Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like 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 from 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 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. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Ckatz (Result: 3 days)

Page: Dwarf planet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kwamikagami has been repeatedly editing the dwarf planet article, and numerous articles related to that topic, to reflect a perspective that he favours. The pages have used a convention for the past five years (since the IAU conference in late August 2006) that uses the IAU as the basis for what is categorized as a dwarf planet and what is a candidate for that category. There is currently an active RfC at Talk:Dwarf planet discussing the matter, an RfC that was brought about in large part due to Kwamikagami's repeated changes. While the RfC is by no means complete, there is clearly no consensus on the talk page for the changes that he is proposing, and specifically there is no consensus for him to repeatedly make his changes while the RfC is under way. Tonight, his newest tactic has been to delete a core section of the page in protest. While I am certain that Kwamikagami is operating with good intentions, his tactics are inappropriate and his arguments have been described as "speculation and synthesis".

For my part, I'll certainly admit to having been involved in trying to undo his changes. However, please note that I was not the first editor to remove his changes, nor have I been the only one since then. Furthermore, I'm not looking for a block at this time as I would really prefer it if Kwamikagami would indeed heed the concerns that have been raised about his actions. He has been repeatedly asked by myself and other editors to respect the spirit RfC and avoid pushing through his changes without a proper consensus to do so. I am hoping that a warning from a party unconnected with the dispute can get through to him where I and others have not been successful. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• 1st change: 24 August 2011
• Affected articles include Dwarf planet, plutoid, Haumea, Makemake and others

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here (dif)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Dwarf_planet#Is being a DP dependent on magnitude?
• Talk:Dwarf planet#Administrative or scientific?
• Talk:Dwarf planet#Moving On
• Talk:Dwarf planet#RfC: What is a dwarf planet?
• Talk:Dwarf planet#Sources for gatekeeping
• Talk:Dwarf planet#This is going nowhere

and a request for input on the repeated changes enacted by Kwamikagami while the RfC is under way:

• Talk:Dwarf_planet#Repeated changes to DP articles while RfC is in progress

Comments: Given that Kwamikagami is an active contributor to the project, with many useful edits, and a sysop to boot, I have been reluctant to bring these actions to this forum. I have tried to reason with Kwami, but he has repeatedly rejected the opinions of others in continuing to change the articles in question. He is actively participating in the RfC, which is good; the problem lies in the repeated attempts to change the page to his preferred version during the RfC, and despite objections from others. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated 13 13 October 2011:

Kwamikagami has subsequently deleted material from the dwarf planet page twice more, with both deletions being rejected by other editors:

• here, restored by Ruslik0 as " disruptive removal of content";
• here again, claiming "no pretend science" and restored by Kheider

--Ckatz^chat_spy 18:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ckatz is edit warring despite repeated objections from several other editors that his desire to restrict sources on a scientific FA to what he considers "official" is non-scientific. I have removed the section to the talk page (only to be reverted), as no matter which direction I try to edit it, or which editors' opinions I use as the basis for those edits, Ckatz reverts to to an out-dated version which does not reflect current RS's. I suppose we could rescind FA status, but I hate to do that. — kwami (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami continues his edit warring by disruptively removing content (which has been there for a few years) from a featured article. The only way to stop this is a block. Ruslik_Zero 08:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not disruptive to move dated material to the talk page until we can agree on how to update it, especially when we have editors such as yourself insisting on using nonsensical definitions of concepts they don't understand. — kwami (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My own opinion on it, both editors should step back and refrain from editing the article while non-involved editors try to reach a consensual decision on the issue. It just seems like this will end up going badly, especially considering both users are sysops and should know better than to squabble over content and consequently violate 3RR in the process. Maybe try WP:DR? + Crashdoom ^Talk 09:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Kwami has twisted the facts to support his point of view. I am also growing tired of him intentionally misquoting my statements and insisting that he knows better than the rest of us. I also find edits like this to be unproductive. -- Kheider (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it needs to be stopped. If a block is the only way to do that, then that seems the only way to resolve this, there is still edit warring and a violation of 3RR now from the reported user. 3RR warning posted to user due to another revert since the submission of this report. + Crashdoom ^Talk 02:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Kwamikagami for 3 days due to extensive edit warring. (X! · talk)  · @933  ·  21:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. At the time of the block, kwami hadn't edited the article for almost 30 hours. It doesn't look like there was any imminent danger necessitating a block. Mojoworker (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Martinvl reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: 24h)

Page: Metrication in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• ?0th revert? 11:23, 12 October 2011(inserted currently disputed material that had previously been taken out)
• 1st revert: 15:33, 12 October 2011
• 2nd revert: 19:31, 12 October 2011
• 3rd revert: 21:54, 12 October 2011 (Note that summary: "Correcting error in URL" disguises revert)
• 4th revert: 22:03, 12 October 2011
• 5th revert: 22:13, 12 October 2011 (Note that summary "Correcting broken link" again misleading - disputed material reinserted)

• 6th revert: 12:18, 13 October 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on user talkpage about reaching 5RR (prior to the 6th revert) here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this whole section here and this section here are the most recent examples. It's been bubbling along for a while.

Comments:
Martinvl has persistently ignored the fact that his interpretation of sources (and thus the content he bases them on) is disputed by other users - by three others in this past 24 hours or so. This comment is probably the clearest indication of OWNership behaviour. He was warned at 5RR (but not reported - perhaps an indication that those in dispute with him would rather use the talkpage), but he went onto 6RR anyway. I appreciate I went to 3RR these past 24 hours, which isn't the best behaviour - but at least I was trying to get him to discuss things on the talkpage.

• I'm in support of the reporter with this, but retain that the reporter should also be careful not to exceed 3RR. The reported user does appear to have a case of WP:OWN and if an attempt with dispute resolution hasn't worked, the only option may be to prevent the user editing the article. Other editors do seem to have a consensus with other users on the talk page. + Crashdoom ^Talk 13:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree care should always be taken. I normally stop at one revert where I can. I was a little caught out by someone suddenly kicking off like this (and the dispute straddling two calendar days where I live). As soon as I realised I was at three I stopped.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note, I've left the user a friendly message explaining what he should do - this seems to have been omitted. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Response by Martinvl:
User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:DeFacto have been blantanly pushing a WP:POV by willfully misrepresenting a WP:RS. In particular, Asda did an in-house survey which was called into question by a report in Which? magazine (Details here). VsevolodKrolikov and DeFacto have persisted in reporting the Asda survey (a self-published primary source) but have supressed by addition of the Which? analysis of the survey. They claim that I am putting my own interpretation on the Which? report. However, any reasonable person, on reading the Which? article will see that these two editors have either have no clue about the meaning of secondary sources ort have been blinded by their own pushing of POV. The two versions can be seen here: [1].

I have also exhausted other avenues of negotiation, including

• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#ASDA,
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#Waitrose Weekend,
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#Putting together information from opinion polls,
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#Asda report - 12 October update,
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using reports of market research surveys,
• Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Polls and surveys.

I request therefore:

• The Which? source article be read
• The two entries in Wikipedia be read
• My assertion of POV pushing be the two editors be noted
• Both editors be issued with warnings that by failing to note the very clear criticism that Which? made of the Asda survey, they are pushing a PoV.

I wish also to place on record that there was a different issue concerning education on the same page initiated by DeFacto in which User:Pfainuk participated. This particular issue is still being discussed.

Martinvl (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You say that point on the National Curriculum is still being discussed. It is. But given that you bring it up, I think it's worth mentioning that you didn't actually make any kind of argument or even substantive point in that discussion until after you had reached 3 reverts on that specific point (and 5 on the article as a whole), and after I had warned you about edit warring on your talk page. On the rest, I would simply suggest that this is not the place to bring up the details of the content dispute. Pfainuk talk 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(Response to Pfainuk) I was highlighting that there were two separate activities going on at the same time. The discussion regarding the curriculum yesterday was initiated by DeFacto as a wind-up - he has been WP:HOUNDing me and he was trying to make a WP:POINT. Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, those are absurd and unjust allegations. There has been no wind-up, no hounding and no 'point' editing on my part. I would advise you to defend your own actions, or apologise for them, not attack the actions of others and not to be so complacent. -- de Facto (talk). 21:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Procedural Request by Martinvl to Administrators
Things are getting messy. User DeFacto has demanded an appology which I am not willing to give - I am however willing to justify my case. I see a number of alternatives:

• The administrators recommend that User:VsevolodKrolikov withdraws his report. In this case things will stand as they are.
• The administrators insist that I justify my accusations against User:DeFacto, (which will also involve acusations against User:VsevolodKrolikov, though of a lesser nature). If this is the case, then I must insist that they both face sanctions if my accusations are justified.

I await guidance from the administrators as to how they wish to proceed. Martinvl (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, I have not demanded anything. I offered you advice as to how I believe you may have been able to ameliorate your situation here, charged as you are with breaking the 3rr. I believed that the best response would have been to either defend the multiple reversions or apologise for them - not to irrationally attack other editors. -- de Facto (talk). 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have the feeling that admins may be waiting to see if this all calms down and that no action need to be taken (even in a case of 6RR). However, as you can see from Martinvl's statements above, there appears to be not even a concession that he was edit-warring, despite going to 6RR, and that despite having been warned at 5RR (4RR is the bright line, isn't it?). Dispute resolution has been tried at RSN and identifying reliable sources (the latter seemed to be possibly a forum shop and certainly an attempt to edit relevant sourcing policy to affect the dispute - and without informing us on the page), and it is very difficult to have confidence that Martinvl will heed any of the advice he receives from third parties if it does not suit his particular POV. I strongly suspect that editing has gone quiet on the article page because we're all waiting to see what happens here, not because the problem has gone away. I suspect the rest of us want to keep our noses clean and not be seen to instigate a second round of warring. Some admin attention would be very welcome - Martinvl needs to understand that editing to consensus takes precedence over any conviction that he is right.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment to Martinvl: Personally, although I'm not an administrator, I would like to see your justification for the violation of the 3RR policy so broadly and attempting to mask your edits using false edit summaries. Depending on your answer, it may speed along resolving this report, or hinder the resolution of it, if an administrator is willing to wait to hear this out before making a decision. + Crashdoom ^Talk 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to User:Crashdoom (and anybody else who is interested) - Please refer to my comments at Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#Let's try to establish consensus. The relevant comment is easy to spot - it has extracts from the source document in a box. Please also see User:VsevolodKrolikov's response to my first comments inTalk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scottish education system sources. My second comment in that section sums up my view of his response. I will leave you to form your own judgement. Martinvl (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Without wishing to bring the dispute here - the section Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scottish education system sources indicates a continuing battleground mentality. We both recommend precisely the same text from a primary source as appropriate for inclusion, yet when I consider this to be agreement (hooray! or so I thought), I'm attacked for misrepresentation. How is an editor supposed to proceed with this? Martinvl has now been asked by three independent editors to address the issue of his edit warring (here is the third, which he will have read by now), but is yet to do so. Instead, he posted what he did above this post - another insistence that his being "right" (as he sees it) forgives all behavioural issues. He needs to understand that abiding by the principles of collegial and consensual editing are paramount. I leave it to admins' experience in how best to get this message across.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Note - he's now apologised for accusing me of misrepresentation in suggesting we were agreeing on something (!). Nevertheless, he still needs to come here to address the issue of edit warring.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 24 hours for long-term edit warring (six reverts altogether). The last revert was October 13, but User:Martinvl has continued to argue his position in the current 3RR report, blaming others for the situation, while his last revert remains at top of trunk. He has not undone his last edit and insists that he is correct. The bogus edit summaries which disguise his reverts remain as an issue. (Here he claims he is correcting a broken link, while reinserting the disputed material). If he changes his mind and indicates he will wait for a Talk page consensus before reverting again, any admin may unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:58.178.181.234 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.178.181.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

• 1st revert: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]
• 3rd revert: [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. I'm just watching the page and noticed the edit-warring. Note that the user did two reverts under another IP address but georesolves to the same location, so likely the same user on a dynamic IP.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:J3Mrs reported by User:Daniel the Monk (Result: no action)

Page: Elizabeth Tyldesley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Poor Clare Monastery (Gravelines) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: J3Mrs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<! I have no idea if this is the right process, but I have found myself in what seems to be an editing war with User J3Mrs (and possibly Administrator Malleus) on these articles. I have found that J3Mrs is the originating author of both articles and pretty systematically goes through and changes most differences from her original text. This is true even though the original articles had a number of factual errors. He or she has even made changes claiming they are due to grammar, when his/her changes are poor grammar. This writer has been been backed up by Administrator Malleus who has been insulting in his comments.

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 4th revert: [10]

<! I raised the issue here: [11]

<! I'm at the point where that person's reversions seem to be nitpicking and are intended more to preserve the original text than allowing for a clear, useful text for those not familiar with the information. Plus I'm sensing a lack of respect for religious usage. Help! This is not a good experience for me of the Wiki world. Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• No action I think this is a conflict between a well-meaning new editor who has made a few understandable errors (notably overlinking) and a couple of established editors. I don't see any reason to block anyone here, his would be far better discussed on the talkpage of the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:76.67.117.127 reported by User:kheider (Result: 24 hours)

User 76.67.117.127 edit warring on Comet Elenin. The user is posting fringe + weasel [12] I am requesting that the user be BLOCKED! -- Kheider (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear 3RR (actually 4RR) breach after a warning. Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:71.224.207.195 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 month)

Page: Viktor Yanukovych (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.224.207.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

• 1st revert: [14]
• 2nd revert: [15]
• 3rd revert: [16]
• 4th revert: [17]
• 5th revert: [18]
• 6th revert: [19] Asking me if I am Ukrainian in their edit summary.
• 7th revert: [20]
• 8th revert: [21]
• 9th revert: [22] IP warning other editors about 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Comments:
Fresh from a 1-week block by Salvio giuliano involving BLP issues, the IP started the edit-warring on Viktor Yanukovych, again involving BLP issues. IP also refuses to engage in talk. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Take note of the Scientology insertions on the Yanukovych article with fake refs, which is why he was banned in the first place for doing so on other political articles. Bad faith vandalism + (maybe good faith) edit warring.--Львівське (говорити) 02:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to edit war over content myself, I realize I've 3RRd but since I can only assume bad faith / vandalism, was just trying to help. I'll step back now until an admin steps in.--Львівське (говорити) 02:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Non-Admin Comment I've only checked one of the edits so far, and it is glaringly inaccurate, enough so that any assumption of good faith is sent out the window. The IP editor uses adherents.com to cite Yanukovych's religion as Scientologist; however, actually checking at adherents.com shows that they list him as Eastern Orthodox, which is what the original article material stated. Having seen that, I cannot accept any other edits from the IP as honest and accurate. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month for disruptive editing. Adding wrong information to a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Block-conflict. Good thing we blocked for exactly the same length of time and for exactly the same reasons. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good work. Thank you both. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Swift&silent reported by User:Hassanhn5 (Result: )

Page: Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Swift&silent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]
• 4th revert: [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments: The user is repeatedly adding POV and claims. An active discussion is already present on the talk page, but instead of commenting there, the user is editing the article and negotiating in edit summary. Note that the user is adopting a strategy of editing by masking it under edit summary terms like for "neutrality's sake" and "clear meaning" and editing the text to his POV without any proper explaination on talk page.

--lTopGunl (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the user disruptively removed neutral references from this page [31] without any explanation on talkpage. He seems to have a disruptive pattern. (although 3rr didn't take place in the second case, but the user seems to be moving towards that) --lTopGunl (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

He's also a sock puppet suspect (I just found out when someone reminded him on talk) [32]. Currently his edit war is at hold because I've not changed his fourth revert on the reported 3rr violation, but I'm sure he'll keep doing it unless blocked. Refer to his talk page warnings (of which he has still taken no avail) [33] --lTopGunl (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all Sock Puppetry is just an allegation. Dont go criticizing users before Administrators find out the truth. Also refrain from making personal attacks like "he'll keep doing it unless blocked". Dont try to be judge and jury of wikipedia. [34] of PNS Ghazi was reverted as had removed text without explanation for example " However, the mines being of the ship count mechanism meant that they would only activate once a safe number of ships have passed over it, accidental detonation while laying mines is in theory impossible." was changed to "One of the reasons to believe this as true is that Indian divers found the damaged parts of the submarine to be blown inside out." WITHOUT any change of citation while the citation in question clearly says " Also, the possibility of an external mine causing the sinking was completely ruled out due to the amount of internal damage suffered and the forward section of the hull being splayed outward." And most proximate cause was given as internal explosion due to depth charges. Swift&silent (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, [35] a fifth edit on the article being reported for with another editor has been made by the user. I had reviewed the references and written what the current references supported. And I also added relevant references. Anyway, the question here is of wp:3rr being violated. He has been given more than enough time to read the warnings and take heed, but he deleted the warnings and made a further edit even after being reported. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit in question is explained in talk page. Edit was done as cited content was removed without reading citations by User:Mustihussain. Taking head of that edit I removed two disputed sources added three neutral citations. The edit I made is supported by five sources. Swift&silent (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Charmain23 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 5 days)

Page: Master Cleanse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Charmain23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Related accounts

• Fenzi12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Likely WP:SOCK of Charmain23

Charmain23 is a WP:SPA whose only edits to date are to Master Cleanse. He uses misleading edit summaries to slow-edit-war to add promotional information [36] [37] [38] [39] and remove other sourced information [40] [41] [42].

The editor has been given multiple warnings on his talk page to no avail.

His editing is almost identical to that of Fenzi12.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 20:02, 14 October 2011

• Result: Blocked five days. The editor appears to be a spam-only account. If this continues, an indef should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Nochoje and sockpuppet User:79.166.249.44 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 week)

Page: Peloponnese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Nochoje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and sock 79.166.249.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

• 1st revert: 79.166.249.44 Through sock 79.166.249.44
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]

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

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

Comments: The user has been edit-warring over a week across multiple Greece-related articles adding images of his own which noone else approves for inclusion in the articles. His latest target is Peloponnese. Note that he was blocked for similar behaviour by Ed Johnston. Also see the sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nochoje. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I second this report. Fresh from a block for edit-warring over images in Greece, Nochoje is doing the same thing in Peloponnese. It is evident the IP is him [49], and thus he has clearly broken 3RR. On top of that he is socking as an IP to circumvent breaking 3RR. In the talkpage discussion he is rather hostile [50]. I think the problem is this user simply isn't getting it. Athenean (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one week. This editor is ignoring all feedback and is using an IP to disguise his edits. (The IP has been blocked by another admin per SPI). EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Ed. Good call. It is sad to see such intransigence. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Wayiran (Result: )

Page: Abdullah_Ibn_Saba
User being reported: User:Wiqi55

Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]
• 5th revert: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]

Comments:
5 times revert in one day. Also his edits has serious issues of WP:SYNT, misrepresenting of sources, WP:Cherry and WP:Weight. Issues are addressed on his talkpage and article talkpage but the user fails to cooperate with other users. --Wayiran (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User:H2ppyme reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: )

Page: Sergei Pareiko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: H2ppyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66]
• 5th revert: [67]
• 6th revert: [68]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69] (User:Number_57 approached the user)

Comments:

During the last couple of days two Estonian users, User:H2ppyme and User:Sander Säde, beside an IP Special:Contributions/77.233.72.74, have been massively changing the place of birth from Estonian SSR, Soviet Union to Estonia in numerous biographies. There is a consensus to use the country name at time of birth and both registered users are well aware of that as they both have been called for their attention about this in the past. I noteced the edits at my watchlist and I noteced the intentional missleading arguments Sander Säde used in a discussion about this in both talk pages with User:Oleola. I opened a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Nationalism_in_country_of_birth_.28again.29. H2ppyme has already had this discussed 2 years ago at his talk page, see User_talk:H2ppyme#Place_of_birth_and_contemporary_sovreign_state, so this users are well aware of all consensus regarding this, however they decided in the last couple of days to change over a houndred articles and edit war in order to keep their changes. Perhaps even a stronger action could be applied, as this is clear nationalist POV pushing. FkpCascais (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC) -->

Actually, the above is pretty much all not true. There is no "consensus to use the country name at time of birth" anywhere at all. "Massively changing" is a handful football biographies, which were all recently edited by an anon (130.226.249.238 (talk · contribs)) to include Soviet Union. How those few articles became "over a houndred articles" and "numerous biographies"... your guess is as good as mine. "Missleading" arguments... that from a user who wants to legitimize puppet states?!

Also, I see that FkpCascais doesn't report Oleola (talk · contribs) for edit warring for some reason. Why is that, Oleola broke 3RR before H2ppyme as it is plain to see for everyone? It might be worthwhile to run a checkuser here, as all Oleola, FkpCascais and Number 57 (talk · contribs) not only hold identical revisionist views, but do plenty of very similar typos - and at least in the case of Oleola and Number 57, daily edit pattern is identical.

--Sander Säde 05:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don´t care about users, and I don´t have preferences. The difference is that Oleola restored the previous stable versions, and, as you can well see, all users defend historical acuracy over nationalist reviosionism... We can like it, or not, but people born in Estonia between 1945 and 1991 were actually born in a country named Soviet Union, and not modern day Estonia. This was often explained to you and to the other user, and you both continue making massive changes and edit-warring without consensus basically vandalising place of birth in houndreds of articles. I just want this to end, and not using historical acuracy is not encyclopedic. And btw, Soviet Union is a long standing edit in ALL biographies of people born within Soviet Union, and not a recent edit as you want to make it seem. Even if some bio didn´t include it, that IP you mention rightfully added it... (PS: And don´t even dare to try to portray me as USSR simpatizer or anything remotely similar, as I just came out from a long mediation about the monarchic leader Draža Mihailović and Chetniks where I was exactly defending monarchists and oposing the communist POV there, so as all can see, and many know, I have no special simpaties at all for Soviets, but I do defend historical acuracy, even if I may dislike it.) FkpCascais (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

From where comes this "houndreds of articles" nonsense? Anon added Soviet Union to a bare handful of articles. I reverted that - as I saw and still see it as vandalism; such changes without any explanation or basis are vandalism. Number 57 disagreed and reverted me, again without any explanation. Most of those H2ppyme reverted just once, besides Sergei Pareiko - and all that over three days. I haven't made a single edit in any of the footballer bios since my initial vandalism revert. So where exactly are we "continue making massive changes and edit-warring"? What are those massive changes?

Is there some kind of problem with telling just the truth - both H2ppyme and Oleola broke 3RR in Sergei Pareiko article, but unlike Oleola, H2ppyme started to discuss the edits, which may allow him to escape with just warning, while Oleola will probably face a block. Both of them have been warned from edit warring before, Oleola as recently as this May and H2ppyme in 2009.

There is nothing like consensus, guideline or even an essay which supports "Soviet Union is a long standing edit in ALL biographies of people born within Soviet Union" - or if there is, no one has managed to link it so far.

If you like historical accuracy, why haven't you clicked a link provided before? Occupation of the Baltic States was almost universally not recognized de jure - but this really isn't the place to discuss international law.

--Sander Säde 06:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. According to a quick check, at least many of those biographies have never had "Soviet Union" attached to them. In case of Pareiko, Estonian SSR hasn't existed in the article since April 2009, so it was H2ppme, who reverted to a stable version, not Oleola. --Sander Säde 07:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• This "country of birth" issue was discussed for months back in 2008 and we were unable to achieve consensus back then for a globally applicable guideline, (see: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth). In the years since then the default defacto style was to list Estonia rather than Soviet Union as place of birth, since the view of the majority of people editing Estonia related topics is that the geographical location is more useful to a reader than listing a defunct state that ceased to exist over twenty years ago for a BLP of a young twenty-something year old football player. Since User:Oleola appears to have started edit warring earlier against this informal consensus that has existed for some years in Estonia related BLP articles:

1. 16:34, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455551657 by Sander Säde (talk) Estonia was under Soviet occupation")
2. 18:30, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455568090 by Sander Säde (talk) discussed, where?")
3. 23:38, 14 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455608928 by Pelmeen10 (talk) unexplainted revert")
4. 19:34, 16 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455888213 by H2ppyme (talk)")
5. 19:55, 16 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455895698 by H2ppyme (talk) link to the discussion?")
6. 20:12, 16 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455898350 by H2ppyme (talk) this is your own standard? provide a link or leave it")
7. 20:33, 16 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455899552 by H2ppyme (talk) I'm according nothing, you said that there standard for Estonian people, so provide a link that support your claim and edit")
8. 20:57, 16 October 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 455904203 by H2ppyme (talk) So until you find a confirmation for this standard - leave it")

I suggest protecting this article for a week or two. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

To all parties involved right now, I will stop reverting any such changes for the time this discussion is active and since I'm the one accused, I'll give a longer explanation.

The first point I want to make is that the attitude of trying to turn this against me only is disturbing. It was the user 130.226.249.238, who made the first edit to Sergei Pareiko, changing the place of birth to Estonian SSR. Sander Säde rightly identified this as vandalism as no reasons for the change of standard were given and it was an anonymous IP address. (Something else I noticed, the users have mostly been editing articles about football players, which they have done internationally. While they may be fully correct on the athletic information they give, we might expect them to not notice any background to the illegality of the Soviet occupation or the standard for people born in Estonia during that period.) Oleola reverted the previous revert, starting the edit war that I later became part of. As I see it, he simply turned the situation around, demanding me to unprove his reasons for the mysterious edits that were made without any discussion. So here the question - who starts the edit war, is it 1) the guy who keeps changing the long-standing standard not only for this article but for all articles for people born in Estonia during that period and does that without any previous discussion, or is it 2) the guy, who reverts his first edit demanding for some explanation or further discussion? We understand that Estonia was under the Soviet occupation, but this is as far as his arguments ever went.

As for the "previous warnings", they have been quite similar. The discussion between me and KevinMcE can be seen here and here. I have discussed my point of view also here.

I have to agree with Sander Säde that most of these articles previously had just Estonia in the infobox until they were changed to Tallinn, Estonian SSR or simply the "much better" Tallinn, Soviet Union. There are several points that have turned me to change the place of birth to for example Tallinn, Estonia. The same points were given to Number 57:

• Estonia was under Soviet occupation, which was not recognized by most Western nations de jure. According to international law, Estonia is in fact the same state it was in 1918-1940 and never ceased to exist, but was only occupied during 1940-1991.
• Most people in question have little to do with the Soviet Union since they became famous in independent Estonia and only lived their childhood in the Soviet Union.
• It is perfectly clear to absolutely everyone where a person was born if they see "Estonia" in the infobox. If the ruling state was the same state that existed in Magadan and Baku, then the place of birth becomes more vague (like Tallinn, Soviet Union...). Estonia is not only an independent country, it is a distinct geographic region with clear borders separating it from its neighbors.
• There has been a standard about this for several years now. Note that we don't (and I don't) write Tallinn, Estonia in the infobox for a person born in 1916 or 1850 - we write Tallinn, Governorate of Estonia, and often Russian Empire and usually in the brackets "now Tallinn, Estonia", but this is more common for people born in the less known Governorate of Livonia. The reason we don't write simply Estonia is that these were the internationally recognised borders at the time, although the same argument for the geographic region would hold and I don't see much wrong with just Estonia in their infobox. But as told, Soviet occupation definitely wasn't internationally recognised, merely by a handful of states that were mostly part of the Warsaw Pact. H2ppyme (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed that Oleola broke the three revert rule just after I made my first revert... H2ppyme (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)