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.
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:148.197.152.197 and User:Unframboise reported by User:Drmargi (Result: Semi)[edit]

This discussion is closed. If you disagree with the result, consider using WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: CSI: Cyber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of CSI: Cyber episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 148.197.152.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and User being reported: Unframboise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (This is one user, who admittedly edits both with his IP and signed in.)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On CSI: Cyber:

  1. [1] (IP edits)
  2. [2] (now logged in)
  3. [3]
  4. [4]

On List of CSI: Cyber episodes:

  1. [5] (IP edits)
  2. [6] (now logged in)
  3. [7]
  4. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9] Editor claims he has not contravened 3RR because he wasn't logged in the first edit, yet there is a growing pattern of him doing this when he is reverted.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] There's also a brief discussion on List of CSI: Cyber episodes: [11], but the discussion is largely on the main article's talk page.

Comments:
The issue at hand is whether a gossip/entertainment website reporting they "hear" a cast member is leaving the show is a reliable source that he is, in fact, leaving when neither the actor, the show nor the network has confirmed his departure. This is then being re-reported by other sites, none of whom has confirmation from the three main players noted. The site in question regularly reports rumors and gossip, which might be acceptable on the CSI: Cyber Wiki, but doesn't rise to the level of encyclopedic content. The editor continues to ignore WP:RS, WP:BRD and WP:VERIFY in order to attempt to forced the edit; oddly enough, if the actor is leaving the network or production will confirm it when they return to production in mid-summer, so what's the hurry? Most concerning, this editor has edited using a combination of IP and logged in edits more than once to edit war, and has contravened 3RR. He claims the logged out edits are accidental, which simply reinforces his intent, and his knowledge that he's breached WP:3RR. He is also attempting to unilaterally "declare" consensus, which the the discussion regarding the edits in question has degenerated into name calling and squabbling among three very new editors (although I have suspicions this editor is a block evader editing from his school.) It's a total mess. --Drmargi (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


I'd like to add my two cents, if that's okay with everyone. I'd like to note that the first edit (the IP edit) was not a reversion but in fact an original edit. I also noted on the talk:CSI: Cyber page that I was logged out as I accidentally forgot to login. A consensus was reached before I made this edit enabling me to do so, whilst user:drmargi refused to take place in the discussion, despite my urging her to.

A fuller account of my actions, including notes referencing my urging of user:drmargi to join the discussion instead of edit warring can be found below. I hope this resolves itself as I would like to become an established member of the Wikipedia community. After a year editing, this is the first time I have encountered problems such as this.

see: [12]

-- thanks, unframboise, 19:16, 19.05.15 (GMT).

Please note that the first edits (being the ones with IP) were made based on a discussion, in which it was established by valid arguments that the primary source is not a "gossip site" but a top tier source for entertainment news and that the article was written by a well-respected journalist and fact-checked by numerous other well-respected publishers. user:drmargi, however stopped participating in discussion after those arguments were presented. Maybe intentionally, so she can claim that consensus was not reached, but either so, she could state at any time, instead of reverting edits, that she still does not agree and thinks that there is no consensus, or present reasons why she thinks source is unreliable. And she has also been invited to do so. Maticsg1 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Unframboise has reached 3RR and is warned against further reverts. Both articles are semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
user:edjohnston, 3RR calls for four reverts, I reverted three times. As did drmargi. If I am being warned, she should be warned too. I am NOT in breach of the 3RR rule. Anything less than equal treatment for both her and I is playing favourites, and that's a precedent you don't want to set. user:unframboise (user talk:unframboise) 21:58 GMT, 19.05.15
Though I don't see a 3RR violation, I'm giving you extra credit for using both an account and an IP in the same edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
user:edjohnston, I forgot to log in (the IP edit was the first edit made, it wasn't flip-flopping back and forth), I explained to drmargi on my talk page it was a mistake when she asked, and I left a small note on the cyber talk page apologising. This is a 3RR complaint, I shouldn't be warned when even you admit there was no violation. user:unframboise, (user talk:unframboise) 22:17 GMT, 19 May 2015. — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You still knowingly reverted four times. It's not three reverts per account, it's three reverts per editor, and trying to get around that by using two accounts is abuse of multiple accounts, as was pointed out on your talk page. You're damned lucky EdJohnston is lenient. --Drmargi (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you please stop with the accusations that he is trying to get around by using two accounts, when he apologized for forgetting to log in? And the first edit was not a revert, he was simply trying to implement the change in which we (multiple users) saw a consensus. Because you lacked to respond to any of the arguments stated on the Talk page, we assumed you have no counterarguments (qui tacet consentire videtur). So the edit made by his IP was, in fact, an edit, not a revert, and he has immediatly apologized for using IP (before it even got to your attention). Asume good faith. Maticsg1 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, could you please reconsider the decision with taking in account my last post? Thank you. Maticsg1 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:Human3015 reported by User:Mar4d (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: British Pakistanis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Human3015 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:British_Pakistanis#Kashmir_or_Azad_Kashmir

Comments: User has a notorious record of 3RR, and has been blocked multiple times for violations in the past 2 months, including 2 articles where I was personally involved. Unfortunately, Human3015 has clearly not learnt anything from those past experiences and is pursuing the same old confrontational policy of first following me to this article (I have a list of about a dozen other articles Human3015 followed me to in the recent past, having never previously edited them) and then engaging in meaningless edit wars. Please note that I am one of the top contributors of the article concerned, and I already explained why the simple terminology Kashmir is used in the article (to reflect consistency with sources and academic works on the subject). So far, one other user (Faizan) also reverted the changes put in by Human3015, while another admin also agrees with the viewpoint on the article talk page. Human3015 has 3 reverts in the article within a short period of time, in addition to a mysterious Indian IP who added his changes back in. I am certain that this IP was Human3015, as no other editor was present there at that time. Sadly, given Human3015's past record of 3RR violations, this rings alarm bells and I cannot assume much good faith here, as it seems the IP edit was made by Human3015 while logged out in order to ditch the 3RR window, which is a form of gaming the system. I'd like an admin to confirm the identity of the IP and assess whether there should be any action for the 4 reverts. Mar4d (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Mar4d, why you are showing IP's revert? I have done just 3 reverts that to in more than 24 hours, you have done 3 reverts within 24 hours. If we consider Faizan as your another account(as you are considering that IP as me) then you have done 4 reverts in 24 hours. And even after my repeated requests you never came to talk page to discuss this matter on British Pakistanis. You should discuss article related matter on talk page instead on such board.
  • And about my history of block, you can see I was unblocked within 1 hour on my first block because I was done only 2 reverts and I was wrongly blocked. In other 2 blocks(in both of them Ma4d was involved) I was new and old users took advantage of it by making group and I broke 3 RR that time.
  • My last comment regarding this case is, I have done 3 reverts in more than 24 hour period. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 17:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
1) If you want to put allegations of sockpuppetry, go to WP:SPI; 2) An IP, that too from India (the article has no recent edits from such IPs) comes in to revert your favoured version, I don't think it can get any more obvious; add your three reverts, and bingo, 3 + 1 = 4; 3) You clearly know which articles you were blocked in recently for 3RR; 4) Your impatience and refusal to discuss is an issue. You barged into an article where you had no previous edit history, and changed text/terminology that has been like the way it is for years. You did not even wait to hear for a response, let alone consensus, from the involved editors, and yet reverted two different users up to four times, while a third one also disagrees. Seems blatant to me. Mar4d (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor: I see Human3015 opening a talk discussion [19] and Mar4d not responding. What possible objection can he have to a genuine effort to disambiguate? The name of the province involved is clearly Azad Kashmir. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong, I have already stated my reply. And btw I have written large sections of that article, while none of you two appear to have any edit history there. So please do not attempt to give the false impression as if I am uninvolved. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If one sees my first three comments on talk page of British Pakistanis it shows date 19th May and 20th May, and in that long time instead of using talk page Mar4d was busy in reverting edits.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 18:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who made the undiscussed changes to the article. As the editor making changes to a longstanding article, the onus is on you to get consensus first for the changes you made. If you think you will simply be able to jump into an article and impose your views, you are under the wrong impression. Mar4d (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, If you are editing that article since long time then does it makes you owner of that article? You should read Wikipedia policies, there is no difference in you and me regarding rights of editing any article. You didn't came to talk page for discussion and you engaged in edit war. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 18:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Admin, you may not read entire discussion so I will summarize myself, I have not done 4 reverts, I have done 3 reverts that too in more than 24 hour time period. Also I have done all attempts to discuss that issue on talk page of that involved article but I didn't got any response from involved users.Human3015 Say Hey!! • 19:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

User:David Neil Johnson reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
QR code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
David Neil Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663330953 by Joseph2302 (talk) Spammer just started uploading fake readers last week."
  2. 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663330265 by Sargdub (talk) You were using a wrong reader. Some readers lead you to spam links."
  3. 22:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663325518 by Mindmatrix (talk) Liar, since in my side, it goes to wikipedia."
  4. 22:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663323656 by Mindmatrix (talk) it doesn't work for my old laptop."
  5. 22:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC) "wrong format"
  6. [20]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  2. 23:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on QR code. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Keeps changing the QR code, claiming it doesn't work- the new one links to Youtube not Wikipedia. According to them, their QR code links to Wiki, but for everyone else involved, it links to Youtube. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've flagged the misleading File:Wikipedia_mobile_en.jpg for deletion from the commons. -- Autopilot (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Blocked and reported at Commons. Sockpuppet of the ceiling fan vandal. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ism schism reported by User:Anders Feder (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Ahmad Keshvari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ism schism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

The article and the content in question was created by long-running sockpuppeteer Srahmadi, who Ism schism was covering for in the related ANI. Despite the burden to demonstrate verifiability lying with the editor who restores material, Ism schism provides no evidence for the reliability of the source whatsoever. The source, "Tebyan", is owned by "Islamic Dissemination Organization", a notoriously unreliable propaganda outlet of the Iranian theocracy.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. There has been no edits since 14:14Z. Prior to that you both made two reverts each. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
What was "declined"?--Anders Feder (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
An admin declined to take action on your report. You and the other party both reverted twice, which doesn't break 3RR. If you believe a source is not usable, make a request at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Why am I the one who should make a request at WP:RSN if the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the other editor?--Anders Feder (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Because you are the one questioning the reliability of the source and you want an independent assessment of whether the source is suitable. The other editor isn't going to make a request because they are happy with the quality of the source. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: Please point me to the rule or guideline suggesting that the burden is on me to make the request if I am the the one questioning the reliability of the source.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand - it isn't a rule or guideline, it's about the way things work at WP. If an editor thinks a source is reliable, then they aren't going to ask for a review; it is the editor who thinks it might be unreliable that will do that. This is the same as any other process here - would you expect, for example, someone to report themselves to WP:ANI if you think they are behaving inappropriately? Or would you report them? The latter is more likely. So the recommendation being made to you is that if you want a second opinion supporting your view that the source isn't reliable, then you have the option of asking at the WP:RSN. If you don't ask, nobody else is going to and the issue will be unresolved. I think that's particularly true in this example because the AfD resulted in the article being kept in part because the contention that the sources were unreliable was not accepted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in whether the editor who restored the material is "going to ask for a review" or indeed what he is "happy with". I'm interested in following the norms described in WP:BURDEN.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Which says inter alia "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (my emphasis). The editor in question has done exactly that: provided a citation to a source that in their opinion meets the requirements of WP:RS. They have discharged their responsibilities under WP:BURDEN. What you are actually questioning is whether the source is biased, which is a separate issue because biased sources are not disallowed - it is all about context and balance. WP:NEUTRALSOURCE has a good discussion on this point. So, in my opinion, you are not going to get support for removing the material supported by the sources you don't like without a wider conversation. Given the article talk page is not active I think you should try WP:RSN - but that's your decision. Unless someone with more knowledge wants to wade in and correct me, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in policy or normal practice that says the other editor should be asking for a review. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't questioned "whether the source is biased" at all. I have questioned whether it is reliable and I have received no evidence to contrary whatsoever. Nor has anyone else. I would be happy to go to WP:RSN by myself if it wasn't such a dysfunctional place. The last time I took one of the same editor's crank sources there, I got no response at all.[26]--Anders Feder (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:89.205.106.87 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked for vandalism)[edit]

Page
Skopje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
89.205.106.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 12:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC) to 12:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    1. 12:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
    2. 12:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
  3. 12:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
  4. 12:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Editing tests on Skopje. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Blocked 24 hours, these edits appear to be simple vandalism. Fut.Perf. 13:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Arminden reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Ancient history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Arminden (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, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663442258--Yes. Did you? "Recorded" is linked to "History of writing", not Adam & Eve/first hominins. So IT BEGINS WITH WRITTEN RECORDS, not earlier."
  2. 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663439684--sorry, u didn't understand. prehistory=by definition history WITHOUT writing. here the TOPIC is ancient hist=by definition: hist WITH written records! Geology also HAPPENS, but is not history."
  3. 18:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663359135-I did, did you? Prehistory=by def. NO WRITTEN RECORD. Ancient hist.=BY DEF. a span of RECORDED HIST. So 100% clear, nothing to talk about, best: remove PREHIST altogether from here"
  4. 00:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "You cannot put "Prehistory" as part of "Ancient history"! As an introduction, OK, but then IT NEEDS TO BE MARKED AS SUCH. If not, it's a plain mistake, giving the wrong info to the user."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

No blocks but there are several warnings for edit-warring on Arminden's talk page so I'm assuming an understanding of 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Bl00dpaste reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Aion: Steel Cavalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bl00dpaste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [27]
  2. 00:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663474780 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
  3. 00:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663474233 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
  4. 00:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663438153 by Eik Corell (talk)"
  5. 23:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Classes */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  2. 00:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Aion: Steel Cavalry. (TW)"
  3. 00:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Aion: Steel Cavalry. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Addition of unsourced content to this page despite repeated warnings. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And not stopping after being informed of this discussion. They asked a question of my talkpage, but ignored the response, which was "without reliable sources, this is original research, which cannot be accepted". Joseph2302 (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Warned. It is now 23 hours since the last revert, and we have this comment by Bl00dpaste suggesting he may have stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Squgaltutti4427 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Squgaltutti4427 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 12:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 12:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Repeated re-addition of material that has been removed for being unsourced or improperly sourced trivia, in spite of having been warned for it; not getting the hint even though he has been reverted by three different editors. Thomas.W talk 14:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Anders Feder reported by User:Ism schism (Result: )[edit]

Page: Ahmad Keshvari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anders Feder (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]
  2. [30]
  3. [31]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32] [33]

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

Comments:
The editor was advised to make a request at Reliable Sources, but instead continued to edit war. See [35]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - No he/she did not need to go to reliable sources noticeboard. That is for things which may or may not be reliable. As for the sources on the Ahmad Keshvari page, they are clearly not even close to being reliable sources as they do do not constitute a free press and simply act as an ululating instrument for the Iranian theocracy. Mbcap (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:165.219.245.62 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Michael Gableman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
165.219.245.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663582955 by 32.218.42.167 (talk)"
  2. 19:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663581888 by 32.218.42.167 (talk) The source is the lack of a charge."
  3. 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "User has not pointed to any source showing a violation."
  4. 19:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663565929 by 32.218.42.167 (talk)"
  5. 15:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  6. 18:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663431584 by 32.218.45.184 (talk) source is the public domain citation."
  7. Consecutive edits made from 16:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC) to 16:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    1. 16:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "Included key cases authored by Justice Gableman"
    2. 16:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Important Decisions */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The IP assigned to the Wisconsin Court System, so this user has an obvious conflict of interest in editing articles relating to the Wisconsin court system and its judges and justices. Adding undue, unsourced content, which counts as massive BLP violation Joseph2302 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:MvH reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Article protected)[edit]

Page: Hamid Arabnia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MvH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=625070284&oldid=625070082

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663398645&oldid=663395703

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663407717&oldid=663400738

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663418029&oldid=663408286

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663421295&oldid=663419609

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663438120&oldid=663422944

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663446661&oldid=663443942

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663454323&oldid=663452501

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663473533&oldid=663457088

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663473533&oldid=663457088

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663494190&oldid=663487672

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663535075&oldid=663516214


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I wasn't engaged in the article originally.

Comments:

Edit-warring with User:Vivek-jones, also reported below. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 5 days. Generally we don't like to see primary sources used negatively in a BLP article with no further reflection. The fact that some of the conferences organized by Hamid Arabnia are no longer indexed by DBLP may be neither here nor there. DBLP might be trying to conserve their own resources. DBLP might be discontinuing the indexing of many other conferences as well. You should find a secondary source to establish the significance. If you need more input on this, try WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Vivek-jones reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Article protected)[edit]

Page: Hamid Arabnia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vivek-jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=625070284&oldid=625070082

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663400738&oldid=663398645

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663408286&oldid=663407717

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663419609&oldid=663418029

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663422944&oldid=663421295

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663443942&oldid=663438120

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663446937&oldid=663446661

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663457088&oldid=663454323

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663475202&oldid=663473533


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I wasn't originally involved at the article.

Comments:
Edit-warring with User:MvH, also reported above. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 5 days. See the report above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Saqraat reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Chitral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Saqraat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 09:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 05:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 04:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663631413 by Ian.thomson (talk)"
  5. 04:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 663630519 by Ian.thomson (talk)"
  6. 04:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Chitral."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring, and also suspected sock of Najaf ali bhayo per this SPI. Thomas.W talk 15:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours after the user reverted again. I haven't looked into the sockpuppetry, but I'm addressing the immediate issue of the edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:YF&B76 and User:Tqycolumbia reported by User:Flyer22 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Maria Sachs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YF&B76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Tqycolumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the users' reverts:

First round

  1. [37]
  2. [38]
  3. [39]
  4. [40]
  5. [41]

Second round

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

Third round

  1. [46]
  2. [47]
  3. [48]
  4. [49]

Fourth round

  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]

Fifth round

  1. [54]
  2. [55]
  3. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have not warned the editors; I brought this matter here because this WP:Edit war, which has been happening since 2014, looks like it would continue even if I warned them to stop. Skimming Tqycolumbia's talk page and edit history, for example, I don't see where he has ever engaged in talk page discussion. And the YF&B76 account doesn't have much of an edit history, but is familiar with some of Wikipedia's ways, and has reverted Tqycolumbia as an IP. And Tqycolumbia has reverted YF&B76 as an IP.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See what I stated above.

Comments:

I see TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) in the edit history; he might still have the article on his WP:Watchlist, but gave up on it when seeing the edit war. And Huon attempted to help. I'm not necessarily asking that Tqycolumbia and YF&B76 be WP:Blocked (well, unless they need it), but rather that something be done to stop this WP:Edit war...whether it's WP:Full protection of the article or something else. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I frankly dont remember much about this article, but it does appear to have longtime partisan editing issues and would fall under WP:ARBAP if there is anything that would help. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, TheRedPenOfDoom. Also, the way I divided the edits above as "rounds" is not based on anything. It's just there were so many diff-links to list and I spaced them so as to not lose track of any of them and accidentally repeat one of them (or make some other mistake with them). Then I decided it looked cleaner by being spaced and titled. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of this was that I was unfamiliar with how to appropriately address this issue. Though I have made a number of contributions to Wikipedia articles, I am not deeply experienced in the policies and procedures when it comes to stuff like this. I have established a precedent of writing biographies of Florida legislators, so this back-and-forth was confusing to me. It doesn't make sense for an article about an elected official to not have any mention of elections. I have done my best to rewrite the sections to be as neutral as possible, but it doesn't seem as though the user is interested in negotiating, as everything has been reverted. Even simple changes, like successors and predecessors, were continually reverted, even though they follow the established protocol of other pages. I am glad that someone else stepped in, I will gladly abide by whatever decision is made, and if there is policy that I can be made aware of for the future, I welcome that as well.. Tqycolumbia (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Tqycolumbia (talk · contribs). Instead of WP:Pinging you back here if need be, I'll simply state that you should keep checking back here until this thread is resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say User:YF&B76 has repeatedly been removing well-sourced content, at times with deceptive edit summaries such as "(WP:YESPOV) Rather than deleting material, I have modified biased leaning language". Now YF&B76 had a point in that the language was at times more flowery than it should have been, but wholesale removal of sourced content is not the answer, and neither is edit-warring. Even accepting that YF&B76 is acting in good faith, this is getting disruptive, and YF&B76 should start discussing his concerns on the article talk page instead of removing the good with the bad. Huon (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Since User:YF&B76 hasn't edited since 22 April a block wouldn't make much sense. Perhaps a warning to both parties. Neither of these two editors has ever used the talk page. User:Tqycolumbia has responded diplomatically and they are likely to follow the advice given. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Huon and EdJohnston. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: User:YF&B76 and User:Tqycolumbia are both warned for long-term edit warring. Use the talk page to explain the changes you want to make, and try to get support from others. Further undiscussed reverts may cause you to be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AnulBanul reported by User:Dragodol (Result: )[edit]

Page: Posavina Canton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sokollu Mehmed Pasha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AnulBanul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User:AnulBanul has been edit-warring with several wikipedia users on multiple articles, including with me.

On Posavina Canton, he/she moved the Bosnian language translation behind the Croatian and Serbian translation in the intro. The country is called BOSNIA and Herzegovina, not Serbia or Croatia. If Croatian and Serbian translations are necessary, I would think they would follow the BOSNIAN translation, since that is the country after all. I reverted his/her edit, only to have him-her revert me with "Nope.." as the explanation for the reversal. I reverted that and wrote ""Nope" is no where near a decent explanation for this POV mess you're trying to create all over wikipedia", in reference to the constant edit wars and edits that this user makes, which are often reverted by several users. The user reverted me again, claiming that Bosnia is merely a "Region" and not a country. On my talk page, the user posted this: "Bosnian translation goes first because Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country? What kind of logic is that? Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages, even if it does, Bosnian still wouldn't be numero uno. :D" (He-She added a cute little smiley face at the end of the post for no reason. Bosnia-Herzegovina DOES, in fact, have official languages, contrary to User:AnulBanul's uneducated claim.

On West Herzegovina Canton (which the user has an obsession with, I'm assuming he-she lives/lived there), the edit history is self-explanatory.

On Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, I reverted some users attempts to Serbianze a 16th century Bosnian man. User:AnulBanul reverted me, claiming that the Bosnian language didn't exist in the 1500s, but that Serbo-Croatian did, it just wasn't called Serbo-Croatian. ?????????? Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian is literally the same language. How does AnulBanul think this is logical to say that Bosnian didn't exist back then in any shape or form, but Serbo-Croatian did. EXCUSE ME??!? I reverted that and wrote "It's interesting that you makes excuses for the Serbo-Croatian "language"'s existence but Bosnian didn't exist; I never denied that the Serbian Orthodox existed, I said that there is no proof that he was part of that specific denomination." The user reverted me and wrote the very mature and professional summary "what the hell was he?! A Chinese Orthodox?".--Dragodol (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The country is Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, Bosnian language is one spoken by Bosniaks - Bosniam Muslims, and it is not an official language, since Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages. Moreover, Croats and Serbs have equal status to Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and all three languages are equal in that sense. Moreover, we're talking only about three different standardisations of one Serbo-Croatian language. Croats make majority in Posavina Canton, and are followed by Serbs, and then Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks. Your interpretation on language order is hardly acceptable and against customs, which can be confirmed by other users. Regardless, I have been careful not to violate the 3RR rule and explained my reverts where necessary. In this case, I believe the explanation was hardly necessary, especially after silly explanation that Bosnia is a country, and that's the reason why Bosnian language should come first. It's just stupid, sorry.
Nobody tried to "serbianize" a 16th century Ottoman man. But, it is important to note that he made his brother - Makarije Sokolović, the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church and reestablished it. You may say he was an alien, it's your opinion. Mehmed-pasha had a South Slavic, Serbian origin. Bosnian language is a late 20th century political innovation, Serbo-Croatian however, did exist, but its name was coined only later after national identities have been shaped in 19th century. Moreover, it is actually you who started reverting edits, and not me. --AnulBanul (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note @Dragodol: You listed the same article three times at the top, so I removed the two dupes. Based on the body of your complaint, I assume it was a mistake and that you intended to list other articles. Feel free to add them to the top of this report for clarity.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Bbb23. Yes, it was a mistake.--Dragodol (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: When people start revert warring about the order of languages in the article lead we can interpret this as nationalist edit warring. Both AnulBanul and Dragodol have been alerted about WP:ARBMAC, and both were warned in April for edit warring here at this board. (Dragodol used to be Sabahudin9). I propose a three-month topic ban for both editors from everything to do with Bosnia and Herzegovina. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Redfoxjump reported by User:BlackRanger88 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redfoxjump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [57]
  2. [58]
  3. [59]
  4. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592–98)#Edits May 22nd (Resistance Actions)

Comments:

The user being reported has reverted the same content four times between the time period: (06:30, 23 May 2015‎) - (05:35, 24 May 2015‎), which explicitly violates Wikipedia's "Three-Revert-Rule". I gave a thorough explanation regarding the logic behind my initial content addition on the article's talk page. However, in each instance, the user Redfoxjump reverted my edit despite the academic sourcing I had provided. The only reason I haven't reverted his/her most recent edits is because I know that Redfoxjump will simply repeat the pattern of behavior already exhibited, and I don't want to escalate the situation into a pointless reverting/edit war. Additionally, Redfoxjump attempted to add his/her own POV addition to the article on the illogical basis that it was only "fair" that they got to add a sentence if I added one. I have included the diffs of this here.

  1. [62] "You are not fair. I will add my sentence if you add your sentence."
  2. [63] "You are not fair. I will add my sentence if you add your sentence."

BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR. This dispute has been running for more than two months. (A previous AN3 complaint was declined in March). Though User:Redfoxjump has participated on talk, their comments are hard to follow. It's possible that their knowledge of English is not enough for this kind of a negotiation. Unless admins find some useful way to intervene, it looks that this will go on forever. It would be sad if we have to impose long-term full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:107.15.55.134 (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [65]
  2. [66]
  3. [67]
  4. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:

  • No one can accuse me of being a fan of RGloucester, but there's no case to answer for here. Not only is Gloucester nowhere near violating 3RR, as they have only reverted once in the last 24 hours, the person behind this IP has been pushing the change since the end of April, and has been reverted by both User:Cambalachero and RGloucester. In my opinion, this essay should be semi-protected, as this IP user has no business mucking around with it. For what it's worth, the IP's changes consist of adding a refimprove tag in, which is obviously inappropriate as this is not an article (something that was pointed out ages ago) and changing content without attempting to gain consensus (although the ref used does appear to support the claim) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected (semi) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Aostachuk reported by User:79.228.24.190 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Kurt Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aostachuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Goldstein&oldid=660383564

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aostachuk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kurt_Goldstein Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]


Comments:
Sorry, I do not have much experience with Wikipedia. The user Aostachuk is repeatedly changing existing data, and replacing it by historically wrong data. He has done so before and was corrected. And now he is doing it again, without discussing or explaining the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.24.190 (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

79.228.24.190 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:68.112.152.148 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.112.152.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [72]
  2. [73]
  3. [74] - User warned about 3rr by [[User:Jytdog
  4. [75]
  5. [76] - Reported
  6. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

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

Comments:
Material in the article is reliably and neutrally sourced. The IP editor is a proponent of the subject's conspiracy theories, and has accused us of being part of some "govt defamation department." They only way the edits are better than vandalism is that the IP is under the delusion he's helping. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits have now become vandalism. Another edit will result in a report at WP:AIV. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:100.37.64.197 reported by User:SuperHamster (Result: )[edit]

Page: Mario Kart: Double Dash‼ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 100.37.64.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. May 25, 2015
  2. May 18, 2015
  3. May 14, 2015
  4. May 11, 2015
  5. May 1, 2015
  6. April 27, 2015
  7. April 27, 2015
  8. April 26, 2015
  9. March 28, 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notified of content guidlelines and edit warring with this notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  • Notified editor of guidelines and to visit the article's talk page with this notice (no response)
  • Repeatedly told of guidelines and to visit the article's talk page with the following reverts from myself and other editors:

Comments:
Over the last few weeks, a single IP editor (previously blocked for vandalism) has been re-adding excessive "gameplay guide" content to Mario Kart: Double Dash‼. Repeatedly reverted by multiple editors, told of policies and to discuss, without any sign of stopping or discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)