Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

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.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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鈥攚hether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time鈥攃ounts 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:AChildOfTwoCultures reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Missing white woman syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AChildOfTwoCultures (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [4]
  2. [5]

Previous version reverted to:

  1. [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [7]
  2. [8]
  3. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

An SPA has repeatedly added content that violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, and has repeatedly failed to address the extensive concerns laid out on the talk page. The edits have so far been reverted by three other editors, either in part or in full by myself ([12], [13], [14]), by Bali88 ([15], [16], [17]) and Dodger67 ([18]). Bali88 has requested further input at WP:DISCRIMINATION, but the SPA continues to edit-war and act aggressively against all those who oppose them i.e. they keep posting passive aggressive comments at my talk page ([19], [20]) and implied Bali88 is a neo-Nazi ([21]). Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 48 hours for long-term warring. The user has made seven reverts of similar material in the last five days. The account was created on 12 September and it is logical to assume it was created just to engage in this particular edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Fiva16 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Referred to WP:SPI)[edit]

Page
Ioannis Kapodistrias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Fiva16 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "(Kapodistria was 100 %Greek. He had some Italian, and Albanian origin. He was mostly of Greek origin.)"
  2. 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625669194 by Alexikoua (talk). You can't use a blocked user as an explanation for your doings."
  3. 11:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625620246 by Dr.K. (talk). According to sources."
  4. 05:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625584661 by Dr.K. (talk)"
  5. 21:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "It is proven theory."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ioannis Kapodistrias. (TWTW)"
  2. 05:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Dr.K.. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Probable sock of Biar122 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  nuke contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log). Edit-warring adding fringe information to the article. Warned about discretionary sanctions on Balkans by EdJohnston. 螖蟻.螝. 位蠈纬慰蟼蟺蟻维尉喂蟼 15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If we don't get an appropriate response a block for WP:NOTHERE might be considered. But Dr. K., in the meantime why don't you reopen the SPI for Biar122. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. I agree. About the SPI, I was thinking of exactly the same thing. But I need some time to gather the evidence. I will file it later today if Alexikoua doesn't beat me to it. 螖蟻.螝. 位蠈纬慰蟼蟺蟻维尉喂蟼 15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
An spi has been filled here.Alexikoua (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Alexi. I'll come around. 螖蟻.螝. 位蠈纬慰蟼蟺蟻维尉喂蟼 19:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Being handled at WP:SPI. If they come back with no conclusion that Fiva16 is a sock, then a decision should be made whether a WP:NOTHERE block is justified based on the partisan content of the edits and the lack of response to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Ed, would it be possible to temporarily block the sock given the amount of edit-warring disruption they are causing? Why wait for the two extremes, SPI and NOTHERE if temporary blocks can mitigate this problem somehow? SPI is also backlogged with a record 81 open cases. Also, technically speaking, an open SPI seems to make a sock 3RR-immune. This is not part of the 3RR policy, as far as I can tell. Thank you. 螖蟻.螝. 位蠈纬慰蟼蟺蟻维尉喂蟼 17:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Their further edits will make it easier for us to decide what to do. At present it seems they are digging the hole deeper. Any admin who is less patient may go ahead with whatever they think is correct. A block here could make it less likely that SPI will take decisive action (they may consider it moot). EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think a temporary block, say 24 hours, will not render moot the SPI block which is expected to be indefinite. I also think the hole doesn't have to get any deeper. There is already a lot of evidence about the socking characteristics. The SPI may take days to be administrated. In all that time the sock has essentially a free hand. 螖蟻.螝. 位蠈纬慰蟼蟺蟻维尉喂蟼 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
First, I use sources for my edits. I am not sockpuppeting. Maybe, I am a little too patriot but compared to Dr.K I'm nothing. You used a blocked user as an explanation for your doings. I had reliable sources for Kapodistrias. If i am disturbing wikipedia without noticeing it, I'm sorry and I won't do it again.User:Fiva16User talk:Fiva16 20:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹鈹 Fiva16 is a  Confirmed sock and has been noted as such at the relevant SPI. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thank you very much Ponyo for your fast action, despite the heavy workload at SPI. I also wish to thank EdJohnston for his advice and professional action throughout this case. All the best to you two. 螖蟻.螝. 位蠈纬慰蟼蟺蟻维尉喂蟼 21:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ reported by User:Augurar (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JHunterJ (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [22]


(This has been a back-and-forth dispute, so I have included all related diffs, including my own.) Diffs of relevant reverts:

  1. [23] (JHunterJ) "Synonyms: clarify, after misunderstanding at Talk:Dick"
  2. [24] (Augurar) "Undid revision 606904625 by JHunterJ (talk) Reverting attempt to unilaterally set Wikipedia policy"
  3. [25] (Bkonrad) "Undid revision 625450140 by Augurar (talk) this was not unilateral"
  4. [26] (Augurar) "Undid revision 625454562 by Bkonrad (talk) Reverted until consensus can be established (see talk page)"
  5. [27] (JHunterJ) "Reverted edits by Augurar (talk) to last version by Bkonrad"
  6. [28] (Augurar) "Undid revision 625544556 by JHunterJ (talk) Reverted disruptive edit (see previous)"
  7. [29] (JHunterJ) "Undid revision 625618339 by Augurar (talk) Augurar's interpretation is not the consensus; work with other editors, please"
  8. [30] (Augurar) "Undid revision 625641866 by JHunterJ (talk) Reverted to original version once again pending outcome of RfC"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been repeatedly attempting to edit the MoS guideline without establishing consensus first. I have created a RfC on his or her behalf (see above); however, this editor appears unwilling to engage in discussion, and instead is repeatedly reinstating his edit to the policy.

I would be willing to accept a block as well, but I strongly recommend that the page be restored to its original state until this dispute can be resolved. This will require another editor to once again revert JHunterJ until the proposed change is discussed and consensus is reached. Augurar (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Further history. This dispute originally arose from a discussion on Talk:Dick regarding the linking of slang synonyms. After a compromise was reached on that page, JHunterJ modified the MoS page according to his interpretation of the guideline. When I noticed this, I reverted his change and attempted to initiate discussion on the talk page, but to no avail. I have repeatedly attempted to involve the larger Wikipedia community in this dispute, but have thus far been unsuccessful. Augurar (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @JHunterJ: hasn't violated 3RR. Users have to exceed 3 reverts for that block to happen. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I am reporting this editor for edit warring behavior, not for specifically violating the 3RR. Despite my numerous efforts to engage in discussion and consensus-building, this editor has refused to seek consensus and instead repeatedly adds his proposed changes to the guideline. In my opinion, this constitutes tendentious editing and merits disciplinary action. Augurar (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be somewhat of an issue. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. An admin isn't going to come along and punish JHunterJ. If his edits are harmful to the project or are disruptive he may be blocked to protect the project, but I think you have the wrong interpretation of what a block is and what it's meant to do. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I think a block may be justified, in that this editor's disruptive behavior is ongoing and shows no sign of stopping as far as I know. (For that matter, JHunterJ might consider my editing disruptive. His position seems to be that he was "clarifying" an existing policy, and I am interfering with this by attempting to discuss the changes.) Should I just keep reverting until the 3RR is breached? That doesn't seem efficient. Augurar (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
And that post there is the most indicative of where a block may be justified. You appear to be intent on gaming the system to make sure you get your way. You are the single editor warring against at least two others. Your edit history starts back in May (and this MoS is hardly inactive; the project members saw it and understood), then jumps to your unilateral revert. Bkonrad explained that my edit was not unilateral, but that doesn't fit with your desired outcome, so is ignored (just like the explanation on the Talk page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Yakupyilmaz reported by User:Dusti (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Authoritarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Yakupyilmaz (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Removed Turkey from the list. Because all the references given about Turkey and its President are biased Abbatai (talk)"
  2. 19:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Bu ba艧l谋k alt谋na o zaman bizim liderlermizden 枚nce girmesi gereken bat谋 liderleri onlar谋 koymay谋 deneseniz ;) KazekageTR (talk)"
  3. 19:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Hakl谋s谋n i艧lerini yaps谋nlar bencede bende senin kadar ele艧tirel bir insan谋m ama bu kadar ac谋mas谋z olma Elmasmelih (talk)"
  4. 19:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Kime neye g枚re arkada艧谋m b枚yle bo艧 i艧lerle u臒ra艧may谋n memlekete yararl谋 i艧ler yap谋n Elmasmelih (talk)"
  5. 19:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Yalan Yanl谋艧 艧eyleri niye yaz谋yorsunuz Elmasmelih (talk)"
  6. 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625702585 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
  7. 18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625700136 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
  8. 18:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625699195 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
  9. Consecutive edits made from 18:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC) to 18:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    1. 18:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625693231 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
    2. 18:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Examples of authoritarian states */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Authoritarianism. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User also reported in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. kazekagetr 21:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Ronhjones as a vandalism-only account. Stickee (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dvannamers reported by User:Boorsours (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Kevin Mitnick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dvannamers (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Mitnick&oldid=625128228

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Mitnick&diff=625831812&oldid=625831480

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
  4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:
User has also been reported for suspected WP:COI

Boorsours (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Boorsours

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Pictogram voting keep.svg Both editors blocked 鈥 for a period of 24 hours I ran into this while patrolling recent changes. I don't mean to be harsh, but I had every reason to believe both users were not going to stop. This war was going at a very high edit-rate, with only two parties involved I opted for blocks rather than page protection. 鈥 MusikAnimal talk 16:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof et al. reported by User:MicBenSte (Result: No violation)[edit]

Article: GamerGate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GamerGate&diff=625832214&oldid=625817543

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GamerGate&diff=625832214&oldid=625832137 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GamerGate&diff=625832036&oldid=625831941 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GamerGate&diff=625831669&oldid=625831477 (And a lot more - will compile the full list later - and sadly there are more with enough hour passing by)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (will get back at this later, it's a mess and I need to cool down atm)

Comments:
I admit, I reverted myself things a few times without talk page - but a lot of editing has been going on where the 'misogynism' and 'harassment'-angle is being pushed by User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:TaraInDC, User:Tarc and User:TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom with and without talking about it (and if talking about it, without consensus and a lot of times even just flaming/insulting others) while people have tried to represent both POVs in the article, corresponding to newer, other RSes - yet it's still being pushed for one POV. Considering I received ZERO feedback/comments on the Admin/Dispute pages and a few of them are even already archived due to the time period, I'm playing it this way.

MicBenSte (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof is clearly edit warring, this is an ongoing problem-he was reported for this before, including violations of 3RR. Last time he avoided any reaction because the article was locked.If you look at the article's editing history, he clearly attempts to revert any edit not in line with his POV.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit of a shotgun approach to the situation. "MicBenSte" and "MyMoloboaccount" are just two is just a single-purpose account among a throng that has recently arrived on-Wikipedia to do battle against the so-called "social justice warriors" over topics relating to sexism in the video game industry. Zoe Quinn, Anna Sarkeesian, and GamerGate have all seen numerous attacks over the last few weeks, attempt to insert blatant WP:BLP violations, the more egregious of which have hat to be oversighted. That so many experienced Wikipedians, most of whom have little to no prior involvement in video game articles, have rejected their edits should be a clear indication of where consensus lies on the matter, and how these SPAs are on the wrong side of it. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
My bad; "MyMoloboaccount" has been around for awhile, and is simply echoing the SPA throng. So, "disruptive POV-pusher violating WP:BLP policy" is the appropriate descriptor. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry mister, but calling me an 'Single-purpose account'? *Sigh* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MicBenSte&offset=&limit=500&target=MicBenSte
That's an gross attack on me. IF you really need to accuse me of being an SPA, do your research.
Same holds true for MyLoboAccount btw, just check their Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MyMoloboaccount MicBenSte (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The majority of NBSB's reverts have been to remove poorly sourced defamatory content on a BLP subject: those reverts are absolutely exempt from the 3 revert rule. I think it's amusing that I've been reported for edit warring on an article that I have edited (edited, not reverted) three times total.
And MicBenSte, an "SPA" is one that has made few if any edits outside a single article or topic. It's often a sign that they're more interested in making Wikipedia reflect their POV than in improving the project. There have been offsite calls for pro-GamerGate people to come help 'improve' Wikipedia's coverage of the topic, so it's not surprising that there are SPAs gathering. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Since October 2009 I have made over 7,642 edits, out of which 4,286 where in article space,99% of which were outside Gamergate article. Now, are your going to remove this gross violation of civility against me, or continue to shift attention from the real issue here?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You're not an SPA (and I never said you were); MicBenSte certainly is, though. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been editing Wikipedia as MyMoloboaccount since October 2009, mostly on articles dealing with history and Second World War. I suggest you remove that baseless personal attack.The rest of your statement follows the same baseless claims.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
My apologizes; since you sounded so much like one of the SPAs it was natural to assume. I have adjusted my verbiage accordingly. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: No violation. You have not shown anyone breaking 3RR. If this is a non-3RR edit warring complaint, it is not persuasive. Don't expect admins to make the case for you; express yourself clearly. Regarding "will compile the full list later" -- wait till you have gathered your evidence and *then* submit. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:UxUmbrella reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Umbrella (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
UxUmbrella (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Stop undoing!"
  2. 08:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Music video: add Nabil Mechi and CromA interviews, add Synopsis and Awards


Comments:

User has been warned against edit warring several times in the last few days by Aspects, 331dot, and Binksternet, including for edits conducted by at least two IP addresses - 31.15.48.10 and 95.73.223.209 - that presumably belong to him or her. A discussion is going on regarding his/her reverts on the talk page, and the user has been notified of such via talk page comments/edit summaries, but s/he does not seem interested in participating.

There only appear to be two reverts within the last 24 hours, but the page history shows clear edit warring over the last few days. 鈥Chase (talk / contribs) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I just made another reversion. UxUmbrella has posted to the talk page discussion, but doesn't seem to really acknowledge the other comments. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 60 hours. This has been going on for several days and there was a previous block on 2 September. It's reasonable to assume that UxUmbrella is the operator of the two IPs that are making the same revert. UxUmbrella is commenting on talk but seems oblivious to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:209.6.53.174 reported by User:WhereAmI (Result: )[edit]

Page
List of PlayStation 4 games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
209.6.53.174 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625756462 by WhereAmI (talk) The game qualifies as "Sony," and "Console," while "No" is actually the most accurate given the overlap between poorly defined categories."
  2. 01:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625680901 by WhereAmI (talk) if that were the case, there would be no reason for the "Sony" designation, which covers PS3 and Vita."
  3. 04:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "/* PS4 games */ Changed MotoGP 14 to "No" - it's available on Sony platforms, XBox 360, and PC"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  2. 02:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of PlayStation 4 games. (TW)"
  3. 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ Not following our guidelines"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user is not following the community established guidelines at the top of the page as I discussed in the edit 625860568 where I listed them out. They also have not discussed on their talk page and kept it to edit descriptions. WhereAmI (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Nina Companeez reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: )[edit]

Page: Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nina Companeez (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [38]

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: There is still a discussion going on the talk page of the article Iraq War. The discussion is not even over yet, but the editor Nina Companeez continues to revert. The user was already reverted by another user besides me, but he/she doesn't care and continued with the WP:EW. Coltsfan (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what's going on here but the diffs do not add up Coltsfan has reverted as much as i have. (see history) and i do not clearly understand what the rules are for that. Coltsfan could not refute my new argument and source in any way. And there is a 2:1 consensus against him on the talk page. I think i could reasonably assume there was a consenus to change based on the given discussion. So i edited the article in good faith. Nina Companeez (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus. The discussion was still going on! The WP:Status quo of the page must be maintained until the discussion is over. Coltsfan (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You did not address the argument that i gave you even i ask you so many times. Someone could reasonably assume that the discussion was over. There was also a majority of editors for the change. I edited in good faith.
As i feel attacked by Coltsfan and this has caused me emotional stress i would like to mention that he has been blocked for edit warring before [39] i just noticed that. Nina Companeez (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I did refute your argument. And it's difficult to argue that you are in good faith when you delete warnings posted in your talk page. Coltsfan (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Coltsfan, the warning template was posted by you and editor involved in the conflict and reverting. I am free to remove this from my talk page as the template did not suggest to me that you want to talk to me. Nina Companeez (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Nina Companeez: I've restored the warning. Further, if you remove it, it does not mean that you will avoid a block. Removing a warning from your talk page is a sign of acknowledgement and you may still be blocked. Govern yourself accordingly. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
"I've restored the warning."? Coltsfan posted a "notification template" of this discussion [40]. There has never been a warning template. Dusti, to post a warning template now after this discussion here has already been started and i did not edited the Iraq article since the notification from Coltsfan is a bit odd. I suggest you remove it from my talk page. Regards. Nina Companeez (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be an error on my part - I had only assumed you were previously warned and that was the "warning template" you were speaking of above. And no, I will not remove the warning from your talk page as it is a valid warning, hence the reason that you are here. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
How can it be a valid waring when it comes after this discussion here has already started and i did not edit the article in any way? There was no need for you to post an unnecessary inflammatory warning. Nina Companeez (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Notice the section above ^ that requests a diff for the 3RR warning? It wasn't given, so I've now given it. You're welcome to remove the warning from your talk page - just heed the advice that it gives and note the information that I gave you above. You're still subject to being blocked - that's entirely out of my hands. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess that diff is meant to be given before someone starts a discusses here or someone shows continues disruptive behavior. I have not shown any behavior after i learned of "Edit warring" through this discussion. I will now remove the unnecessary warning from my talk page. Nina Companeez (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


User:173.65.21.238 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )[edit]

Page: Haven (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.65.21.238 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [42]
  2. [43]
  3. [44]
  4. [45]
  5. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
The user in question has removed the request for ceasing the edit warring, and the notification of this report. I've undone this removal, but it may happen again. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexTheWhovian (talkcontribs) 04:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: In general, users can remove comments from their own talk page. It indicates that they've read and acknowledged the notice. See WP:REMOVED for more details. Stickee (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I was not aware of this. Thanks for the notification. In this case, the user has acknowledged the notice, and refuses to comply, due to them reverting the same edit done by other users after the notice. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:HyperspaceCloud reported by User:VideoGameHistorian (Result: )[edit]

Page: Elite (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HyperspaceCloud (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]
  5. [54]
  6. [55]


User has been warned about disruptive editing and reverting several changes at once while making incomplete and incorrect edit comments [56]

No response by the actual reported user, but his co-editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elite_%28video_game%29}


Comments:


The word "seminal" has been moved to precisely the place where it is appropriate, as adjective for the used technology, not for the product as a whole which is violating Rule 2 neutrality standpoint. Involved users opinion is non-neutral, biased, non cooperative. Continually reverting resulted in the destruction of several other additions. Additionally the involved users are keen on deleting the intellectual property the product is derived of, giving the product excessive amount of praise which is not neutral nor is it deserved, as the product is a derivative of three other earlier products, therefore not "seminal" as a whole. Reverts are obviously an act of vandalism and historical revision and have not been sufficiently justified on the talk page. I leave the decision whether these edits and fell swoop reverts have been made in "good faith" up to the noticeboard.

Also informed HyperspaceCloud and Chaheel Riens of discussion.

VideoGameHistorian (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think my comments can be initially restrained to pointing to this link here where VGH was reported (by yours truly) for exactly the above. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Additional - despite the claim above, VGH has not informed Hyperspace of this issue, so I've done it for him. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA reported by User:Shocate (Result: )[edit]

Page: 2014鈥15 Liga I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [57] (14:00, 16 September 2014鈥)
  2. [58] (14:04, 16 September 2014)
  3. [59] (14:09, 16 September 2014鈥 )
  4. [60] (18:58, 16 September 2014鈥)
  • The official name o CSMS Iasi is "CS Municipal Studentesc Ia艧i (IS)", read this on the FRF (the governing body of football in Romania) official web site here, on this page abbreviations are not a allowed, if you want to add please add to all Liga I football teams, not only this team. You don't understand that is same thing with another football team FC Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti. The name of this team was FCSS Bucuresti or Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti??? Team name on the official website is C.S. Municipal Studentesc Iasi- click here can see on top page the banner. 08:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC) User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA


Also here:

Page: Template:Fb team CSMS Ia葯i
User being reported: FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [61] (13:53, 15 September 2014鈥)
  2. [62] (14:23, 15 September 2014鈥)
  3. [63] (14:22, 16 September 2014)
  4. [64] (14:26, 16 September 2014)
  5. [65] (04:23, 17 September 2014鈥庘)
  • The official name o CSMS Iasi is "CS Municipal Studentesc Ia艧i (IS)", read this on the FRF (the governing body of football in Romania) official web site here, on this page abbreviations are not a allowed, if you want to add please add to all Liga I football teams, not only this team. You don't understand that is same thing with another football team FC Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti. The name of this team was FCSS Bucuresti or Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti??? Team name on the official website is C.S. Municipal Studentesc Iasi- click here can see on top page the banner. 08:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC) User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA
Read Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. The name is chosen based on this criterion. Shocate (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a content dispute that can be resolved through discussion at the appropriate talk page. I have also declined the request for page protection.  Philg88 talk 09:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please block for 2 weeks user Shocate. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talkcontribs) 09:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Rationalobserver (Result: no blocks, yet)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Consensus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [67]
  2. [68]
  3. [69]
  4. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:

Ring Cinema has made 5 total reverts to my edits there since September 9, and three in the last 24 hours. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition to reverting me 5 times this week, they also reverted Butwhatdoiknow here. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a discussion on this subject on the Talk page. The policy on Consensus is that in the absence of a new consensus, there is no change to the current content. That's the policy I'm following. The violator here is Rationalobserver, who wants to impose his new content without finding a new consensus. Since we were discussing the matter, it seems he's trying to "win the argument" by some other method than developing a consensus. I would suggest he return to the discussion and continue it, as I have done. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The 4th diff above concerns a different issue than the change in content proposed by Rationalobserver and not something there is a dispute about, so that's dishonest of him. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Similarly, my revert of BWDIK is not germane, since he asked me to make a proposal that I would support instead of returning to the last consensus. First, it's not up to him to mandate the form of my editing. Second, by restoring the status quo I was making the proposal I would support. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Rationalobserver's "warning" about the 3RR rule says that I'd reverted two editors and was simply part of the discussion. So that's a deficient warning, and I'm not edit warring anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This is by no means a judgment on the page version, but with respect a one man advantage is not an ideal way of revising a major Wikipedia policy. A RFC is open now, which seem to me to be the best route to a resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I thank Betty Logan for her wise words, esp. the bit about "revising a major Wikipedia policy". Now, I see that Rationalobserver has a little over a hundred edits, including this report here. I submit that if any editor is going to go and make policy changes, they should have some weight/experience to their credit, and if they're going to edit-war over it, they should expect a tap on the wrist--or a block for discuption. Fortunately they quit, and I hope they keep quitting. Ring Cinema, you're edit-warring here too, of course, but I judge your part in it as defensive, which for a major policy page is a good thing. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I was edit warring? No, you have that wrong. I just returned the page to the status quo during the discussion. No warring involved. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dylan Bruner reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked )[edit]

Page
Lizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Dylan Bruner (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "My edits have been changed, and I want to revert them back to normal."
  2. 00:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Made a compromise between edits."
  3. 01:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Made a compromise. (Please don't edit the species number.)"
  4. 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Made a compromise. I'll look for the resource."
  5. 19:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625801254 by Materialscientist (talk)"
  6. 19:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625852868 by McGeddon (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 19:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of species */ new section"
Comments:

Edit warring "approximately 6,000 species" to "approximately over 5,000" with weak or absent sources, ignoring talk page thread. McGeddon (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a silly revert game, where Dylan Bruner is pushing their opinion against the cited source(s), ignoring the opinion of several editors (do they need this number for their school report?), pulling unreliable sources to "support" their number of lizard species.
Support punitive action, can't implement it because I am involved. Materialscientist (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 48 hours Ks0stm (TCGE) 00:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Italian straight nationalist reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: Blocked )[edit]

Page
Luigi Settembrini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Italian straight nationalist (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
User being reported
Mardochee1 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625997893 by Mardochee1 (talk)FAGTIVISM"
  2. 21:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625986699 by Mardochee1 (talk)"
  3. 19:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625970200 by Mardochee1 (talk)FAGS"
  4. 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625963037 by Mardochee1 (talk)"
  5. 15:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625960585 by Mardochee1 (talk)"
  6. 15:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625960281 by Mardochee1 (talk)for a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of neutral straight scholars that the description is appropriate"
  7. 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625957499 by Mardochee1 (talk) It's not him, it must be a foreign decadent fag like wilde, cocteau or gide, not italian !!!"
  8. 15:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625956576 by Mardochee1 (talk)God hates fags and he loved Settembrini, so he was straight !!!"
  9. 14:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625955826 by Mardochee1 (talk) fagtivism"
  10. 14:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625954971 by Mardochee1 (talk)stop your gay agenda!"
  11. 14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625836145 by Mardochee1 (talk)improper category"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Luigi Settembrini. (TW)"
  2. 21:12, 17 September 2014鈥 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Luigi Settembrini. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Wow. Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of one week for the egregious violations of both 3RR and WP:NOTBATTLE. Ks0stm (TCGE) 00:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: User:Mardochee1: I will say, you probably ought not have reverted as many times yourself, either...you rather badly violated 3RR yourself, but given the nature of the edits I'll let it slide. Consider this a strong warning, though: In the future, stop at three reverts yourself and bring it to the attention of others if it still needs reverted. Ks0stm (TCGE) 00:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wadaad reported by Acidsnow (Result: Withdrawn (for now) )[edit]

Page: Somali people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wadaad

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 20:08, 17 September 2014 - My preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 16:41, 17 September 2014
  2. Revision as of 20:01, 17 September 2014
  3. Revision as of 20:17, 17 September 2014
  4. Revision as of 20:29, 17 September 2014
  5. Revision as of 20:38, 17 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk Page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page

Comments:
User has chosen to overrun consensus and revert five times despite being told to stop and being fully aware of the previous discussion. AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have provided an academic source showing the genetic and ethnic affinities of the Rendille to the Somali: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 You have provided me nothing but your opinion. Science shows that the Rendille are related to Somalis. I have got plenty of sources. You have none. Secondly, that previous discussion did not reach 'consensus' at all and it was mainly regarding the listing of the Amhara and Benadiri, not the Rendille. I stick to my scientific based view that the Rendille are highly related to Somalis. You have no right to delete academically sourced material. Wadaad (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
"an academic source" which states the same thing as last time. Science also shows that all humans are related. I too, have plenty of sources. As for the consensus, you are to receive it. Seeing how two users disagree, you have yet to obtain it. AcidSnow (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Not all humans speak Somaloid languages like the Rendille, nor do all humans show strong genetic affinities to Somalis (high levels of E1b1b and T1). http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 This combination warrants the Rendille to be listed as a related ethnic group to Somalis.Wadaad (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The Rendille speak a Somaloid language, while the Gabra, Sakuye and Gareeh have abandoned their original 鈥淪omaloid鈥 language for Borana [104, 105]. There is also an overlap of clan names, rituals and beliefs among these historically 鈥淪omaloid鈥 populations and a third set of populations speaking various Somali dialects[104, 105]. The putative center of origin of the eastern Cushitic speakers (including the eastern highland Cushitic speakers that are mostly found in Ethiopia) is in southern Ethiopia [106].

Source: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 Wadaad (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Either this scientist is lying, or you have an extreme bias. I stick to science over your opinion. Again, you have no right to delete this material.Wadaad (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Per Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi, the scholar is actually mistaken on that [73]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Speaking a similar language let alone the same one does not mean both groups are related. Are Jamaicans related to the English, they both speak languages that descend from Old English? Once again you keep leaving out mtDNA which is quite important to this discussion. You might want to see the rest of my replies as well as Middays to see why that's quite pointless. Another tip would be not bringing this dispute here. AcidSnow (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
User:AcidSnow, I agree with your basic point but there's no need for this. Please withdraw the 3RR so that we may discuss the matter politely on the article's talk page. I know Wadaad and he's a good faith editor. Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The Rendille have similar haplogroups as Somalis. I have already provided you a source. Just compare the E1b1b+T1 & L/M/N similarity. The Somali have similar maternal DNA as the Rendille see this study http://www.springerlink.com/content/x13323337p155h22/fulltext.pdf or this image Somali mtDNA. Your comparison between the English and Jamaicans is a red herring and totally irrelevant to this discussion as the genetic difference between Jamaicans and the English is much larger than that between Somalis and Rendilles. Lastly, This discussion is not a new one, all the way in 2010 administrator Gyrofrog already chimed in and recognized that it is perfectly fine to add the Rendille as related ethnic group to Somalis.Wadaad (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Wadaad, those are just uniparental markers. Their autosomal DNA is not the same, though. Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ladies and gentlemen, you're having a debate over content that SHOULD be held on the article talkpage, not here. AN/3RR is to determine if someone violated either WP:3RR or WP:EW - it doesn't matter here whether you have a source or not, if you edit-war it's a block - period. WP:BRD is the best way to handle things in order to gain WP:CONSENSUS. All editors AGREED to not edit war, and to work towards consensus. Wadaad, regardless of your "source", you were battling to get your preferred version - that's classic edit-warring, and unacceptable - again, we don't care about your source, you may not repeatedly insert your edit, ever the panda 鈧 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You have once again ignoring the most important pieces of this discussion, the Rendille do not have the same mtDNA as the Somalis. As for my Jamaican and English comparison, it was in response to your use of linguistics to justify your edit; which did not help you. Anyways, this noticeboard is about your disruptive edits and decision to not get consensus and not the content dispute. I am sure you are well aware of this since I had previously informed you about it. I would also like to inform admins as to your decision to make a baseless personal attack against me. AcidSnow (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I will with draw this for now Middayexpress. However, if things continue to remain the same I will continue to press forth. AcidSnow (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already informed the user about that numerous of times. I enjoyed your intro by the way. AcidSnow (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda the edit war has stopped and we are currently discussing the matter regarding the relationship between the Rendille and Somalis on the respective talk page.Wadaad (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wadaad, I don't give 2 shiney pennies if it's stopped at this moment: you've failed to acknowledge or show ANY type of understanding of your improper behaviour. You're forcing editors to file reports, refusing to recognize the damage you're doing to the article/project, and although (surprise, surprise) you're currently discussing, your insolence makes me think this is merely temporary the panda 鈧 23:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@DangerousPanda, I am not a frequent contributor to wikipedia, look at my history. I was not aware of all the different rules. Now that I am, I will act accordingly. My contribution to the Somali page regarding the Rendille is in no way trollish or in bad faith. We are currently discussing the matter on the talk page.Wadaad (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wadaad: You were warned about this EXACT same issue on, surprise, the same article in 2011. Claiming ignorance of the rule is, indeed, a lie the panda 鈧 23:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@DangerousPanda I forgot about it. I am human after all. That was almost 4 years ago. Again, what started this all was not in bad faith nor was I at the time fully aware of the rule. Now that I am, I will act accordingly and wish to discuss the matter.Wadaad (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wadaad: You're then expected to self-revert - that is, undo your last WP:EW-violating edit to that article. Now. You may not re-add that information ever until you gain consensus to do so. If you fail to gain consensus, then you're out of luck. I'll await your self-revert the panda 鈧 23:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@DangerousPanda: the issue already reached consensus back in 2010. An administrator already had his say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somali_people/Archive_3#Related_group Wadaad (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)