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—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

User:SummerFunMan reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
IPhone 5S (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SummerFunMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC) "I wasn't breaking consensus. Apparently you guys can't read, comprehend, or pay attention well. I agree with your tense reversions. I was just asking you not to revert my unrelated edits too. But you're too lazy and don't give a crap to respect that.."
  2. 06:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) "You're just gonna ignore that I made some other edits along the way that I requested that you not revert along with the tense (you do it manually instead)? Why can't you respect that and do it manually instead so that you don't ruin my other edits?"
  3. 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC) "Yes, it does, obviously. But old things that were written about in past-tense form still do exist too. However, as I told ViperSnake, he has a good point. But only revert only my tense-related edits; not all of them. [Oh & yes, it DID say "discontinued."]"
  4. 03:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) "WP:TENSE also has a mention for historical items, which this is; but you have a good point, I think. I was thinking that "succeeded by..." meant that the new model caused the old to be discont. But revert manually because of my non-tense-related edits."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Your edits */ new section"
  2. 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) "/* November 2014 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 05:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Tense */ new section"
  2. 05:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Tense */"
Comments:

He is showing aggression over the reversion of his incorrect tense changes because they undid an unrelated formatting change done alongside the tense edits. The MoS guideline on tense on these articles has been explained and addressed, but his aggression and multiple reverts are still cause for concern. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I wouldn't count the last edit as a revert, although the edit summary is clearly uncivil. The changes to the text in that edit were not substantive but syntactic (and for the better, in my view).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see what the 21:09 edit is reverting to, either. Small words for slow minds, please? —Cryptic 10:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, "Bed, Bath, & Beyond store #23" (and I'm serious; not sarcastic), for 2 of the 4 things you said in your response (that #1 doesn't count as a reversion against their tense reversions, just as I said; and that my edition there makes the article better [even though you think it's "not substantive"])! I appreciate that. But just stating an observation about someone's inability that causes them to do damage while trying to do good, in an effort to help them see where they need improvement in how they handle things here (or anywhere, for that matter), is actually not being "uncivil."

SummerFunMan (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's a better thing for the administrators to pay attention to: this entire passage is yet another example of this editor's incivility. But still, WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." As such, all of the edits marked as reversions above are recognized as such by Twinkle. Please, just drop the stick already, and comment on content, not the contributor. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of indefinitely for sockpuppetry. m.o.p 17:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User: Helpsome reported by User:Otaku00 (Result: Both warned; filer subsequently blocked)[edit]

Page: Thích Nhất Hạnh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Helpsome (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]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments: Criticism section was repeatedly deleted. The latest deletion - not mentioned above - also included real (civil) name of the monk this article is about.

Otaku00 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Otaku00 is adding personal interpretations to articles using their interpretation of primary sources. They are doing this to biographies of living persons which are held to a particularly strict standard. All of this has been explained on various talk pages but Otaku00 really seems to want to criticize these people so they have been forum shopping all over wikipedia trying desperately to find someone who will allow them to violate WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. As WP:BLP states, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and that is exactly what I have done here. Helpsome (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Helpsome, it's clear that the two of you have been edit-warring on the reported article and to a lesser extent at Chân Không (similar issues). You have also been arguing back and forth on both article Talk pages. The only issue in my mind is whether you can justify your role in this war using the WP:BLP exemption. Some of the sources added by Otaku00 are offline, and I can't see them. One source, if I recall, is online and is a primary source, which is generally a no-no in articles and particularly BLP articles. Still, you've been reverting a lot of material, not just the material supported by that source. You state that the problems have been explained to Otaku on "various talk pages". Explained by whom? The only thing I see is that you have talked to him. I don't see other editors involved agreeing with you. Have you ever taken the issues in either article to WP:BLPN? Have you tried to expand the discussions to include other editors? Otaku took it to WP:DRN where it was rejected on procedural grounds because it hadn't been hashed out enough. He also tried to take it to formal mediation, but you refused. I'm not necessarily saying that your BLP reverts are wrong, but it's complicated enough, given the sourcing, that it's hard for me to evaluate.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If the material belongs here, I think that would come out in a talk page discussion. Since this is a WP:BLP issue, I think it should be discussed before re-adding it to the article after it was initially removed. I didn't personally think this required mediation because this should be about the content itself and not our personal interactions with each other. If anything, this should be a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard issue, I think. I am open to a discussion especially one with other editors but I think with a BLP we should err on the side of caution and keep it out until fully discussed. I may be mistaken, but I think everything I reverted was WP:OR based on primary sources with the exception of a passing notice in a book (and one person's passing comment isn't "a controversy" and to pretend it is would be adding undue weight) and the most recent edit which used a foreign wikipedia as a reference. It was my understanding that we can't reference a wiki with another wiki. If I am mistaken, I apologize. Helpsome (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Helpsome, you begin with the premise that you are correct. It's true that BLP-violating material should be removed. It is also true that we should err on the side of non-inclusion. However, everything depends on an editor's interpretation. It's one thing for you to remove the material and open a discussion at BLPN and another thing for you to keep removing the material and just continue arguing on the talk page. Material may be undue, but that doesn't mean that the violation of BLP is sufficiently egregious to justify edit warring. You are correct that another wiki is not a reliable source, but if I understand properly, the material being supported was not negative material, just another name for the same person. Thus, that wouldn't justify edit-warring. Taking it to WP:RSN is certainly an option for the individual sources, but they are inextricably intertwined with the BLP issues, which take precedence. I'm not going to block you because I think you acted in good faith. However, I don't think it's fair to block Otaku00, either, if you "escape" a block. Therefore, you are both Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned that if you revert again at either article, you risk being blocked without notice. In the interim, I suggest taking the BLP issues to BLPN as a starting place.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
"reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care". A CIA-factsheet can be considered reliable, it is considered as such by many people. A trade register excerpt even more. They may be used with care. I do this, contrary to what Helpsome said my phrasing of the words is NOT evaluating the facts from the sources, just quoting them. If there is any claim of the contrary, I would like to know exactly what words are understood like that. (We are talking only about TNH here, right?) This may be one problem of two, Helpsome not being a native speaker of English (which I am neither), and referring to old wording and older discussions. I was very careful in my choice of words with the TNH entries. It should not be mixed up with the Chan Khong entry which is more complex for me, too.
The CIA-document is speaking of TNHs anti-war efforts, as does his biography. This can be understood as a further detail, not a contradiction. It is still online: [[8]] Thus we know where TNH has been in a year not very well documented in the biography section.
Also online is Prof. Charles Prebish's quote, which is by the way no primary source but an academic work: [[9]] page 309 in the book, footnote 9. It is not the only academic work that can be cited here. Nguyen wrote "Zen in Medieval Vietnam" where he stated that the Zen (Thien) line died out hundreds of years ago. That is why no one can claim to hold an authentic "lineage" in Vientam anymore - from the academic standpoint. I may look the quotes up in the future.
The trade register excerpt can be asked for by any citizen at least in Germany for a fee, even online. Why is this "primary source" not only reliable and published but also "relevant"? Because the EIAB in which TNH has invested is a huge Buddhist centre established only a couple of years ago as kind of his legacy. It is indeed strange that it is not mentioned at all in the English Wiki. Please see here for its relevance: [[10]]
P.S.: The personal civil name of Thich Nhat Hanh is mentioned in the trade register because he cannot sign documents with a pseudonym like Thich Nhat Hanh here, and can be googled. It is strange to see that it was not already in there. --Otaku00 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked Otaku00 for 48 hours for reverting after my warning (which was also posted on his talk page).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Discriminated treatment: My Page and My Talk Page has been heavily damaged! (Result: Filer indeffed)[edit]

Sorry, Wikipedia.org administrators, I don't want to report anyone, and it seems no-sense to me. But My Page and My Talk Page have been seriously damaged by some strange guys, and someone want to remove my page. I wish that would not imply that this is the "Discrimination" to me on Wikipedia.org. For all of those behaviors towards myself on Wikipedia.org, I just feel a bit pity of Wikipedia.org itself. Wish Wikipedia.org administrators could check the history of my page and my talk page, do something all of you think reasonably. I am sorry for all of that! Best wishes! Janagewen (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

People involved in this business: Jackmcbarn, Davey2010, BullRangifer

Behaviors:

Empty my user and talk page, warning, threatening (see the history), and Miscellany for deletion...

My talk page has been emptied by BullRangifer

My words have been removed and modified by Davey2010

For those things, I feel extreme shame about Wikipedia.org Janagewen (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Be very careful of the WP:BOOMERANG! - User's userpage was used as an enemy list [11] whilst his TP seems to be a sandbox [12], This doesn't help his case neither. –Davey2010(talk) 05:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
But you emptied the whole page before making any warning to me. And that is obviously one discriminated behavior, tends to be illegal seriously! Sorry! Wikipedia.org should keep its own honor! Janagewen (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Improper content on your user page and user talk page was deleted by several people, and you were advised to use a sandbox for your work which totally filled the page. Your work is not being deleted from Wikipedia. Just find a better place to work on it.
The talk page is primarily for communication with other editors, and any action by you which impedes that function is a violation of its purpose, and thus a violation of community norms. The talk page is owned by the community, and not just by you. You have limited rights on it, and they do not include being uncivil or refusing to communicate. It is an interface which must be kept open for comments from other editors, and you should reply civilly and collaboratively.
It won't hurt you at all to be nice. It will create good karma and you will have a much more enjoyable time here. We want to have a good relationship with you, so don't make it hard. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:68.108.39.12 reported by User:AndreniW (Result: Semi-protected and warnings)[edit]

Page: California Dreams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.108.39.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. [17]
  5. [18]
  6. [19]
  7. [20]
  8. [21]
  9. [22]
  10. [23]
  11. [24]

User continues to cite a user-generated IMDb page (that is most likely being manipulated by same user) as a reason that a teen pop band is a "mormon death metal" band. (They aren't even close.)

Esearcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may also be guilty of edit warring since they did not use the proper protocol; since their user account appears to have been created solely to stop this vandalism, I'll WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE, though.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of other vandalism they repeatedly reverted, on their talk page: [26] [27]

Comments:

Considering their entire contribution history is adding nonsense to 90s music articles, I feel a block is the appropriate course of action. Thank you. --AndreniW (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I've semi-protected the article for one week. I've also Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned the IP and Esearcher about continued warring at the article after the protection expires. This is a very slow burning dispute. Normally, it wouldn't even be enough to justify protection if it were taken to WP:RFPP, but no one else seems interested in the article except the two warriors. It may be that what the IP is doing is "worse" (I don't know enough about the subject), but even after a revert of the IP's edit, the article still sources to IMDb, an unreliable source in many contexts, including, I believe, this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1 reported by User:Legacypac (Result:No violation)[edit]

Page: 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skookum1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [29] 1st revert
  2. [30] I undid the revert
  3. [31] 2nd revert - note nastiness
  4. [32] starts a thread naming me in the title and heaping abuse on me.
  5. [33] Calls my statements a lie on the page and uses the edit summery (reply to b.s.).

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:I am not saying he is over 3RR (at 2RR as am I) but 2 quick reverts, personal attacks and failure to look at the sources - including misrepresenting the Toronto Star source as not including a birth name (when it is the first 4 words of the second paragraph) indicates a possible agenda other then getting the article in the best shape possible. I'd like to fix an accuracy issue with the article but that is not going to be allow by this editor. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Reply this is not 3RR and is just nuisance wiki-lawyering by Legacypac, whose "logic" in using sources has regularly conflated and distorted and mis-used what they say; in this case there is no reason at all to remove the cited birthname based on the cite he claims supports it; that cite does not mention the birthname, only says that his real father's name was withheld. If you read up the talkpage of the Ottawa shootings you'll find the other bogus claims and false edit statements made by Legacypac in the course of his involvement with that article; here once again he distorts what a cite says, deletes cited material with spurious "logic" and rather than accede to the inclusion of what he wants deleted, and the "indicates a possible agenda other than getting t he article in the best shape possible" is an AGF against me, when his ownagenda is much at question.Skookum1 (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Note statement "that cite does not mention the birthname" and that I already point exactly to the birth name in my comments above and on the talk page - but he can't see it what does not support his attack. The Star says at the beginning of the second paragraph "Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau came into the world in October 1982..." I don't understand why this editor is so hostile but it is not helpful. I have no agenda other then to fix something I remembered was incorrect info in the article. Rather then continue an unproductive debate I just brought it here per guidance on the edt warring policy page. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Your claims/interpretation of the Star source is exactly that; you claim that his birthname i.e. what was on his birth certificate was not Michael Joseph Hall, you dismiss three RS as in "error" and even seem to think La Presse is among the "fog" of foreign newspaper coverage that you do disdain; the line from the Star article does not say that was his birthname, it says he came into the world in October 1982....it doesn't say with the name 'Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau'; your claim that "logic" means that that was his birthname is specious and bad logic and yet more conflation of sources; fact is you removed RS-cited material with false statements and a claim of "research" (apparently your own only) and then fielded a cite to back you up that doesn't even say what you claim/think it does. What's been unproductive on that page is how many times you've made POV deletions/changes to it and specious arguments and red herrings to defend your actions in talkpage discussions. You didn't come here for guidance, you came here for hoping to get somebody to try and get official sanction against me...I've been holding off a POV board discussion about "terrorism pushing" at this and other articles by youself and various other with "that agenda" (including the SPA you chimed in support of on Talk:List of terrorist incidents 2014, claiming to a newbie but per their edits, clearly has a wiki-background despite claiming otherwise), but I dislike ANIs as they are often contrary by nature and time/energy consuming and unproductive. This, like your edit war that you started then came here and complained about, is only so much more time waste and inherently unproductive. Your sense of "logic" is clearly faulty, and your habit of interpreting a source to say what you want it to, rahter than what it does say, is getting to be a tiresome bore.Skookum1 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that is messed up. I encourage the reviewing admin to look at the source and judge for yourself what it says VS what this editor claims, then act accordingly. I'll leave this alone now for due process. Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg No violation Both editors have reverted twice. Keep discussing on the talk page and if you can not come to an agreement consider dispute resolution. -- GB fan 11:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks GB - I thought this was dispute resolution as I see this behavior as edit warring - can you suggest where better to go? Legacypac (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If the two of you continue to go back and forth it will be edit warring on both sides. At this point, you made a bold edit, and Skookum1 reverted. That should have initiated a discussion from you. Instead you reverted and Skookum1 reverted again. You might want to read WP:BRD, it discusses the preferred course of action when you get reverted. This is a content dispute, there are options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE on ways to proceed if the discussions are not fruitful. -- GB fan 12:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks. The evidence supporting my edit is so clear - and his total misrepresentations of the cite so obvious - that his actions are vandalism. Plus the broad attacks on me are so ugly I have no faith in further attempts to get consensus involving him. I've requested a 3rd opinion and am prepared to do an RfC if that does not work. Had no idea I had him as an enemy. Legacypac (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dcbanners reported by User:Scalhotrod (Result: Voluntary restriction)[edit]

Page: Sonic Boom (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcbanners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [35] Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [36], made the accusation of WP:OWNERSHIP on a Talk page [37] while this Notice was being posted.
  2. [38], removed sources cited using the Template:Cite episode template and removed the field from the Project Episode list template specifically for a source
  3. [39], same
  4. [40], same
  5. [41], same
  6. [42], same
  7. [43], 1st source removal after Full Protection
  8. [44], removed all uses of the Template:Cite episode template and removed the field from the template specifically for a source
  9. [45], same
  10. [46], same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47] made by 136.181.195.25

Comments:
After a resolution to a source and content dispute was reached on the article Talk page, this (albeit new) User continues to remove sources that link living persons (i.e. Writers, Directors, etc.) to the content of the article.

Based on difs #7 - #9, resulted in full article protection by EdJohnston [48], now requesting that User be blocked

User continues to Edit War and vandalise the template for the Episode list. Keeps citing a Project guideline as policy to justify their edits, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/FAQ#Verifiability, but the source they keep citing does not include information on the crew such as the Director or the Writers. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You're the one adding unnecessary and redundant sources. We don't need sources for non-controversial information if you can just WATCH THE EPISODE. Dcbanners (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss with him, but he's not helping. Dcbanners (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What I would probably ask the involved users to agree to for this article, is:

1. We don't need sources for non-controversial information that can be gleaned by watching the episode. 2. Please don't remove sources without dropping a note on the talk page first to gauge response. 3. Everybody gets a fresh start and we work constructively and politely as if it never happened.. Dcbanners (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I see five reverts by User:Dcbanners starting at 21:06 on 22 November. Without even checking on talk page participation, this is a plain violation of WP:3RR. Whichever admin closes this is probably tempted to block Dcbanners 48 hours for the violation, since he seems not to have benefited from the advice given when the article was protected due to the last 3RR report. To avoid a block, he might consider promising to stay away from the article or its talk page for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest keeping Scalhotrod away too so we can discuss and reach a consensus. Dcbanners (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If you aren't accepting my offer, then I'll proceed with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, i will accept it. But he needs to discuss as well. Dcbanners (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I have been, on my Talk page (where it does not belong) and on the article Talk page. But it wasn't until you were reported that you chose to participate in the discussion. By the way, TheMeaningOfBlah has also reverted your removal of sources and template fields. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Dcbanners, you are the one who violated 3RR. You must accept my offer without any conditions or you will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I will accept your offer. Dcbanners (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Dcbanners has agreed not to edit the article or its talk page for one month, to avoid a 3RR block. This restriction expires at 18:35 on 23 December, 2014. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Rationalobserver (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: User:Rationalobserver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Radiopathy (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

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

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Come back if the disruption and harassment continue after the block is lifted. I'll indeff the editor. Thanks. Wifione Message 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: The editor has been indeffed after their repetitive personal attacks. Wifione Message 18:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Paolowalter reported by User:Alhanuty (Result: Both editors blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=635115885

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [56]
  2. [57]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:
User Paolowalter has clearly broken the 1RR on the Article,by reverting twice,and and I tried to explain to him the edit and the source i used,which is the Telegraph,but he insisted on reverting me using an unreliable source and and is launching personal attacks on me, also the User has been warned several times that he have broken the 1RR edit by the editors of the page,this is the second time he edit wars.Alhanuty (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:86.145.110.113 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
86.145.110.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 11:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP pushing inclusion of "Palestine" in sentence and will not discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of one week for edit warring at many articles, not just this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: Blocked filer)[edit]

Page
Zoe Levin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "IMDB and Wikia can't be used simple as that, Feel free to provide actual sources to the article, Also again the image is a copyright violation,"
  2. 05:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by EoRdE6 (talk): Erm yes it does? .... Also [[Wikipedia:Citing IMDb

]]. (TW)"

  1. 05:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by EoRdE6 (talk): IMDB and wikia aren't reliable sources.... If they were I would've left them! (TW)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 04:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC) to 04:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    1. 04:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Filmography */ RM IMDb as not a WP:RS]"
    2. 04:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "RM imdb"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Zoe Levin. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has removed both my warning and notice of this discussion from his talk page EoRdE6 (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • User seems to think IMDb and Wikia's a reliable source, .... Despite repeated attempts at telling him it's not he seems more interested in edit warring, I also even left a message explaining it again and that he should take a step back but instead he chose here, Anyway I have just this minute self reverted as I had smacked 3rr without realizing, –Davey2010(talk) 05:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also per WP:TPO I'm entitled to remove any notice I like from my talkpage (within reason). –Davey2010(talk) 05:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked User:EoRdE6 for 31 hours. Edit warring is just one of the problems with the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Brilliant thanks Bbb23 - Much appreciated. –Davey2010(talk) 05:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Simon Wtekni reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Indeffed)[edit]

Page
Palestinian refugee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Simon Wtekni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
[59]; diff of edit that the first edit below (22 Nov.) was reverting: [60]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC) "Not undue, we must show all points of view per npov"
  2. 23:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC) "It's still a controversy and a complex issue, some sources support this theory and we should not exclude it. See Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus#The .22Arab leaders.27 endorsement of flight.22 explanation"
Comments:

Violation of 1RR. Note also an additional revert subsequently; it falls outside a 24-hour period, but it goes to the need to impress on the editor the seriousness with which 1RR in this area will be taken. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I didn't break 1RR, because I didn't make more than one revert in 24 hours. It's the other user who should have discussed this on the talk page before reverting a long-standing version.--Simon Wtekni (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no violation of 3RR. For 1RR you should use WP:AE, and the DS alert was placed on Simon Wtekni's page only after these reverts, so it's unsanctionable there. I recommend Simon to read up on the subject to avoid violating 1RR in the future. WarKosign 12:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect -- as per the ARBPIA template (see e.g. at the talk page for the article where the 1RR violation happened: [61]), "Violations of 1RR should be [reported] to the edit warring noticeboards." I'm not asking for imposition of discretionary sanctions, hence the fact that the DS warning came afterwards is irrelevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93.TMCk (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked. I've indeffed the user based on the report at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN reported by User:Westcott001 (Result: Westcott blocked for 60 hours)[edit]

Wiki Discrimination

This is to request an impartial opinion of editors in Wikipedia on the Wiki article [2] The article is about a Bangladeshi politician, a candidate for the Mayor of a country with a royal lineage. The lineage is obtained from a genealogy printed in a Persian book that was translated into Bengali and used as a source in a Cambridge Encyclopedia that was used as a reference. The original Persian script documenting this lineage is also available and it was uploaded as a picture in Wiki-image. Unfortunately, Editor Neil-N has consistently held the view that he will not allow the genealogy information to be documented as he does not consider it relevant information for the political background of the politician. As a political historian of the country where the subject is a politician and a former Mayor candidate, I feel pedigree information and lineage information are very important and they have been used in other Wikipedia articles on politicians worldwide. Editor Neil-N had the following to say. "Wikipedia doesn't care what politicians think is important to buff their image. If all you have is a genealogical tree then I will oppose adding this trivia, scans or no. --NeilN " He is trying to discriminate lineage information on this topic, based on what he writes above, since lineage information has been used in other Wikipedia articles as well. Therefore he is trying to get in an unwarranted edit war and bully other editors. Please comment whether this is fair or not? Why lineage information cannot be relevant when other wiki-pages have used them as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcott001 (talkcontribs) 17:47, 24 November 2014‎

If you want to "request an impartial opinion of editors", this isn't the place to do it. See instead Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Firstly though, I suggest that you actually take note of what you have been repeatedly told at Talk:Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky - you need to provide a source that directly asserts that the information you wish to add to the article is significant. You may consider it significant, but that isn't sufficient - you need to directly demonstrate that other people do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
My first revert was for poorly sourced material in a BLP as noted by Barek. My second revert, done more than 24 hours after, has been discussed on the talk page. Westcott001, has reverted three times during this period and has been advised by two other editors besides myself why the material is lacking. --NeilN talk to me 01:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I reverted only once and have been warned only once. Please check this in the log. Thanks.

@AndyTheGrump: It is becoming extremely difficult to convince editors @NeilN: and @Barek: on three independent sources on the Mughal History of Bangladesh that convincingly establishes the relevance of the lineage of the politician on whom the article is written. Neither @NeilN: nor @Barek: are experts on the field but they have a common motive and a personal political agenda to revert all references to lineage. It is also racist and unacceptable because on other politician pages this has been allowed. I have demonstrated by three separate academic sources on the relevance and validity of this information. @NeilN: and @Barek: must be stopped from further editing this page and I would like semi-protection of this article due to their unjustified edit wars. Please invite Bangladeshi Wikipedia editors @Rakib: or other independent local sources who are able to scrutinize this issue and settle this matter permanently. Many Thanks and Best Regards.Westcott001 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, enough - any more accusations of 'racism' and the like and I will report the matter. Your failure to understand what is being requested regarding sourcing (which is still evident, given your latest edit to the article in question [62]) does not in any way justify such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Westcott blocked for 60 hours. Someone please clean up the candidate mayor's article, starting with the picture of him and someone's nephew. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:PleaseConsider reported by User:Lithistman (Result: )[edit]

Page: List of wars involving the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PleaseConsider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [63]
  2. [64]
  3. [65]
  4. [66]
  5. [67]
  6. [68]
  7. [69]
  8. [70]

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

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

Comments:
I have been working on pruning this overlong list of cruft throughout the day. At various points, PC has simply reverted, en masse, changes I'd made over several edits, making the entire process more drawn-out than it needed to be, as I attempted to figure out what his issues were with a given series of edits. At least once, he simply reverted without edit summary, which is reserved for vandalism. At other points, he accuses me of lying in his edit summaries. At no point (as of the filing of this report) has he replied to the thread I opened on the talkpage, explaining his mass reversions. LHMask me a question 20:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • No comment on the edit warring, but such edit summaries are deceptive, and I've blocked PleaseConsider for 12 hours for it. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Carpo- Rusyn‎ reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )[edit]

Page: Gary Hart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carpo- Rusyn‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 14:01, 23 November 2014 diff (note this was a global revert that included the text in question)
  2. 14:55, 24 November 2014 diff
  3. 20:19, 24 November 2014 diff
  4. 20:57, 24 November 2014 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif given at 20:28, 24 November 2014 and Removed by Carpo in this dif with edit note: "remove insulting comment"

  • was discussed in this section of Talk - Carpo did not participate.
  • I asked to discuss on talk in this edit dif when I reverted
  • I warned against edit warring in this dif when i reverted
  • added a bullet to the section linked above addressed to Carpo here - he edit warred right past it.

Comments:
I got involved with this article after seeing a posting on COIN about a bizarre edit war/COI conflagration that had nothing to do with Gary Hart, the subject of the article. Carpo was part of that and re-emerged only after I went through the edit-warred section sentence by sentence and rendered it NPOV and well-sourced as well as I could. Please provide Carpo with a good long block to cool his jets and make him realize he needs to engage in real dialog and not edit war. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Note, after making the last edit-warring edit linked above (where the article still stands, as I am not pursing an edit war), Carpo finally responded on the talk page, with an (unfortunately typical) vague and unsourced claim, in this dif Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
and has not responded to my reply to him here, where I explained what the cited sources say, and asked for sources and detail for his position. Carpo is an edit warrior, not a talker. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The purported source for Jytdog's edit is from Dana Weems, who was interviewed by Matt Bai for his recent book, All Of The Truth Is Out. Weems clearly did not concur with the 1987 account of the reason for her calling the Miami Herald, and she in fact stated she had called based on something else. This is a Biography of a living person, and this kind of misrepresentation of her comments must be removed promptly. Jytdog has somehow decided that his subjective interpretation of Weems account is something other than what she clearly stated. He may very well believe this, but it is counter-factual. He has also been quite hyperactive in the number and scope of his edits to the page. He made no attempt to gain a consensus or work collaboratively with other editors. The pot is calling the kettle black here.Edit to note the exact quote from Bai is here, "When I spoke to Dana Weems, she repeatedly insisted to me that she had only called The Herald after reading Hart’s “follow me around” quote". http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/magazine/how-gary-harts-downfall-forever-changed-american-politics.html?_r=0 Weems therefore did not confirm that she had called the Herald in response to its editorial as they claimed,and which Jytdog insists on falsely reverting, contrary to WP BLP policy. Jytdog simply appears to assume that because she contacted the Herald after its editorial that she called because of it, which she denies. I have acted in good faith. If it is found to the contrary, remember that it takes two to tango. Whatever.Carpo- Rusyn (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
carpo, this posting on this board is about your edit warring behavior, not the content dispute. your response shows that you don't get it. you didn't participate in the original Talk discussion about this content that led to me changing the content, and you still have not responded with anything concrete on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lopoponsnko reported by User:NebY (Result: 60hrs)[edit]

Page
London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lopoponsnko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Carlos Rojas77 (talk): Capital letters, removing of non notable colleges, changing few images. (TW)"
  2. 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "see talk page"
  3. 22:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 635297526 by RyanTQuinn (talk)"
  4. 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "see talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on London. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Blocked for 60 hours. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Sandyunderhere reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: )[edit]

Page: University at Buffalo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sandyunderhere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [74]
  2. [75]
  3. [76]
  4. [77]
  5. [78]
  6. [79]
  7. [80]
  8. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here and here (two different editors making two different warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion began here but has since migrated here

Comments: Please note that this appears to be one editor using multiple accounts to edit war not only on this article but also at State University of New York‎; relevant SPI report here. Warnings and discussions in Talk with multiple editors has achieved no discernible progress but continued edit warring and obvious sock/meat puppetry. ElKevbo (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • What ElKevbo says. If I hadn't reverted on the content edit I would have blocked all of them already. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)