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:Aight 2009 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Council of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aight 2009 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&oldid=628831988

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628835211&oldid=628831988
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628851008&oldid=628844430
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=628955710&oldid=628852090
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=629021340&oldid=628988280

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aight_2009&diff=628856863&oldid=628853670

Attempt to resolve dispute on the User's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aight_2009#Names_of_the_Danish_political_party_.22Radikale_Venstre.22

Aight 2009 (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I paste ther my arguments on the user page Blue-Haired Lawyer. He didn't respond on it: if you see close to talk which somebody started you would read that no one answer on my statement. please read it firstly. next thing is if people think that radikale means social-liberal it's shame and being against the dictionary. Why we then include radical left name on the article of party? I repeat it but going this way Portuguese social democratic party should change name but only in English translation because isn't social democratic but centre-right. Oh but why didn't do it? because they use dictionary. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can add that until this year people used "original" name of party GERB in Bulgaria which was said to abbreviation but it doesn't. Party was registered as GERB only. People used to think that cannot be full name so they created false acronym GERB= Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria. We should keep only original name. I add also that this cannot take place with irish parties because they are registered only in irish, so irish English use it without translation. Aight 2009 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition I don't want to change article name of radikale venstre (name of GERB I changed) I just defend using original name on the article Council of the European Union. Aight 2009 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

3RR slightly outside the 24h period (perhaps due to night), however Aight 2009 has been pointed out by three different editors (Tsuroerusu, Blue-Haired Lawyer, and myself) that the naming issue should be discussed at Talk:Danish Social Liberal Party, where it actually seems resolved; in spite of these three opinions, Aight 2009 keeps reverting correct edits. I will be grateful for an authoritative opinion on this edit war. Regards, kashmiri TALK 23:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. The reverts you're listing are from October 8-9. The last revert was on October 12.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That's only because the edit warrior's preferred version was left in place. There's already been one further revert today, and I suspect another one shortly. Btw Aight 2009's edit summary was "Result of your edit warring: stale". 鈥 Blue-Haired Lawyer t 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Two further reverts by Aight 2009 on 20 October:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630359599&oldid=630299153
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630405826&oldid=630388609
kashmiri TALK 20:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Another revert by Aight 2009 on 22 October:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Council_of_the_European_Union&diff=630706844&oldid=630698594.
This user insists on violating WP:NCPP and disregards all advice offered to him/her by more experienced editors. Appalling. kashmiri TALK 10:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Eurocentral reported by User:Borsoka (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eurocentral (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1] (first sentence of the lead)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7] (his first return to his version after an RfC was initiated and a consensus was reached)
  7. [8] (deletion of an inline template message)
  8. [9]
  9. [10]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] (Eurocentral is warned in the edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [12] (RfC - which ended with a consensual lead: [13])
  2. [14] (he opened a separate debate on the same issue during the RfC, with my warning to stop edit warring)

Comments:
Just for information, he has just initiated a SPI against me (without informing me). Dear administrators, please inform me if Eurocentral's behaviour is acceptable in our community. In this case, I also have to change my attitude to adopt this new standard.

User:Serten reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Blocked)[edit]

User notified of this filing here
Past History

DIFFS (verified that these are not in series)

  • 02:29, October 22, 2014鈥 Serten Added {{too few opinions}} tag to article
  • 03:06, October 22, 2014鈥 Serten Its rather important to include what the IPCC and the IAC see as important limitations of its own activities, the consensus includes known unknowns as well, Version without {{too few opinions}}
  • 07:29, October 22, 2014鈥 Serten Try to increase competence by reading valid and important sources. See talk page.
  • 07:36, October 22, 2014鈥 Serten Calling Oppenheimers essay an individual viewopoint is sort of stark
  • 09:09, October 22, 2014鈥 Serten If the article doesnt deal with the IPCC, move redundant content where it belongs.
  • 09:19, October 22, 2014鈥 Serten see talk page

USER TALK PAGE RESPONSE

  • 10:19, October 22, 2014 At his user talk, Serten explicitly refuses to self-revert and rejects another ed's assertion that Serten has broken 3RR.

COMMENT I realize this isn't AE, but just to emphasize the behavior here, this article is under DS(climate). Serten was warned about DS on climate in June, and I reminded him of that in an ill-conceived ANI he filed just a few days ago.
ACTION SOUGHT Whatever you think will prevent future edit/template warring. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Blocked 24 hours. I see four reverts starting at 7:29. Serten's talk comment where he says his edits were about 'different content in two different cases' is not significant when counting up towards four reverts. Per WP:EW *all* reverts are counted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. If reverts were accumulative in one article, there would be various people blocked forever. Actually two cases, ongoing discussion on talk page and proper adjustment of the tags in question. Factually the climate team tries to impose an informal topic bockade, they revert even content based on IPCC internal sources. WP coud do better on the topic. Serten (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jeh reported by User:Janagewen (Result: Nothing to do here)[edit]

Page: Talk:Physical Address Extension (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Jeh (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

For this users always use airy words to describe what I post on Wikipedia.org, such as "little", "wrong"... and denote "done" on the section what I post without my decision on it, and guided me what I should do. This behavior could potentially be counted as personal attack and violate the Freedom of Wikipedia.org.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [15]


Comments:
There were no "reverts" at all (unless one counts Janagewen's deletion of my "Done" tag), let alone three.
  • Janagewen added a paragraph of supposed "explanation" to a months-old thread.
  • As that "explanation" was in fact "not even wrong," I replied, with corrections. I then decided the talk page was long overdue for archiving, so I added an archive bot template.
  • Janagewen thanked me for my reply.
  • I [pointed out that I'd given the same explanation months ago during the thread's previous life.
  • Since the thread in question would have been archived months ago had archiving been set up, I switched to an archive bot that supports requested archiving and added a {{Done}} tag to the thread, in an attempt to avoid further similar "contributions". The latter was an overreach, and I apologize.
  • Janagewen objected to this and removed the Done tag.
  • There was one more exchange. (I'm leaving the talk page alone until this EW report is settled.)
  • About 20 minutes later, Janagewen created this report.
  • Janagewen has now wasted roughly fifteen minutes of my time (the time it took to create this reply and find all the links to the diffs), all because he doesn't know what a "revert" or an "edit war" is. (Is there something like AN/WP:CIR?)
It is clear that Janagewen feels wronged that I should correct his erroneous statements, or that I should request archiving of "his" thread, but that has nothing to do with edit-warring. I think he really wanted some other forum. Jeh (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I am so glad that Jeh made some replies here. But there is another serious sentence from him, "I think he really wanted some other forum."
I thought Jeh were a respectful professor about 5 years ago, when my first stupid revision about PAE were reverted by him. That was the very reason I started that topic, and stated my ideas about it. Yeah, this is not a edit war, and nothing serious about edit war, removing or even reverting. The most serious thing is that people would love to join and express his/her reasonable ideas about it, because that is a talk page. Jeh is great, and I do like to read what he wrote, and learned a lot from him. I know I might post so many improper topics on Wikipedia.org, but I have done, and that might be the very reason to "some other fourm.". But I have to say Wikipedia.org is the greatest, and too many great people that delight my lonely way, including respectful Jeh. But I've already left a report here, ok, just let it stay without reasoning whether proper or not... Janagewen (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
By "some other forum" I meant perhaps WP:AN/I, rather than here at EW. That was not a suggestion that you find someplace other than WP, not at all. Jeh (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Nothing to do here. This doesn't seem to be a report of edit warring. I hope that the above exchange of views has led to better understanding. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bangbang43 reported by User:Wiki-senetor (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page
Twenty:20 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bangbang43 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630650095 by Wiki-senetor (talk)heyy Mr. mind your words"
  2. 13:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630648167 by Wiki-senetor (talk)vandal"
  3. 12:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630625079 by Wiki-senetor (talk)proper vandalism"
  4. 04:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630554942 by Wiki-senetor (talk)removing the official poster and promotional."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

His account is in favour for a particular actor, high vandalism and bad language. Promoting a particular actor and degrading an other. Wiki-senator 16:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 Wiki-senetor is blocked 24 hours. Bangbang43 has been blocked 48 hours by User:Ronhjones. In the future, please consider WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Les7007 reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Project Riese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Les7007 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [17] (abusive summary: vandalism)
  2. [18] (same abusive summary)
  3. [19] (same)
  4. [20] (same)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22], [23]

Comments:

Single purpose account Les7007 (talk  contribs) (total of 287 edits) Google-translated Project Riese from the Polish Wikipedia in 2009 and ever since, takes total ownership of it, unable to communicate with other Wikipedians, i.e. deleting invitations to collaborative work from his talkpage, reverting improvements to article with false summaries,[24], deleting cleanup templates repeatedly, and abusing me verbally on the article talk page; for example, after his wp:personal attack was removed, User:Les7007 now edit-wars to restore the same WP:PA back:

  1. [25] (same abusive summary: "vandalism")
  2. [26] (same)
  3. [27] (same)
  4. [28] (same)
  5. [29] (same)

Poeticbent talk 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Comments:

I have no problem to communicate with anybody except User:Poeticbent. After reverting some of his chaotic edits [30] he attacked me on the article talk page [31] using abusive summary: "talking to the hand" and words: "this is a lie" and again [32] with words: "stop lying", "talking to a blank wall", "stop making up things" and "quite a departure from your lies"[33]. Then he started campaign of editing my posts:

  1. [34]
  2. [35]
  3. [36]
  4. [37]
  5. [38]

and attacking Project Riese with "Fanpov" with summary: "tagged as fan page requiring oversight" without any evidence or source:

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]

Please notice his condescending tone in calling me everywhere "single purpose account" because I have only 287 edits.

Les7007 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Your total ownership of the article you translated from the Polish Wikipedia does not make you immune to WP:3RR policy, including the use of abusive edit summaries or absurdly repetitious reinsertions of your WP:personal attacks. Wikipedia does not give you the right to behave like a jerk without some kind of repercussions. Read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines at least once before contributing anything in the future.
    Note to the administrator: 鈥 Appartently User:Les7007 cannot stop himself from lying even on this page while attempting to (quote-unquote) defend himself. He calls reverts of his wp:personal attacks on article talk page (get this): "campaign of editing my posts". Poeticbent talk 02:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Article fully protected one month. This seems like a two-person dispute with a lot of bad feelings. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution could be followed while the article is protected. Consider WP:3O or WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, EdJohnston. Would you please at least remove verbal abuse directed at me at article talk page (coupled with a lie about attitude), and equally abusive edit summary.[43] I don't see why his edit needs to be protected. I stopped reverting in order to seek your help, he did not. Therefore his abuse stays in, but why. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 21:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The talk comments add to the reputation of the person who made them. If User:Les7007 wants them to be part of his record on Wikipedia, fine, let them stand. The comments will still be on view the next time an admin has reason to study his behavior. I see some heavy irony and silliness but no removable attacks. His vandalism charges are not correct. Both of you have now accused the other person of lying and that ought to be sufficient. If you want to remove the 'lying' charges from your own comments then maybe we should approach Les7007 for the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:B11D:C6B1:B945:D20A:9451:85D reported by User:Aichik (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Marty Markowitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1006:B11D:C6B1:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  3. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

I was going to wait for 4th revert but this person's IP is anonymous so I feel like there might be some bad faith editing there. --Aichik (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also a problem with repeated POV blanking from this anon IP here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630818352&oldid=630784890 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630607183&oldid=630599580 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=630571240&oldid=630540282 I am requesting an investigation for Wiki:sockCarpo- Rusyn (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not experienced in how things work at this noticeboard, but I would like to mention that Aichik has not provided a link to where he warned this IP, nor to where he tried to resolve this dispute. The link provided for "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" is the same as the one provided for "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". And what does that link lead to? A section on the IP's talk page, consisting only of "Here is what I mean about OVERCITE," plus a signature. That is obviously not a warning for edit warring, and I don't think it can be counted as an attempt at dispute resolution either. I would suggest that Aichik provide what this noticeboard asks for.
In addition, the person reported here has made many edits since registering just a few days ago, and all look constructive from the quick glance I gave them. While they can edit war as well as anyone else, they don't look like a bad-faith vandal.
I'm not making any claims besides what I've explicitly stated, and I apologize if I shouldn't be sticking my nose here. But I just want to make sure an administrator takes this stuff into consideration. NealCruco (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't concur. This is an anonymous IP. It is unknown if there is also registered account. What my quick review of the edit history of the IP noticed, was a large number of reverts without corresponding discussion or the addition of constructive content. It is very easy to find fault with the work of others, but I believe that editing should strive to be more affirmative than simply negative. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpo- Rusyn (talkcontribs) 04:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg No violation. The three reverts listed (which are links instead of the requested diffs) are days apart. Considering the changes going back and forth, this is barely an edit war, and one of the stupider ones I've seen - and I've seen some pretty stupid battles - in a while. Why doesn't everyone do something more constructive than arguing over ncluding or not including a cite? And, Carpo- Rusyn, the accusations of socking are unsupported by anything, so put a lid on it. It doesn't help that you yourself are a very newly registered account and come out of nowhere charging socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Cevdet24 reported by User:Noyster (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: International Turkish Hope School, Dhaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cevdet24 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [51]
  2. [52]
  3. [53]
  4. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

Repeated insertion of promotional material copied from school website after 3 warnings.

Please refer to page history. I & ClueBot have 3x reverted promotional & copyvio insertions. The article needed attention but Cevdet24 was warned twice that they were going about this the wrong way (initial warning, second warning). They made no effort to respond in any way and are at their 4th turn of adding the same material, with slight variations: Noyster (talk), 21:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Turkeyphant reported by User:FF-UK (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [58]
  2. [59]
  3. [60]
  4. [61]
  5. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:

User Turkeyphant persists in inserting a claim that the Europlug is physically compatible with the BS 1363 socket, despite the BS 1363 standard requiring that it not be possible to insert a Europlug into a BS 1363 socket. It is possible on some, but not all, BS 1363 sockets to tamper with the safety mechanism to open the shutters, and then force a Europlug into the BS 1363 socket (this is clearly stated in the article), Turkeyphant has not disputed that this can only be done by tampering, and then forcing (The pins of the Europlug have to be forced apart to enter the socket), but claims despite this they are still physically compatible. He also refuses to acknowledge that socket contacts designed to mate with flat pins are not compatible with round pins (there is a danger of arcing caused by poor contact). Further, he insists on distorting a published warning from the UK Electrical Safety Council warning of the widespread occurrence of fires due to the practice which he wishes to promote. FF-UK (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Article protected one week. Please use this time to reach agreement on the talk page. Use WP:Dispute resolution if needed. If the dispute continues after protection expires, it would be logical to block anyone who reverts again without being justified by a consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Lgaddjjg reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Longwood Gardens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lgaddjjg (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [66]
  2. [67]
  3. [68]
  4. [69]
  5. [70]
  6. [71]
  7. [72]
  8. [73]
  9. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Haken arizona reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Protected )[edit]

Page: 2014 Russian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haken arizona (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Russian_Grand_Prix&diff=630898469&oldid=630898047

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [77]
  2. [78]
  3. [79]
  4. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments:
Haken arizona has repeatedly edited the "attendance" figures into this article, despite the use of questionable sources. His first, from ABC.net.au referred to attendance figures from the Saturday of the event, but was being used to support attendance figures from the Sunday of the event. His second source referred to a "near capacity crowd", but gives no indication to how near to capacity "near capacity" is. The issues with these sources have been repeatedly pointed out on the talk page, but he has made no effort to address the issues with his sources, instead declaring that they are acceptable despite one of his key arguments being that the journalist is unable to count everyone in attendance, thus demonstrating that it fails WP:VERIFIABLE. He has since taken to sitting on the page, reverting edits on sight and refusing to address the questions that gave been asked of him. Given that he was made aware of the issues several times and willingly ignored them, I considered the edits to be vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy is totally out of line. Journalist will not go and count every seat to give specific down to one digit number. It is reported that the event was sold out to capacity, which means 55,000. Prisonermonkeys is out of line 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talkcontribs) 07:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If the journalist cannot count every person in attendance鈥攚hich makes the source unverifiable鈥攚hy haven't you provided any evidence of the venue's capacity? You only have the journalist's word that the venue hosts 55,000, but as you just said, the journalist could not have counted all of them. And as far as I am aware, the venue only has 55,000 fixed seats, but there is a general access area that can host up to 10,000 people. So if that is accurate, then claiming the venue is at capacity with 55,000 spectators is off by nearly 20% of its total.
Again, this comes down to the fact that you have not reconciled the issues with your sources. I am not opposed to the inclusion of the attendance figures; I simply ask that you demonstrate reliability, verifiability and specificity in any source you post. You have ignored this, despite being made well aware of the issues on multiple occasions, and gave instead taken to trying to force the edits through by brute force鈥攁ll of which could have been avoided if you had addressed the issues that were raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected You're both lucky not to be blocked, both of you violated WP:3RR. If this continues after protection expires, I will block you both. Dreadstar 08:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dreadstar: may I ask for clarification here? I reverted Haken arizona's edits because I felt they were vandalism. I pointed out the issues with his sources on the talk page before the edit warring began, and did so several more times once it started. Given his knowledge of the issues while editing that content in, and his refusal to address it, doesn't that qualify as vandalism? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Edits like this do not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Vandalism; and if you thought it was vandalism, then instead of uselessly edit warring, you should have reported it to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. But I can tell from the source and by the language used by your fellow-edit-warrior, that the intent was not to harm WP. Haken Arizona's edits were not vandalism, and neither were yours - it was a simple content and WP:RS dispute that got out of hand. You two should have taken it to WP:RS/N or get a WP:3O, not bang heads, disrupting the article with edit warring. Dreadstar 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
No. A disagreement over the capacity of the venue is not vandalism, which is a quite different phenomenon, often involving the word "poop." Labeling a disagreement as vandalism will not help you to win an argument, and diminishes your credibility. Acroterion (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Um, yeah, what Acroterion said. Simpler than mine... :) Dreadstar 10:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you administration prisonermonkeys is totally out of line. comment added by Haken Arizona 24 October 2014 (UTC) 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talkcontribs)

He's certainly no more out of line than you are. It would be a mistake to see this as a validation of your editing, or your preferred version of the article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

He was deleting my work and I was not touching his. It is clear he is a villain here. He has habit of doing this. Attendance data is accurate enough, and it should be there. prisonermonkeys should not be deleting well sourced data just because he wants to play editor warrior. I would like my attendance data added because that is what Wikipedia is all about, improving the quality of each article. Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talkcontribs) 04:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Scottperry (Result: Locked)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francis Schonken (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: Diff showing the last pre-edit war policy version: 6 July 2014

Note regarding the diff above: The first diff shown above was Francis' first attempt to alter Wikipedia policy without any prior consensus discussion on the policy's talk page. Fortunately User:Flyer22 typically "guards" that page against such changes without any consensus discussion, as she did on that day (July 9) within 5 minutes of Francis' first attempt to foist his preferred NPOV policy onto Wikipedia without any consensus with anyone else.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Diff of July 30th, showing user waited 21 days, then quietly, again reverted/ inserted his personally preferred NPOV policy without any prior consensus discussion on the policy talk page.
  2. Diff of Oct. 23rd, showing reversion made after a very lengthy discussion on the policy talk page (initiated by Scott) specifically about the user's July 30 reversion.
  3. Diff of Oct. 24th, showing user's last policy reversion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revised Diff showing edit war warning (first link was incorrect)Scott P. (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy discussion specifically about this user's July 30 revert, by the bottom of the discussion, it appears that this user no longer has any support at all for his reverts, yet he continues to revert

Comments:

Francis is a seasoned 9 year veteran of Wikipedia, with lots of knowledge of the intricacies of administrative actions. He has a lengthy history of edit-war related blocks. We have been trying to discuss his desired policy change with him now for three days, and ultimately, his last ditch effort to try to save his desired policy change is merely to enter into another edit-war and somehow hope nobody notices? What is he thinking?? He has now wasted my time, and that of many others, with an apparent absolute disregard for consensus. I have not the slightest desire to be up at 4 AM local time having to write this, then go into work when I'm done. I would like to request a one month ban for Francis, banning him from any WP policy pages, so perhaps he might begin to remember exactly what consensus is the next time it occurs to him to behave so disruptively. (This is my first reporting of a 3RR violation. I hope I did it right. Any suggestions as to how I might have done better would be most appreciated. Thanks.) Scott P. (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I wouldn't call Francis Schonken's block log lengthy; I've seen far longer block logs than that. But I understand that your point is that he's been blocked a few times for WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess this is my first time doing this, and any blocks at all are a surprise to me. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Note, no admin actions on any of those. All were resolved privately and on good terms between myself and the other party. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The last link above is actually a bit funny. It's a link to a "rather abortive attempt" by Francis to have me blocked from Wikipedia. As usual, rather than addressing the questions I have posed to him, begging him to show where he got consensus from in any of his reverts, he attempts to derail the conversation by trying to distract everyone away from the topic at hand, namely did he violate 3RR, and did he fail to get consensus before all of his reverts? Francis, if you could simply answer that single question, you would save all of us here from having to waste any more of our time on your antics (or valid concerns). Did you violate 3RR, and did you fail to prove consensus, or not? The longer you refuse to honestly answer that single simple question, the more it becomesobvious what you are really trying to do here, namely to foist your own personal policy agendas onto the rest of Wikipedia, and to use whatever administrative maneuver you can think of, whether transparent or convoluted, to do the foisting. Proposed solution Francis: revert back your own last reversion yourself, and I would be quite happy to let all of this incident report simply go away. Assuming that would be OK with others (though it may not.) Scott P. (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
All of your "alternative suggestions" still don't produce the necessary consensus that you are supposed to wait for before altering WP policy. I suspect that you may be so intent on altering Wikipedia policy like this in order to increase your current domination of some certain fringe articles. Why you think that abandoning consensus as you have here might gain you friends or influence I can't understand. Consensus is a cornerstone of Wikipedia editing. If you don't understand that after 9 years, you baffle me. Scott P. (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, this particular issue is my first "foray" into Wikipedia policy. You know those first edits were done by me in good faith, not yet knowing Wikipedia policy on editing policy itself. Those were not "reversions" either, they were each a different proposal, trying to find common ground. You've been working at Wikipedia policy for years and know full well what the consensus requirements are, yet you still treat the 3RR rule, and consensus requirements with complete disregard. Do you think you are somehow 'above' the rest of us? Scott P. (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to get back to a discussion on content...
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Francis, we are here to discuss one thing primarily, did you, or did you not just violate 3RR? And the related question, did you, or did you not get consensus before trying to foist your own personal policy rules on the rest of us, your highness. We are not here on this page to set up a WP policy debate, that is for the talk pages of policy. As I offered yesterday when you waited until I told you I had just gone to work then you went to the admin noticeboard and whined about how you weren't getting your way, if you could provide a single real proof of consensus in your attempted "unilaterally forced policy change", I would be quite happy to have allowed your edit, but how foolish do you take everyone else to be? You still haven't provided a single evidence of consensus, you try to misdirect and befuddle the conversation here, and yet you still feel you are the "offended party". I would advise you, if you really wanted a block, please just continue with your one-person-policy-debate here, continue to refuse to show evidence of consensus, and continue to hope to befuddle the rest of us with your great policy wisdom. (comment first edited at 11:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)) Last revision to comment: Scott P. (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected (full) for one week. I've also restored the policy back to September 11, 2014, prior to its "current" edit war. It's possible that it should be restored to an even earlier version, but for the moment, I didn't want to go there. Substantive changes to core policy without a clear consensus, generally via the Pump or by a community-wide RfC, are unacceptable. Protracted edit warring over them is blockable, but for the present I'm not meting out blocks. Nonetheless, all editors are warned that if they resume reverting after the lock expires, they may be blocked without notice. Scottperry, you are one of the more culpable editors in this battle, and to address your point ("did you, or did you not just violate 3RR"), the answer is no.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely floored and astounded, and have no reason to continue any further editing of Wikipedia articles at all if this is how policy is now decided here, allowing one single person to dictate to the rest of us, via such tactics, what Wikipedia policy will be. It's probably for the best for me personally, what a waste of my time editing at all in Wikipedia. Scott P. (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bubybyb reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page
Lyme disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bubybyb (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) to 19:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    1. 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lyme disease. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Repeated removal of well sourced content in short time */ new section"
Comments:

Cluebot welcome and warning 15:12, 23 October 2014

Unconstructive editing warning 15:16, 23 October 2014

Looks like a SPA vandal. MrBill3 (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. This is straightforward vandalism and should be treated as such. Once the user has sufficiently vandalized and been appropriately warned, they should be reported to WP:AIV. That hasn't happened yet, and the user has reverted the article twice (serious blanking), which doesn't justify a report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:S4Wikky reported by User:Velella (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Love Jihad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
S4Wikky (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) "Online sources:

www.indianexpress.com www.scroll.in www.indiatimes.com"

  1. 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 21:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked 鈥 for a period of 48 hours. Report is poorly done but filing one was right.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Il Capitan Fracassa reported by User:Muckrkr (Result: Malformed)[edit]

Capitan Fracassa, the chief marketing officer for EidosMedia, deleted virtually the entire entry about his company despite his clear COI because he was upset that it differed from the original version created by a company contractor. He and his employees have repeatedly fought efforts by independent editors to make the entry more neutral. (cur | prev) 13:04, 24 October 2014鈥 Il Capitan Fracassa (talk | contribs)鈥 . . (1,627 bytes) (-5,183)鈥 . . ((More info in Talk page) Edit applied by a company employee, to provide a neutral article, hoping the advertising flag will be removed) (undo | thank) (Tag: HHVM) [83] The edit was reversed by ClueBot NG, but I am concerned that Capitan Fracassa and his fellow employees will strike again based on their past editing patterns.Muckrkr (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined 鈥 malformed report. Please use the "Click here to add a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. I don't think this report belongs here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Purpl9 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: blocked indefinitely)[edit]

Page: Miracle Mineral Supplement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Purpl9 (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. [84]
  2. [85]
  3. [86]
  4. [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]


See User talk:Purpl9 - this is a new account, but clearly not a new contributor. Despite repeatedly being told that sources regarding medical claims need to comply with WP:MEDRS, Purpl9 insists on citing a website promoting a conspiracy theory that the Red Cross is engaged in a coverup as a source for medical claims concerning 'Miracle Mineral Supplement' - a toxic (and on at least one occasion fatal) substance promoted as a 'cure' for HIV, malaria, and more or less every disease know to man. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - none - I asked Purpl9 to use the talk page, to no effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And the edit-warring continues: [89] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
Blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Maincorel (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log) as a likely sock- (or possibly meat-) puppet. The Maincorel account was created 8 minutes after Purpl was blocked, and 3 minutes after that made his first and only edit: a revert back to Purpl's version of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And now another sock has turned up pushing the same crap at Chlorine dioxide [90] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Einsteiniated (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log) blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades Skeptrubador (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log) I am afraid the user has engaged themselves into more suckpoppuetry by creating another user under the same edits summary about the Red Cross and whatnot. (Btw, I didn't know where to put this, so this was my only option). Callmemirela (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Homeostasis07 reported by User:Lapadite77 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Not Your Kind of People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Homeostasis07 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [92] (second revert from Not Your Kind of People page linked above)
  2. [93] (first Control page revert)
  3. [94] (second ^)
  4. [95] (first Big Bright World page revert)
  5. [96] (second ^)
  6. [97] (first Blood For Poppies revert)
  7. [98] (second ^)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100] Control page: [101] (the exact same is stated in Big Bright World and Blood For Poppies talk pages).


Comments:
User has been reverting my recent edits on multiple pages of this band. He is not assuming good faith as evidenced in second diff provided here, and in the process is airing his personal reasons for dismissing such edit (the brief expansion of 2 quotes, for accuracy and balance, which are currently cherry-picked.) Apart from engaging in edit warring (in multiple pages, as linked above), he is engaging in and/or violating WP:TE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK. For context, user has a history of bias particularly against me, and shows no sign of wanting to consider views he disagrees with in the editing/discussion process, implicitly WP:OWN.

I'd like to note that user made the second reverts after responding to the sections I made on the talks pages of the songs (not the Not Your Kind of People album talk page), exemplifying he has no intention of considering it or engaging in anything but what he's already engaged in.
Adding: Reading over an older section on the album鈥檚 talk page, I realize Homeostasis07 has a personal bias against this album. It is strongly suggested in this section he dislikes the album and endorses the negative criticism of it. So, in my recent copy edit of the two quotes from two sources (diffs linked above), again to improve accuracy and balance, which he clearly does not want, the parts of the quotes he reverts/removes, particularly of the second quote, would suggest a less negative response (in how it's contextually stated) from the source than originally as presented. It puts his disagreement here (for this page), ergo his edit warring, in greater context. He even quoted in this section the negative part of the quote he supports. It is clear he does not want to expand the quote for context and accuracy because he has a personal bias here. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:MichaelHolmes36 reported by User:Omnedon (Result: )[edit]

Page: Villa Grove, Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MichaelHolmes36 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)


Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [103]
  2. [104]
  3. [105]
  4. [106]
  5. [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. [108]
  2. [109]

Comments:

Originally this user's efforts to add a non-notable person to an article were countered by another editor (DualFreq) with explanations in the edit summaries. This evening this user made edits which seem to amount to vandalism, removing referenced material and replacing it with unreferenced material, and which were reverted by both DualFreq and by myself. When warned on the user's talk page to stop edit warring, the user ignored this warning and continued reverting. Omnedon (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the original issue: but MichaelHolmes36 deleting this thread [110] doesn't look good... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment from a one-time editor and viewer I see no reason in this editor's editing. They added unnecessary spaces for a template. In addition they removed references in the history then adds the unreferenced section template which totally out of this world. I've seen the history and this user engages themselves in true edit warring by reverting whatever an editor reverted from their edit. I reverted their edit once from my part, but they have reverted me too. I want to revert again, but I believe I've reached my limit. This person needs to be stopped. This is vandalism from my perspective. Callmemirela (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

User:72.198.187.238 reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: )[edit]

Page
Steung Treng Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
72.198.187.238 (talk  contribs  deleted contribs  logs  edit filter log  block user  block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 04:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 04:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 04:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Oddar Meanchey Province. (TW)"
  2. 04:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Steung Treng Province. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Other Cambodia-related articles are involved as well (for example Oddar Meanchey Province. User will not communicate or even use the edit summary. William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)