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: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
[1]; diff of edit that the first edit below (22 Nov.) was reverting: [2]
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: [3]), "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 [4]) 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: Blocked)[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. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]
  4. [8]
  5. [9]
  6. [10]
  7. [11]
  8. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

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)
  • If either User:PleaseConsider or User:Lithistman continues to revert, they may be blocked for edit warring without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Look at my edits. They're not reverts. I was working on pruning the article, and PC came in just blind reverting everything. LHMask me a question 14:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Carpo- Rusyn‎ reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)[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)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. This may be the same editor as 80.50.149.116, 83.16.13.64 and 80.55.8.138. These three IPs from Szczecin, Poland have all now been blocked by User:Kevin Gorman. Carpo-Rusyn as well as the three IPs all try to add information about Ronald Reagan's private life to the Gary Hart article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 25 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: Blocked)[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: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]
  5. [20]
  6. [21]
  7. [22]
  8. [23]

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)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – 48 hours. Unless others disagree, I'm planning to indef all the other accounts listed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandyunderhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Markbassett reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Objections to evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Markbassett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  • [25] 15:59, November 24, 2014. Introduction of new paragraph, not a reversion.
  1. [26] 16:28, November 24, 2014. Re-added paragraph.
  2. [27] 16:38, November 24, 2014. Re-added paragraph.
  3. [28] 17:32, November 24, 2014. Re-added paragraph.
  4. [29] 16:14, November 25, 2014. Re-added paragraph.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30] 17:40, November 24, 2014

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

Comments:
Clear case of four reverts in a 24-hour period, the fourth following a warning against edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Director reported by User:Aleksa Lukic (Result: Locked; warned)[edit]

Page: Split, Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Director (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split,_Croatia&action=history

Alex discussion 21:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"Rollback biased, badly-sourced nonsense, and changes that fly in the face of cited sources. Per WP:BRD. Discuss on talk. Will rollback non-consensus changes", yet he reverted two users constantly throughout out the weekend and today. It appears that user has already violated 3RR a few days ago by reverting just passed the 24 hour threshold form the original revert (by fifty miniutes). Shockingly, they did the same today with their final revert (just by a minute). AcidSnow (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Nothing shocking about this at all, I'm afraid: standard-issue Balkans nationalist POV-pushing. I requested that the user bring his changes to the talkpage, explaining in the summary that said changes go against cited sources, and generally require discussion. The user Tzowu simply edit-warred, no doubt hoping something exactly like this will happen and I alone will be sanctioned, allowing for him and his friends to altogether ignore sources and user opposition, avoid DR - even avoiding the bother of talkpage discussion and of having to at least try to justify the nonsense they are pushing. Users Tzowu and IvanOS both join us from Croatia (as I do myself), are often found pushing the same views, and I personally suspect they were working together with the aforementioned goal in mind. The problems with the edit are many, and this is not the place to discuss them, but are pretty typical of this sort of slanted "intervention" into a Balkans article. What little sources are presented seem to be either liberally interpreted (OR), or are at least contradicted by others already cited in the article, and upon which the article is based. The rest is arbitrary nonsense.

I would have reported the behavior, but frankly from experience I did not judge that to be a useful move. If sanctions are to be dealt out for this creeping edit war, I hope they are dealt out fairly. Personally I think all that's necessary is to protect the article at the status quo ante, and to point Tzowu to WP:BRD, i.e. the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is, two wrongs don't make a right. Even then you all should have been at the Talk Page instead of edit warring; which none of you bothered to do. So it won't be surprising if you guys are all blocked. AcidSnow (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right, two wrongs don't make a right, and I should have posted something on the talkpage, but: #1 I've been around a long time on Wiki and, without this edit-war, I doubt the whole incident would have garnered any response at all from the community - I don't think there's anything I could have done that would have been much use; and #2 I didn't think it necessary to post anything on the talkpage since I already explained the basic problem in the edit summary: unsourced data, sources conflict. And, not being the one proposing new changes to the article, I thought the ball was firmly in Tzowu's court to post a thread explaining the sourcing (if any) behind the unsourced bits, and elaborating more clearly on what his sources state... I don't think he feels like it, frankly. -- Director (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
That's why we have Noticeboards so we can bring an issue to the community. Going to the talk-page greatly helps explain your reasons since you limited when using an edit summary. Anyways, I have reviewed some of the things that you claimed that were unsourced or were not supported by the sources that were cited. I could be wrong but you seem to be wrong about that. You also removed [citation needed] when they were needed. Others were in Croatian so I did not bother to check. Are these what you were referring to in your edit summarizes? AcidSnow (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The basic problem is Tzowu introducing the idea that the city of Split was under the rule of Croatian king Peter Kresimir IV - which is a claim I explicitly tried to confirm when writing the history section, and could not (as I said in the relevant edit summary). The sources which the history section uses make no mention of that alleged rule, and I suspect that Tzowu may be mistaking a sort of "caretakership", sanctioned by the Byzantine emperor, for sovereign rule. Further, Tzowu is attempting to introduce the notion that the city was ruled as part of the Croatian crown in the Hungarian-Croatian personal union... even the very existence of a personal union is uncertain and disputed by some historians, and I can not imagine what respectable source could possibly claim which part of the realm was ruled under which crown. The city was under a royal charter, submitting to and capitulating directly to the person of the king, whereas even if they were part of a title, they could only be claimed by the Hungarian kings as part of their title of "King of Dalmatia", not "Croatia", etc...
D'you see why I didn't think this issue would interest a lot of people, short of when it escalates like this? The only people who could get into this are a) users like myself honestly interested in the (extremely complicated and obscure) history of the city, and b) users like Tzowu who are shocked when they find some place where Wikipedia does not follow the POV line from Croatian primary school curricula (wherein Croatia veritably ruled half of Europe at one time or another). I'm sorry to say I've had dealings with the fellow on previous occasions... -- Director (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Nah, if what you're saying is true then none of its true. Seeing how the city was under "nominal suzerainty of Hungary-Croatia" it's impossible for any forgein ruler to poses any real control. " Croatian primary school curricula (wherein Croatia veritably ruled half of Europe at one time or another)", your killing me lol. Anyways, none of this changes anything since no one should be doing such things. I believe a strong warning to both sides and a page protection tell the matter is resolved is the bet conclusion. AcidSnow (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected (full) for one week. Aleksa Lukic, next time you file a report here, follow the instructions. If this continues after the lock expires, any editor edit warring risks being blocked without notice, in particular Director and Tzowu.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:EEng reported by User:Bloom6132 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:05, November 25, 2014
  2. 04:38, November 26, 2014
  3. 05:31, November 26, 2014
  4. 05:49, November 26, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:43, November 26, 2014

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

Comments:

Four reverts within 24 hours, the last one made after I had warned him to stop edit warring. BlueMoonset, who was reverted the first two times, offered to discuss this on WT:DYK with EEng, but to no avail. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:XavierGreen reported by User:Nick-D (Result: )[edit]

Page: Template:WW2InfoBox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XavierGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Consensus version is [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [34] (23 Nov)
  2. [35] (24 Nov)
  3. [36] (25 Nov)
  4. [37] (26 Nov - reinstating a disruptive POV tag which had been removed in the previous edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38], [39], [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at Talk:World War II#Anti-Finnish bias

Comments:
A lengthy RfC on which countries, if any, to include in the World War II article's infobox (which exists as a separate template) was recently concluded at Talk:World War II#Request for comment: WWII infobox, with the consensus being to list only 'Allies' and 'Axis', and not identify any specific countries in the inbox. I implemented this consensus after the discussion was closed by admin Number 57 (talk · contribs). XavierGreen did not agree with this position during the RfC, and shortly after I implemented the consensus started adding separate listings for Finland, Iraq and Thailand, claiming that the omission of Finland specifically represents "anti-Finnish bias". This position has attracted no support in the discussion in the discussion at Talk:World War II#Anti-Finnish bias, and Xavier has been asked there to not slap a POV tag on the template as it adds this to the World War II article (one of the most-viewed Wikipedia articles) and is over the top given that the RfC recently reached a consensus on this issue. Despite this, he's continuing to edit war. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In the "incident" reported above I acted in good faith and i am quite surprised to see my name listed here. The position i took was NOT MENTIONED in the RFC, i asked Nick-D to show me where it was you failed to do so. I have exposed a legitimate problem regarding neutrality, i have not edit warred and after my second edit was reverted i placed a comment about my concerns on the appropriate talk page and a POV hat on the page to notify readers that there was a dispute regarding neutrality, which as i understand it is the correct procedure for such issues. I feel that user:Nick-D has acted in bad faith in placing me here in an attempt to quash any potential neutrality issues regarding the implementation of the RFC result which he supported actively.XavierGreen (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Its a bit concering that you reverted again (for the 6th time) and this time with no effort to join the ongoing conversation that your aware of. -- Moxy (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
How have i not joined the ongoing conversation? I participated in the RFC and i started the relevant thread on the talk page. Those 6 edits you show were not all reversions, and as i stated above after i was reverted in placing finland as a co-belligerent, i tried to place a pov-hatnote on the page which you yourself reverted in bad faith!XavierGreen (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that i will be going away for the next few days for the thanksgiving holiday, so i may not be able to respond to any further comments for the next couple of days.XavierGreen (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me that User:XavierGreen is refusing to accept the result of a valid RfC. There may still be time for him to respond here and agree to accept consensus. If not, it appears that a block may be necessary to stop the edit war. Adding a POV hatnote is just another way to continue the war. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you read the RFC discussion and my comments on the relevant talk page? I am not disputing the result of the RFC, from what i read the scope of the RFC was to merge all the members of the Allies and Axis into those respective monikers on the page's infobox. There was no mention in the RFC as to the status of co-belligerents which were not members of the Axis and Allies. Finland was not a member of the Axis Alliance as it did not sign the Tripartite Pact which was the legal document establishing the alliance. Finland specifically did not sign the pact so as to avoid being considered an Axis power during the conflict. It is both un-historical and non-neutral to list Finland as a member of the Axis which is why in the previous version of the infobox it was listed as a co-belligerent (along with Thailand and Iraq) apart from the Axis powers. I have asked both on the WWII talk page and here for editors opposing me to show me where exactly in the RFC co-belligerent powers are discussed and where it is stated that such states should be lumped together with the Axis states. As of yet no one has shown me.XavierGreen (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
In my view, it is up to you to find explicit talk page support for the change you want to make. Please link to where you received support. If you do not fully understand what the RfC decided, why not ask User:Number 57 for clarification, since he was the closer. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's a bit of a red herring: the opening questions in the RfC made it very clear that it covered all possible countries to be included in the infobox or not (with option 1, which ended up being the consensus, being "Should World War II's infobox only have links to Allies of World War II and Axis powers?"). It's concerning that you're trying to Wikilawyer what was a pretty clear cut RfC. Nick-D (talk)
Now Xavier is trying to re-open the RfC by appealing for input from Wikiproject Finland and Wikiproject Military History [41] [42], with neither post noting that there's recently been a RfC on this topic. This is clear-cut WP:POINT behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
As i already indicated above, I am not trying to reopen the RFC! I am trying to get input on the neutrality issue i raised at the talk page! The discussion on the issue has not even run 12 hours. You criticize me for edit-warring, yet when i bring up a legitimate concern and try to follow the rules you attack me for following them. I don't know why you seem to have it out for me, and i'm rather taken aback by your remarks. Is being objective and trying to implement neutrality not one of the most important principals to follow when editing wikipeida Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? XavierGreen (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)