publications/papers, so I smell yet another false Wiki-PhD claim brewing.
With that number of complaints from many users, across a number of subjects, it is clear where the common denominator is here. Looking at her edit-war history, of which she is a frequent keyboard-warrior, she has a clear modus operandi, in that she will edit without pre-talk or consultation with authors, and then enter into a 'battle' once she realizes that she has stepped too far, or unnecessarily removed perfectly valid links. She has annoyed a large number of people by reading their comments. In this case, she altered a great number of previously good reference links, that I was myself using for my own recovery from this illness, and steered the majority towards one source, which would imply a vested interest. Additionally, the original links to the two doctors credited with furthering the original research about RCVS, after whom the illness is sub-title named, were removed except one.
In all KateWishings continual aggravation to a number of users should be called into question, and her intransigence to accept refs from e.g. Oxford University Press and The Lancet, on medical matters, clearly shows a huge problem with an editor who is challenging accepted and respected reference sources.


== [[User:Squiggly666]] reported by [[User:Brustopher]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Squiggly666]] reported by [[User:Brustopher]] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 14:20, 27 November 2015

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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 {{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
    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.
    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 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.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Krzyhorse22 reported by User:Human10.0 (Result: Both warned)

    Page
    Stoning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Krzyhorse22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Filing user
    Human10.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Diffs of the user's edits
    1. [1] [No edit summary given, he basically removed the citation of a news article that stated tribal leaders had carried out stoning extrajudicially in Afghanistan]
    2. [2] [Again no edit summary given, he removed mention of the words "tribal practice"]
    3. [3] "That article is about stoning in Iran and Pakistan (not about Afghanistan), you're wording implies that tribal leaders are allowed to stone women in Afghanistan" [Note: the news article explicitly mentions stoning in Afghanistan]
    4. [4] "I've read all of it, that UK news article is about stoning in Iran and Pakistan. A mere mention of something in that report doesn't mean much, I deal with Afghanistan, which tribal leader is stoning women? What's his name? Which tribe he represents?" [He basically says the article's statements about stoning in Afghanistan don't "mean much" and implies that they shouldn't be added to the wiki article's section on Afghanistan]
    5. [5] "ONLY you are accusing Afghanistan's tribal leaders, which includes Hamid Karzai, of stoning people to death. Either stop reading this unsourced POV or provide sources. That UK news piece is focusing on legal stoning in Iran and Pakistan." [Note: no one accused Hamid Karzai of anything. He claims the news article is unsourced POV]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on Krzyhorse22's talk page
    1. [6]
    2. [7]
    3. [8]
    4. [9]
    5. [10]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]

    I have mentioned the instances of Krzyhorse22's edit warring on the stoning article and summarised my attempts at resolving the dispute here. Krzyhorse22 has been active on Wikipedia since the post on the article's talk page was made but has not engaged on said talk page.

    You're both revert warring. Seek dispute resolution. --slakr\ talk / 05:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. Krzyhorse22 kept deleting sourced text despite my repeated requests to solve the dispute first so I kept reverting him. If he deletes the sourced text again, I will not revert him but I will request a Third Opinion (3O). I hope that is okay. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As per my observation, these two users reporting each other on ANI, SPI and now here at Edit warring board. I think admin attention is needed regarding articles in which they are involved. Maybe one of them can be topic banned to resolve this. --Human3015TALK  21:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that I only reported Krzyhorse22 to this edit warring board, I did not report him on SPI or ANI. Saying "these two users reporting each other" implies I reported him on all those boards too, even though I did not. Krzyhorse22, on the other hand, did accuse me yesterday of being a sock here, on a page investigating whether he is using a sock (he has since heavily edited that page and also removed his accusation against me). I am not aware of anyone reporting me or him on ANI. —Human10.0 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI was this, indirectly related to you. Anyway, you both have to resolve your issues, continuous conflict with same editor makes editing unhappy. Maybe you both can ignore each other for some time. --Human3015TALK  22:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know about the ANI. I am still open to resolving the issue, I do not want any animosity between me and Krzyhorse22. I wish I could ignore him but that's very hard to do when he is accusing me of POV-pushing just for restoring sourced material he deleted without giving any reason.
    I also have a question: The result below says I can't make reverts on the stoning article. Does that mean I'm not allowed to make any reverts or am I just not allowed to revert the text that is disputed between me & Krzyhorse22? The thing is an IP has recently made a small edit where they messed up the grammar of a sentence on the stoning article. I would like to correct that.—Human10.0 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a crime or a violation of Wikipedia to report someone at SPI, everyone does it and so did I because I was 100% convinced socks were unnecessarily following me. However, I have not breached any Wikipedia policy so I see no justification for reporting me here. About the article Stoning, which is about punishment. Human10.0 believes tribal leaders in Afghanistan stone people to death as punishment. He cites Emma Batha who states, "In some countries, such as Mauritania and Qatar, stoning has never been used although it remains legal. However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially." [14] Emma Batha does not clarify if she's talking about tribal leaders in Iraq or Afghanistan. All the other sources say only Taliban soldiers do this but as a crime. I have not seen any report in which Afghan tribal leaders doing it or even being accused. Human10.0 is simply POV pushing in articles.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Krzyhorse22 please do not selectively quote the article. The relevant passage, as I pointed out on your talk page, is: "In some countries, such as Mauritania and Qatar, stoning has never been used although it remains legal. However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign."[15] I think it is clear now that the article was talking about Afghanistan. I would also like to point out that I wasn't the person who added the part about tribal leaders, that was someone else. When you deleted their contribution without justification, I merely re-added it because it was reliably sourced. There are many reports of Afghan tribal warlords/leaders carrying out stoning (in violation of current Afghan law), I guess I will have to add some of those reports to the wiki article to convince you that other sources also mention tribal leaders being involved in stoning incidents. One article also reports how local officials are known to blame Taliban insurgents for stonings to cover up for the actions of their tribal leaders. Please stop insulting me with accusations of POV-pushing, it is evident I am not doing that. Anyways, if you want to discuss this matter further, I would appreciate if you do so on the stoning article's talk page. We shouldn't clutter this board. —Human10.0 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Warlords are a class of criminals fighting against the government and people of Afghanistan, they are not tribal leaders. A tribal leader is someone who represents a tribe. The article stoning is not about the crime of stoning someone to death, it's the opposite of that. That article you posted is based on a theory. Only one woman says tribal leaders "could have" done it but the so many news reports say Taliban had issued the punishment.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reports blame stoning on both "tribal warlords" and "tribal leaders" which is why I used the phrasing "Afghan tribal warlords/leaders" above.
    • What you claim is not what the stoning article is about. It is simply about a form of capital punishment which may be legal or criminal, depending upon the jurisdiction. The 'Usage today' portion of the article has numerous examples of stoning being treated as a crime (when carried out to punish people extrajudicially) and also as a legal form of punishment, depending upon the country where it occurs.
    • You are misrepresenting the news article, downplaying what it says and conveniently not mentioning what the "one woman" (i.e. Wazhma Frogh, an Afghan women's rights activist and co-founder of Research Institute for Women, Peace and Security) went on to say; please see the stoning article's talk page where I talk about the article. The reason I linked to that article wasn't to claim that 'tribal leaders stoned the woman in the video' (I did not even imply that), it was to show you that some stonings are carried out by tribal leaders but are blamed on the Taliban (who also have a reputation for stoning), a fact acknowledged even by Afghans (like Wazhma Frogh). As you are an Afghan, I can see how you would not want unpleasant facts about your homeland to be published but your objections to sources that mention those unpleasant facts are getting out of hand ( "based on a theory", really?). Anyways, there's no use in further arguing on this page; the editors here aren't going to listen to our arguments and resolve this issue for us. If you want to talk to/argue with me regarding the stoning article, go to the stoning article talk page (also on that talk page, I would like you to produce just one report that says "only Taliban soldiers do [stoning]" as you claimed above that: "All the other sources say only Taliban soldiers do [stoning]"). I am removing this page from my watchlist now. —Human10.0 (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.104.189.139 reported by User:206.45.83.147 (Result: Semi)

    Page: Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 76.104.189.139 (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:

    1. 692378508
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:

    User:206.45.83.147 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: 31h)

    Page
    Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    206.45.83.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "What he did was the technological ability equivalent of peeling a banana and putting it in yogurt. That line needed to be fixed"
    2. 07:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692376305 by VQuakr (talk) If you think technological ability and the ability to repackage electronic components is the same thing then you are just as clueless."
    3. 07:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 07:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692377899 by 76.104.189.139 (talk)"
    5. 07:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692378088 by 76.104.189.139 (talk) 1 More Revert and you're going to be reported for violating WP:EW 3RR"
    6. 07:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692378508 by 76.104.189.139 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. (TW)"
    Comments:

    Removed the 3RR notification from their talk, but obviously read it per this edit summary. VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kurzon reported by User:151.20.120.221 (Result: Blocked)

    I'm reporting User:Kurzon's edit war in Mafia article. After being blocked 4 times for non-stop edit warring (twice for edit wars in Mafia) and warned here (You are continuing to edit war over that pointless IPA thing. I can't imagine why you would let something like that bother you so much. But you should know that if the escalating blocks have still not had the desired effect, the only logical next step will be an indefinite block. The other side will also be dealt with appropriately. — Martin) and here (As far as I'm concerned you're both at fault. I have nothing to add to the warning above. It's your choice whether to heed or not. Regards — Martin), he just kept on with the edit war, again, again and again, choosing not to heed. Please take appropriate measures. 151.20.120.221 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See previous reports about the same editor at this 3RR search. The IP wants to add '([ˈmaːfja])' following the word 'mafia', but Kurzon doesn't like it. Regrettably, all attempts at persuasion have failed. The next step is probably an indef for Kurzon (until he will promise to desist) and long term semiprotection for the article. I'll ask User:Kurzon to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emlodik reported by User:7&6=thirteen (Result: blocked)

    Page: Titanic (1943 film)
    User being reported: Emlodik

    Prior version

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692437768

    Linked Edits and request to take it to talk page:

    • November 2015‎ Emlodik‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692420477 by MarnetteD (talk) Badly written, repeated info addressed elsewhere in the article.) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
      • {cur | prev) 15:41, 25 November 2015‎ MarnetteD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (restore info rmvd w/o explanation - other than PAs that is) (undo | thank)
    • 15:21, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692418342 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (undo | thank)
    • (cur | prev) 15:21, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692418342 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
      • (cur | prev) 15:20, 25 November 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎top) (undo | thank)
      • (cur | prev) 15:20, 25 November 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,512 bytes) (+601)‎ . . (Undid revision 692418004 by Emlodik (talk)If you have objections, bring them to the talk page, and do not edit war\) (undo | thank)
    • 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692417457 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (undo | thank)
    • 14:54, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Fixed grammar) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
      • 14:52, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692414959 by Emlodik (talk) Take it to talk page. You are the WP:Vandal) (undo)
    • 14:49, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Repeated vandalism with pointless, badly written redundant info.) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
      • (cur | prev) 09:27, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+471)‎ . . (Undid revision 692372904 by 2601:280:C500:B700:2417:B34:4550:209A (talk) Better this way. Please take it to the talk page.) (undo)
    • 01:09, 24 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-250)‎ . . (→‎Themes and propaganda context) (undo | thank)
    • (cur | prev) 01:08, 24 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | c
    • (cur | prev) 15:17, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692417457 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (undo | thank)
      • (cur | prev) 14:52, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692414959 by Emlodik (talk) Take it to talk page. You are the WP:Vandal) (undo)
    • (cur | prev) 14:49, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Repeated vandalism with pointless, badly written redundant info.) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
      • (cur | prev) 09:27, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+471)‎ . . (Undid revision 692372904 by 2601:280:C500:B700:2417:B34:4550:209A (talk) Better this way. Please take it to the talk page.) (undo)
      • (cur | prev) 01:10, 24 November 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (rem POV edits) (undo | thank)
    • (cur | prev) 01:09, 24 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-250)‎ . . (→‎Themes and propaganda context) (undo | thank)
    • November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | c

    Warnings

    Blatant violation of WP:3RR. Refuses to go to talk page. Posted insulting statements on User: Beyond My Ken's talk page. Won't discuss. Just keeps reverting in tamdem with two IPs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a 'moving target' as he continues to edit war even after being given notice of this discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And here 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And here. Res ipsa loquitur. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 reported by User:Dat GuyWiki

    Page: User Talk:2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63
    User being reported: User:2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63

    1. 10:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692529755 by Dat GuyWiki (talk) another one and I'll request assistance from admins"
    2. 10:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692529410 by Dat GuyWiki (talk) speaking of harassment, please don't leave any more messages here"
    3. 10:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "/* November 2015 */ remove as well meaning but misinformed"|warnings=# 09:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on User talk:Heatwizpromo. (TW)"
    4. 10:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Notice: "Biting" newcomers. (TW)" 10:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    5. 10:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)" 10:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "*You've made at least four errors in perhaps ten minutes: Misconstrued a spammer's purpose for editing; persistently harassed me at my talk page after I made it plain you weren't welcome here; referred to my removal of your inappropriate warnings as edit warring, when any unblocked account is welcome to remove such; and opened a report for edit warring. I suggest you walk back the report, rather than continue down this road. And as previously requested, do not post here again. "[reply]
    6. 9:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Heatwizpromo (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) "Violation of the username policy as a promotional username that implies shared use." He's reported this account as "promotional username." I've told him on his talk page 10:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC) that it is biting a newcomer, however he reverted it.[reply]
    7. 9:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Spam account." The account has only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dat GuyWiki (talk • contribs)

    Comments:
    Is deleting my warnings. I kind of sadly got dragged into it a bit, but am trying to be as professional as possible.

    • WP:BOOMERANG; nobody dragged the user into filing this misguided report. I've reported a spam account, Heatwizpromo (talk · contribs), and as a result received a series of inappropriate warnings, which I've removed. User didn't like this, and has opened a thread here. My suggestion is that the user be mentored re: Wikipedia interactions, prior to misusing warning templates and wasting other editors' time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined Dat GuyWiki, the IP is correct in everything they say. Please get more experience and read WP:EW in its entirety before filing reports in the future. NeilN talk to me 10:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • NeilNThe 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period
    • NeilN Also, A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

    User:GUtt01 reported by User:Crookesmoor (Result: )

    Page: The Apprentice (UK series eleven)#Week 6: Handy Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GUtt01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Apprentice_(UK_series_eleven)&oldid=692490249

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Apprentice_(UK_series_eleven)&oldid=692525665
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

    User repeatedly removes useful content re Dulwich Hamlet FC. Crookesmoor (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    User:Unbuttered Parsnip reported by User:Mateothehistorian (Result: )


    I'm reporting User:Unbuttered Parsnip's edit war in Lazaro Mangubat Article for non stop edit warring and ignoring my attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page (here) Dont make any changes or jump into any statement as not true without showing any basis. I was in Lawis for a visit the structure in front of it was a memorial with its inscription that the Kota was built in year 1790. Basing from this then your 1830 edit will be untrue. on the upper hand I read book written during spanish time I found out that the structure was built in 1630 and not in 1790.... So I didn't follow the year 1790 as the founding date of the Kota which was posted by the municipality of Madridejos but the year 1630 as the founding date as narrated by fray Medina he just kept on with the edit war, again,again, and again, choosing not to heed. Please take appropriate measures.


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:


    • Comment: I see no 3RR violation on the accused editor's part (are you aware that the reverts must be within 24h, not during the span of several days?); on the other hand, I see a very incomplete edit warring report. I also don't see a notification of this report on the editor's talk page, so I've taken the liberty of sending one myself. LjL (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made 3RR a few days ago. That editor kept complete WP:CB, kept adding parts of text which were nonsense - such as that subject built a church in 1630 and also that he made at 1870 at the age of 50. I made several additional to the article, by WP:V and WP:RS which he ignored and reverted. I was going to move to WP:DE yesterday but I thought he'd gone away. Note that his editing for the last nearly three years have been about 60 edits of Lazaro Mangubat and half a dozen of Madridejos, Cebu. That's about it, nothing else. About the same number of edits as I made the last 2 days. Maybe I shall take him to WP:ANI – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 08:51, wikitime= 00:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cwobeel reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: Declined Withdrawn)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [16] (new info removed together with existing info)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:21, 26 November 2015
    2. 16:05, 26 November 2015

    Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [17]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

    Comments:

    Cwobeel constantly tries to reduce the page and its content, though at some point agreed to add information which directly relates to "Arab Winter". He got a formal SCW&ISIL warning earlier this year. Today, my new additions with sources specifically referring to Arab Winter were reverted by him twice. Cwobeel refused to self-revert his second edit, claiming that i also violated 1RR (though i reverted only once, with my first edit being addition of new info).GreyShark (dibra) 16:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Negeryi reported by User:Godsy and User:LjL (merged) (Result: )

    Page
    2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Negeryi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to

    not provided because there are several reverts to several different versions; user is severely disruptive by reverting just about anything, but not in one specific content dispute

    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by LjL (talk) to last revision by Negeryi. (TW)"
    2. 18:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692576345 by Godsy (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal"
    3. 18:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Godsy (talk): Rev. (TW)"
    4. 10:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692532797 by Katangais (talk)"

    (the above are reverts of the same content, while the ones below are unwarranted reverts of different content; please note that the edit summaries are misleading, possible copied from other people's)

    1. 18:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 692573089 by John (talk): No notability whatsoever . (TW)"
    2. 17:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692572136 by Patar knight (talk) Removing linkspam per WP:EL"
    3. 11:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692534123 by Katangais (talk)"
    4. 11:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692533635 by Nick-D (talk) it means the air arm"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. [19]
    2. [20]
    3. [21]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    [22]

    Comments:

    User:Trinacrialucente reported by User:When Other Legends Are Forgotten (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [23]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [24] 02:15, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692621192 by LjL "
    2. [25] 02:09, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692620407 by When Other Legends Are Forgotten"
    3. [26] 01:58, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692618406 by When Other Legends Are Forgotten "
    4. [27] 05:55, 26 November 2015 "

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29], [30], [31]

    Comments:
    See also this WP:ANI report, with additional problematic behavior, like personal attacks: [32]

    User:Firebrace reported by User:RGloucester (Result: )

    Page
    November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Firebrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Identification */ Reverted unhelpful changes."
    2. 22:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Identification */ Reverted vandalism."
    3. 11:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692536107 by Jd52102 (talk) Find a source and try again."
    1RR/DS notification
    Comments:

    Despite having been made aware of the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL 1RR that affects this article, this editor has continued to revert changes with misleading edit summaries, and has little presence on the talk page. 1RR has clearly been broken. RGloucester — ☎ 06:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:RV#Exceptions: "Edits that do not contribute to edit warring are generally considered to be exceptions to the three-revert rule." I assume this also applies to the one-revert rule. Can you explain why the edit summaries are misleading? Firebrace (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.28.73.170 reported by User:KateWishing (Result: )

    Page: Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 86.28.73.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [33] and [34]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [35]
    2. [36]
    3. [37]
    4. [38]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I didn't bother templating them because they already warned me about violating 3RR. ("I wouldn't be surprised to see the three reverts rule kicking in very soon") Note that two other users have also reverted them.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39][40]

    Comments:

    When I notified the IP of this report, they replied: "Needs to be described as an "Editing by an idiot (Kate Wishing)" report." [41] KateWishing (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User KateWishing has a large number of complaints on her Talk page about changing or re-writing perfectly acceptable articles, although in this case, the original article was not mine; I have simply added few references over the last year or the odd grammar tidy. She has further stated that she has medical training, presumably an expert, in this subject, but refuses to provide evidence of such, or links to publications/papers, so I smell yet another false Wiki-PhD claim brewing. With that number of complaints from many users, across a number of subjects, it is clear where the common denominator is here. Looking at her edit-war history, of which she is a frequent keyboard-warrior, she has a clear modus operandi, in that she will edit without pre-talk or consultation with authors, and then enter into a 'battle' once she realizes that she has stepped too far, or unnecessarily removed perfectly valid links. She has annoyed a large number of people by reading their comments. In this case, she altered a great number of previously good reference links, that I was myself using for my own recovery from this illness, and steered the majority towards one source, which would imply a vested interest. Additionally, the original links to the two doctors credited with furthering the original research about RCVS, after whom the illness is sub-title named, were removed except one. In all KateWishings continual aggravation to a number of users should be called into question, and her intransigence to accept refs from e.g. Oxford University Press and The Lancet, on medical matters, clearly shows a huge problem with an editor who is challenging accepted and respected reference sources.

    User:Squiggly666 reported by User:Brustopher (Result: )

    Page
    White Ribbon Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Squiggly666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 11:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "clarification"
    2. 11:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism"
    3. 19:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism"
    4. 20:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism"
    5. 10:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692592913 by Fyddlestix (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Pls block Brustopher (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=692677034"