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:Farhoudk reported by User:Viewfinder (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.)

Page: Mount Damavand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farhoudk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] and several subsequent edits

Comments:
Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.

I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)

User:Kww reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )

Page

I Love Rock 'n' Roll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595790162 by Tbhotch (talk)unambiguous WP:NFCC violation: no evidence of release, and does not qualify under WP:NFCC"
2. 22:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595789867 by Tbhotch (talk)WP:NFCC violation"
3. 22:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Robman94 (talk) to last version by Kww"
4. 21:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595783905 by Robman94 (talk)only when OTRS confirms the license"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "/* I Love Rock 'n' Roll */ cmt"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Kevin is relying in the WP:3RRNO exception for copyright violations. But it even says "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." 1) Rather than taking it to a noticeboard or nominate the image for deletion, Kevin decided to edit-war, regardless if this is correct or not, removing the image won't save the problem. Wikipedia may still violating copyrights even if it is not in an article page. Kevin denoted no intentions to take it to a noticeboard. 2) The image is being labelled as PD due to a probable OTRS ticket, if such ticket exists, it is obvious it is not a "clear copyright violation", but a clear edit-warring 3) One of those reverts includes the tool WP:ROLLBACK. It explicity says that "Administrators who persistently misuse rollback may have their administrator access revoked", I don't know if this is the first time, but this is a warn I'm going to give here. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Spurious report. There's no ambiguity here: the image cannot be treated as "free", as OTRS has failed to confirm the release. When treated as copyrighted, the image fails the WP:NFCC criteria: there's no possible justification under the NFCC for the use of this image. This kind of issue is precisely what the exemption in WP:EW is about.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And, to clear one thing up: the original uploader simply made the claim that he was going to sent OTRS documentation. It's apparent that no such documentation has ever been received.—Kww(talk) 23:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you something. You removed the image, OK, which was your next step? Evidence denoted you would continue edit-warring, no intentions to stop, nor discuss, nor take it to FFD--regardless if you are right or not. You have removed the image, you won and solved Wikimedia from being sued, and then what? Why you didn't delete the file File:First released version of I Love Rock N Roll in 1975.jpg. If it is an unambiguous copyvio, you could deleted it in sight, with no objections. In all this time you haven't tried to do it. If this is an unambiguous copyvio its removal from the page won't solve the copyright problem, the image won't be deleted in seven days (it has existed off mainspace for three months), and if it is a copyvio it can be a cause of legal actions against Wikipedia regardless if it is used in a page. If such evidence of attempts to no use alternatives, like deletion of discussion, count as an exemption will be decided here. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about copyright violations as if that is the only issue? It's got the appropriate tags for eventual processing by OTRS, and they will delete it if it is appropriate to do so. If the OTRS office does approve it, then it can be used in an article. Until then, we need to act as if it is an unfree image, and, since there's no conceivable argument based on the NFCC which would justify its inclusion, it needed to be removed. Note that the WP:ROLLBACK violation that you falsely claimed above was in fact accompanied by a message on the reverted editor's talkpage: there's no violation of WP:ROLLBACK, either. —Kww(talk) 23:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, either, if the OTRS ticket is false, or if this file fails WP:NFCC it is a copyright violation. You didn't answer my question about you not attempting to stop. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep claiming that I showed no intention of stopping removing the image as if that was a bad thing. I did place a message on Robman94's talk page. I did place messages on your talk page. After you reverted me with an edit summary of "WP:ROLLBACK", I did provide an edit-summary that explained why I was reverting (although, as I pointed out above, your accusations that I misused the rollback tool are also specious). But no, I was not going to stop removing the image, because removal of the image is mandated by the NFCC.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Arguably if ORTS is pending (not proved accepted or not), it is reasonable to keep the image on the page in good faith that it will be free. We can deal with the issue when ORTS says there's a problem. (We actually don't have good advice that Im aware of on dealing with "in progress" ORTS requests but AGF that a request was put it until proven wrong, and if we end up with someone persistently abusing that system, that's blockable action). --MASEM (t) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

After 3 months? AGF that it was placed and possibly lost makes sense, but we can't treat it as if it was de-facto approved. Note that I haven't been accusing people of fraud or threatening to block them, simply treating the image as if it were being used under a fair-use claim.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok a couple of points for everyone:

• Kww Once Tbhotch (a respected, established user) reverted you (as well as Robman94) it no longer unquestionably violates the NFCC policy and so the 3RR exemption doesn't apply. Also there are many files used under a non-free claim that are still waiting for OTRS permission. Considering you also also didn't post at Wikipedia:Non-free content review which the 3RR exemption says you should do and you didn't nominate it for deletion.
• Tbhotch I don't have the power to remove admin rights and this noticeboard isn't in a position to decide that so I'm not going to make a comment as an admin dealing with this request

However given that Kww has stopped reverting I don't see any need to block, but I do encourage you to !vote at the deletion nomination. Also, undoing an edit with the reason "WP:ROLLBACK" is not a good reason to edit war. So a trouting for Kww for breaching 3RR and not following up, a trout to Tbhotch for edit warring (consider WP:BRD in the future), and Robman94 for edit warring including the most recent one. Also noting that I checked OTRS and there's nothing there re this image. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Ordinarily I'd agree with Kww on this; the absence of OTRS confirmation within 90 days ordinarily justifies removal of the image. However, in this unusual case, the image of the single label itself might well be acceptable as a nonfree identifying image illustrating a contemporary copyrighted work. This therefore wasn't an unambiguous NFCC violation, and the 3RR exemption wouldn't apply. The original uploader should have provided an interim NFCC rationale pending OTRS approval; the editors arguing for its retention could easily have provided one; and Kww should have recognized that the image was appropriate for use and that such corrective action should have been called for rather than unnecessary removal. Trouts rather than sanctions are suitable here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've got a different perspective than both of you, Hullaballo WOlfowitz and Callanecc. I think that where issues of copyright are concerns is the most important time not to revert, right or wrong, and discuss. Tbnotch & Robman94 should have 1) Explained why they felt that the PD claim was enough (which it wasn't and Robman94's claim that OTRS was taking too long is a non sequiter), or 2) Explained that the image could also have been used under NFCC, instead of as PD, and then they could've come to an agreement to change the license to NFCC and the image could have then been restored. Tbnotch and Robman94 are not innocent here at all.--v/r - TP 03:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
    • That's certainly closer to reality. I reiterate that the image cannot pass WP:NFCC in any fashion. Hullabaloo's argument fails to recognize that the identification claim is intended to allow people to readily identify an article by an image: there's no way that an article about a song that most people associate with Joan Jett will be made more recognizable to any of our readers by an image of the label (not the cover, the label) of an uncharted forty-year-old demo record, only made available to radio stations, of a version of the song that never charted in any country. That's a ludicrous argument that falls under the "clear NFCC violation" umbrella.—Kww(talk) 04:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones reported by User:Minimac (Result: Protected; warned)

Page: Roxy Mitchell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8] by Tentinator

Earlier reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10] *
3. [11]

Within 24 hours:

1. [12] *
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15] *

Comments:
Not involved in this, but I noticed that he has reverted several other editors over a particular area that he disagrees with. I've also indicated questionable uses of rollback with an asterisk, as using rollback to edit war is also unacceptable. Minima© (talk)

• Page protected. I've locked the article for three days as more than two editors are involved in the battle.

• Warned. Gareth Griffith-Jones and Alex250P, you both violated WP:3RR over something very silly (often the case, unfortunately). You should have engaged in discussion on the article talk page (I see none). I strongly urge you to do so during the pendency of the lock. Any resumption of the battle after the lock expires may be met by blocks without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have made my thoughts on the matter clear on the article's Talk. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 01:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Chunk5Darth reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Locked)

Page: Penn & Teller: Bullshit! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chunk5Darth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 02:31, 13 February 2014‎ [16] Original edit by InedibleHulk that started the war. That paragraph had been stable for at least two years previously.[17][18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:28, 14 February 2014‎ [19] 1RR.
2. 03:21, 15 February 2014 [20] 2RR.
3. 15:28, 14 February 2014 24-hour timeout: 1RR.
4. 08:09, 16 February 2014 [21] 2RR, 3rd revert.
5. 08:28, 16 February 2014 [22] Chunk5Darth warned using Template:uw-3rr.
6. 08:09, 17 February 2014 24-hour timeout: 1RR.
7. 08:47, 16 February 2014 [23] Chunk5Darth advised that edit warring is not allowed even if you think you are right.
8. 20:35, 17 February 2014‎ [24] 2RR, 4th revert (different content this time).
9. 21:15, 17 February 2014 [25] 3RR, 5th revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26][27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I (Guy Macon) am an uninvolved third party.

The participants have been discussing the issue at Talk:Penn & Teller: Bullshit!#To "quote" or not to quote.

I also warned two other editors who had reverted more than once.[28][29] Neither has reverted since being warned. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've locked the article for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I was involved with some of the discussions after the first swathe of reversions, and involved in resolving (hopefully) the second one. I think that this is a bit much. ON the talk page, I specifically called it a "mini" edit war because 1. there were only 2 reversions before it fizzled out and 2.) it was over four characters, a minor grammatical point, particularly not Chunk5Darth. The "conflict" is, hopefully, over, and if not I see no indication of bad faith reversions by anyone involved, and I think it's very likely that, should they continue the discussion they'll do so appropriately, on the talk page. There is no need to lock the article, as these are minor points and it barely matters at all even if we were to flip back and forth between them every 30 seconds for the next month. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverting back and forth, whether over minor or major points, is disruptive. If you want to demonstrate that the article should be unlocked, then reach a clear consensus on the disputes. Your understanding of what is acceptable behavior does not conform to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that they were minor points and that no one ever violated WP:3RR, I don't see what the big problem is. It was over hours and hours ago and no one is too beat up about it. As for minor vs. major - in this case, I'd say it's hard to make a case that 2 reversions to a single quotation several hours ago on a relatively stable article is particularly disruptive. I understand why one would care, but given the fact that the conflict is fairly subdued (everyone being civil) and WP:3RR was never even violated, it seems to me it's relevant that the consequences were non-existent. This isn't some special case where someone was edit-warring section blanking on a high traffic article or something. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to note that if you look at the edit history, the most recent case of "Edit warring" was, if anything, Moriori being overzealous with the reversions. The only way Chunk5Darth is in violation of policy is if a 0RR rule is in place. The content he reverted today was conceptually very different from the 2RRs for which User:Guy Macon warned him >24 hours before. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions whether involving the same or different material on a single page. You may be confident that "it was over hours and hours ago", but I gave Chunk5Darth two warnings for edit warring, his only response was to revert two more times, and at least one other editor has also indicated that he does not accept the clear wording of Wikipedia:Edit warring, which clearly states that "it is no defense to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring'." The temporary page protection was a good call, given the lack of any indication from Chunk5Darth that he understands this. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a major misrepresentation of what has occurred. If you notice, you warned Chunk5Darth once. He responded saying (essentially), "This is very unencyclopedic content, I'm not sure what to do, please advise". You are counting your response to this as a second warning, when in fact it was a response to his plea for advice on the edit warring policy. If you'll notice, Point #8 is not a reversion of anything. We went through the proper procedure and built a consensus on how the page should look, he did a copyedit on the implementation thereof, and was reverted with a specious reason. After that, he reverted one time, specifically assuming good faith of the other editor - because it was an extremely minor grammatical point, there was no possible "compromise wording" that includes elements of both versions, so it's not unreasonable to revert a mistaken, good faith edit in this case. When he was reverted again he immediately dropped it. I am finding the disconnect between how we view these events to be disturbing. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Isabellabean reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

Page: Mint Press News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Isabellabean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]

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

Comments:
Not a 3RR violation, but definitely a return to edit warring after their recent block for the exact same thing. The article in question is peripherally related to the Syrian Civil War, so it may be a candidate for 1RR restriction. Locking the article for a while may help move edits to the talk page as well if the reviewing admin is looking for alternatives to blocks. User:Sayerslle was recently blocked for warring as well, though I am not seeing the same repeated attempts at inserting the same or slightly modified content from them. Notified both: [34], [35]. VQuakr (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

 Checking... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Saffrin reported by User:Balablitz (Result: )

Page

Pallavan Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Saffrin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC) to 12:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 16:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 17:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 04:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Pallavan Express. (TW)"
2. 15:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Pallavan Express; Tiruchirappalli Junction railway station. (TW)"
3. 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "/* February 2014 */ wkfd"
4. 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Pallavan Express. (TW)"
5. 20:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Pallavan Express. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Unconstructive edit */ new section"

Comments:

The user seems to make unconstructive edits and images, which alters the page layout all without an edit summary. Intimation made at article's talk page. Also notices and warnings were repeatedly issued at the user's talk page, but no response or explanation has been provided so far. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 06:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Bdell555 (Result: No action)

TOPIC: edit warring over a third party's User Talk page

Page: User talk:Petrarchan47 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

3RR warning: link

I'll cut to the chase here to summarize thusly: @Petrarchan47 reverted my citing of a media organization's Youtube channel with the edit summary "Third time removing youtube video". In order to stop the edit warring I advised her on her Talk page that Wikipedia understands that news agencies have been known to post video to Youtube and it is acceptable to cite this if a cite directly to the media outlet's website is not possible or somehow less useful/appropriate to readers. Given how undisputed this is I believe it would waste the time of third parties to initiate a discussion on the particular article Talk page. When an editor is clearly mistaken about something such that there's little "discussion" to be had should third parties be participating and when that something isn't article context related (like erroneously believing that there is a total unconditional ban on all citations to videos posted on Youtube) I would think that this is what user Talk pages are designed for. But a 3rd party here, Binksternet, insists on removing any remark of my mine from Petrarchan47's Talk page.

I don't recall ever initiating something on this noticeboard despite my many years on Wikipedia but this case strikes me as quite unprecedented, since the edit warring is over the removal of an effort to initiate a discussion that would reducing the edit warring with a third party. I think one would be hard pressed to imagine an case that would be more contrary to the spirit of edit war reduction than an edit war over whether to have any discussion with a third party over an edit war. --Brian Dell (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The only thjing that I'm not seeing in this report is a simple question: were you ever, at any time, requested by that user to stay off their talkpage. If yes, then your first post there was harassment and could lead to a block, no matter what. Binksternet would therefore have been doing you a favour by removing it. If no, then there may be other issues at play. ES&L 17:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well you would take that view of course when you once manipulated text that was attributed to me on YOUR user Talk page in order to have it present my view in a way you preferred and refused to allow me the right to have my words say what I wanted to say, declaring absolute sovereignty over "your" Talk page. Re "harassment", Petrarchan47 may continue to be too caught with up calling on the community to WP:HOUND me to consider my latest statement to her harrassment.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 asked Bdell555 on January 31 to stay off of her user talk page. She said:

We do have the right to ask people to leave their talk pages alone - and I am asking you this now. I will engage you on the talk page of articles IF you can keep your arguments concise and based in RS, not in OR or SYNTH. I am not into drama and will not engage with this type of energy... From here, with regard to gripes you have about my behaviour, do not make them in the edit summaries. (And I will not either.) Take concerns to a noticeboard, even an ANI, and yes, I will listen to what the community has to say.

Brian Dell quickly acknowledged that request. He then proceeded to ignore the request with this series of edits later the same day—an exceedingly disrespectful act. I removed these comments 18 minutes later. On February 2 he posted again on her talk page, posting a hateful comment accusing her of falsehood and telling her he would not pay any attention to her response, and I removed that post as well.

Brian Dell has been edit-warring his accusatory comments into her talk page[36][37][38] which shows that he does not respect her. I have been removing his posts in accordance with her wishes.

It looks like an interaction ban is called for, one that prevents Brian Dell from interacting with Petrarchan47. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What I respect is Wikipedia and what the Wikipedia community calls for. The community calls for discussion instead of edit warring. And so it is that I have attempted to discuss instead of edit war with Petrarchan47. If Petrarchan47, or anyone else, requests something of me I endeavour to accommodate. Note that I accommodated Petrarchan47 in the thread the request was made as she continues to have had the final word there. I had a reply, it was deleted, and it remains deleted. This is an edit war about something new. Stopping the edit war means we have to discuss. Binksternet's demand for no interaction is thus fundamentally opposed to Wikipedia's instructions. This is why I've raised Binksternet's edit warring here: the fundamental object is to gag someone trying to put a stop to edit warring and is edit warring to accomplish this end! By the way, I could give the "other side" of the history Binksternet outlines here but does the community really want to go there?--Brian Dell (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There has been no violation of 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought the point of this noticeboard was increasing editor awareness of edit warring problems and how to solve them. I now understand this board is for reporting 3RR violations. I suppose I'm just too "big picture" here.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I have not stopped you from discussing issues with Petrarchan47 on the talk pages of articles you are both interested in. I am not trying to "gag" you. I have merely upheld her admonition that you keep off her user talk page. Please keep your discussions about content issues on the relevant article talk pages. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not blocked. Brian Dell now understands that this page is for reporting edit warring incidents for administrative action. Binksternet seemed to be doing both Brian Dell and Petrachan47 a favor by removing comments that Petrarchan47 might consider harrassment.

Brian Dell, you are instructed to keep off someone's talk page when requested, forever, not just for the duration of one incident. Please respect that.

Binksternet, in this case it may have been better to let Petrarchan47 take whatever action s/he deemed necessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Brian's reverts on Petrarchan's user talk were totally inappropriate IMO. Let's get that out of the way. In addition Bink's reverts on the same page were controversial at best. See WP:TPO ("Removing harmful posts") and WP:RPA. This isn't the first time Bink has policed Petrarchan's user talk for content Bink (not Petrarchan) objects to. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (involved editor)

User:Communist-USSR reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: )

Page

2014 Venezuelan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Communist-USSR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Venezuelan protests."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Whitewashing */ new section"
2. 19:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "comment"

Similar concerns have recently been expressed by other editors: [39], [40] etc.

Comments:

In under 12 hours, we have:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]
5. [45]
6. [46]
7. [47]
8. [48]
9. [49] bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

:Zfigueroa do exactly the same.. And he won't discuss before edit, I have asked him multiple times.--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Zfigueroa has been a bit free with the revert button too, but is mostly adding new content, which you automatically revert. That is not good. I would have considered just letting this slide and trying to explain the concept of editwarring, but since you accused me of editwarring simply for making two edits reintroducing sourced content written by zfigueroa, whilst you continued to automatically revert everything - at least nine distinct reverts in under 12 hours, I may have missed a few - I think it's pretty clear that merely citing a policy again will not stop the disruptive editing. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There are similar problems on other articles. For instance, over at RT (TV network): [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't automatically revert, he keeps adding the same information and won't discuss before add it. You are reverting my revert before discussing and you said you even didn't know what the problem was. About RT: I revert vandalising edits which keep reverting info. I am not the only one who has reverted these things. But the word "propaganda" keeps getting added. The source does not use the word "propaganda" with the indicated meaning; nascent RT as being such an outfit is disputed.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Zfigueroa here even said he won't discuss what wasn't discussed before.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So you revert again. Even if we aggregate dozens of consecutive edits, you've made at least ten reverts in half a day on this article and more on other articles, despite multiple warnings, whilst arguing about it at the edit-warring noticeboard and accusing others of editwarrring. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because he wouldn't discuss it despite 4 requests.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It does appear that there is some editwarring going on with both sides of this dispute. At the heart seems to be largely dispute between sources of disputed reliability and primary sources that contradict them (notably a twitter account that does not contain a message reported in some media of disputed reliability). Considering that the ownership of most media by conservative supporters has been an ongoing dispute in Venezuela since the original assumption of power of the socialist government there is risk of unreliable media sources being used to insert violations of WP:NPOV I'd suggest admin attention, partial protection, and a referral to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard but would recommend against blocking parties from either side unless the decision is to block users from both sides. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Spreading blocks all round may not be the best approach. Zfigueroa didn't make any more reverts after I warned them, so blocking regardless would be rather bitey. but Communist-USSR kept on hammering the revert button after being warned. Protecting 2014 Venezuelan protests would make that article more stable (of course the Wrong Version will be protected :-), but Communist-USSR has edit-warred on other pages - and has previously been warned about that too. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If nobody make anymore revert, how I can make them...--Communist-USSR (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I think that the user Communist-USSR should rename his account (in case anyone forgot it, USSR is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Cambalachero (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I hardly see how that is relevant. Or any of our business. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sabrebd & User:camerojo reported by User:94.173.7.13 (Result: IP blocked)

Page: Highland Clearances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sabrebd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & camerojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff between revisions 595863894 and 59511292]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff between revisions 596084056 and 596086408]
2. [diff between revisions 5960034 and 595999256]
3. [diff between revisions 59595669 and 595945392]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [diff between revisions 596094726 and 595842860 ] & [diff between revisions 596094686 and 595355315 ]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff between revisions 5960702575 and 596066351] & [diff between revisions 596083468 and 596080094]

Comments: This has been an edit-war by two different users who are overwriting material on numerous occasions. There has been deletion of material with clearly verifiable sources, and there has been zero use of to ask for clarification of sources for material that either user believes is not commonly understood to be true. The reverts include the verbatim copying of material from another wikipedia article that has only peripheral relation to the subject matter, that I nevertheless subsequently made available at the top of the subsection, but to little avail in the revert-war Scottish religion in the eighteenth century. I suspect that the material in that other article is written by one of the users too. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am very happy for this to be investigated. My most recent edit deleted nothing. I simply reinstated a valuable and well sourced contribution by another user that had been previously deleted by the complainant. Camerojo (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only did you add material that was from an edit war that DID delete material, and lead to subsequent discussion, but there is replication of material that is elsewhere in the article. Simply not deleting material does not make your contribution any less inflammatory. 94.173.7.13 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am happy for it to be investigated too. I made one edit in the last 24 hours and when it was reverted I made one revert, I believe with consensus on the talkpage. I then went to the talkpage to attempt to find out why the material had been removed again. I have tried to ask the question in various forms, but have not been able to get a straightforward reply from the ip. I have not reverted again. The ip editor continues to edit and push their agenda without support from any other editors on the talkpage and frankly is not engaging in a real discussion on the talkpage. They have declared that if any changes are made they will just revert them here.--SabreBD (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

For the removal of any doubt, I too am happy. Your last link shows that I did not say that if 'any' changes are made I will revert them. I said if there is deletion of material that has a verifiable source, or that you do not ask for a citation for (in the event that you do not believe the information is commonly understood) I will revert it to it's original state. On several occasions I invite you to make additions without deleting material in such a provocative manner:

[here], [here again], [for the third time], [for the fourth time], [for the fifth time], [here for the sixth time], and finally [here]. On each occasion I ask that you do not delete material with a verifiable source, not delete material that you do not ask for a citation for if you believe it is not commonly understood to be true. Four reverts and seven times I state why there is a basic problem of aggressive deletion, alongside verbatim copying of material from another article that has a peripheral connection removing the context surrounding the material in the article in question.93.186.23.96 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The only user who violated WP:3RR is the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User:CloudKade11 reported by User:107.15.200.87 (Result: Blocked; protected)

Page: List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CloudKade11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned twice: [63] [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: CloudKade11 has a history of edit warring on several articles. In another article (see Talk:After (The Walking Dead)) he made one comment on the discussion but continued to edit war after several editors continued trying to discuss with him. It's pointless to try to discuss his edit warring with him. Look at his history. Thank. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I've blocked CloudKade11 for one week for violating WP:3RR. I've also semi-protected the page for one week because there's too much disruptive IP editing, IP-hopping, and editing by brand new accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Kewtea reported by User:Jackmcbarn (Result: 24 hours)

Page

List of YouTube personalities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kewtea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC) to 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594997686 by Zero Serenity (talk) it is valid...."
   2. 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC) "i added a more reliable source to lindy tsang"
2. 15:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595777571 by Zero Serenity (talk) LINDY TSANG IS NOTABLE"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC) to 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595888133 by Zero Serenity (talk) Why don't you think she's notable enough and don't bash on my all-caps."
   2. 20:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595888133 by Zero Serenity (talk) Why don't you think she's notable enough and don't bash on my all-caps."
   3. 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "i added lindy tsang because she is a well-known YouTube personality who has over 2 million subscribers and even has her own brushes line. I have a proper source from a French magazine."
4. 21:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596086014 by Zero Serenity (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. None; attempts would have been fruitless, as the user apparently does not read their talk page (or any other)

Comments:

The account appears to be an SPA with the sole purpose of promoting Lindy Tsang/Bubzbeauty. They've created the pages in mainspace several times under multiple names (which have been deleted each time) as well as submitting under multiple names to AfC. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this sums up my experience as well. Zero Serenity (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring and promotional editing. Since 11 February Kewtea has made six attempts to add Lindy Tsang's name to List of YouTube personalities. Another admin has now salted Lindy Tsang and Bubzbeauty to keep either of those articles from being re-created again. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Shaku india reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mughal-e-Azam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Shaku india (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Colourisation */"
2. 07:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Colourisation */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Mughal-e-azam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

It was done on the user's talk page: User talk:Shaku india.

Comments:

Keeps deleting content from Mughal-e-azam he believes is "wrong". Kailash29792 (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Message from shaku_india to Kailash29792 :

Hi Kailash29792,

You and I and keep arguing on the matter. Instead of doing the same, let us talk to the authorities. Let us talk to the producers and the copyright holder Sterling Investment Corp Ltd (of Shapoorji Pallonji group). If you are okay, we can write a joint mail to them and settle the matter. The same has been suggested by Bollyjeff.

Further, his would also be in the interest of the film and also of wikipedia.

Let us work constructively towards finding a solution.

Best Regards, Shakuntala Jain (shakuntala.jain@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaku india (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. This is not an edit warring block except in the most extended sense. The user is a WP:SPA, has a very sporadic history at Wikipedia, but keeps returning and removing sourced content from the same article despite warnings. I therefore blocked them for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Fvsegarra reported by User:Barek (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2freehosting.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Fvsegarra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 23:16, 19 February 2014 (edit summary: "")
2. 23:18, 19 February 2014 (edit summary: "")
3. 23:23, 19 February 2014 (edit summary: "")
4. 23:39, 19 February 2014 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: 23:30, 19 February 2014

Repeated addition of low-quality links as refs, despite repeated warnings and a 3RR warning on the user's talk page. —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User: Lucius.veruss reported by User:Holger1959 (Result: )

Page: De Vere family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lucius.veruss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: article version reverted to redirect (preferred by Lucius.veruss)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

De Vere family

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

Earl of Oxford

1. [68] (reinserting inline external link, removed by Kolbasz)

Verus (gladiator)

1. [69] (reinserting inline external link, afterwards again removed by Kolbasz)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none, see comment below]

Comments:

Lucius.veruss started as IP inserting external links to www.houseofvere.com on several pages (namely disambigs) some weeks ago, reverted by different users (Billinghurst, Xezbeth, Kolbasz, and others), sometimes more than once (see eg. [71], [72], [73]). After creating an account again he kept adding this link eg. [74], and he ignored spam warning on his talk page, see [75] by Kolbasz. Then he started creating empty category pages holding his external link [76] and creating misleading redirects (variants of Vere family to the Earl title). Now he claims that a new article De Vere family is "vandalism" [77] and wants it replaced by a misleading redirect to Earl of Oxford, and editwars on this. Please see the links at Q1180430 De Vere and Q1277392 Earl of Oxford for plausibility; the noble family is definitely not identical to the Earl title, that was hold only by some family members, though this is the best known part of the family). He changed the wording of a comment/explanation by me on his talk page (removed relevant parts, [78]), so that it looks as if I wrote nonsense. Because of this I don't think further warnings from me make sense. Editwar warning also left on the users talk page.

Please notice that I do not have any relation to this "Vere" topic. I found it only by accident through Wikidata and thought it can be helpful to write a stub for the noble family (dewiki and itwiki already have articles).

In case this is the wrong page to ask for admin help, please move my report to a better place (it's my first enwiki report about a problematic user). My main interest is that now someone else takes care for this user, and hopefully changes De Vere family back from the redirect to the article version. Holger1959 (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lucius.veruss: In reply to all this 'stuff' from Holger1959 - I must say this Wikipedia stuff is all new to me, but it is very very clear that this Holger1959 has absolutely no idea about the history of the Vere/de VERE family. The family has asked me to put some information online and if that's a problem for Wikipedia or just doesn't want the truth, other who do.

I feel bounced up and down by those online bullies we hear about, all whilst going through a learning curve to just place correct and known Vere information online with this Wikipedia.

So why such an attack on a new user content provider and messenger, why not help out instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius.veruss (talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of comments: "the family has asked me to put some information" is exactly the reason you should not be putting that info in Wikipedia - conflict of interest and personal knowledge of a topic is not acceptable at any time. There are lots of other places online where you can put some info, but an encyclopedia is not one. Second, whether you have the truth or not, you may not edit-war over anything. We have a process called Be Bold, if it's Reverted, then you must Discuss in order to obtain new consensus for inclusion. In terms of being helped, I can see a mix of personalized messages, and standard messages that explain all of these same issues on your usertalkpage, so you were helped, and because you ignored that help, you've arrived here - not out of a sense of bullying, but in a sense of "we're being ignored, we now have to protect the project". Did you read the friendly assistance on your talkpage? Did you follow all the blue links to policies there, and the ones I linked above? DP 08:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lucius.veruss: OK am starting to get the idea, seems I should self impose time out and printout some of these policies before I do any more. Suggest we can consider the matter closed/resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius.veruss (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: thank you for the outside view! I don't want to provoke the ongoing of the editwar, so I would be happy if someone else could decide about the article vs redirect issue. do you have an advice what to do with [79] or where to ask for a decision? (at dewiki usually other uninvolved users decide, don't know what I can do here or what the best next step is) Holger1959 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Lucius.veruss: please feel free to improve the stub article about the family I started. Improving naturally means writing encyclopedic content, not adding only this external link. There are three pages or short paragraphs which give a very good orientation for writing on Wikipedia: 1) Identifying reliable sources, 2) Information style and tone, 3) Structure of the article. In regard to the De Vere/Vere question you might later discuss with other users about moving the page (not copy & paste!), but I think the exact pagetitle is a secondary issue. Holger1959 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Правичност reported by User:Shokatz (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:55, 15 February 2014
2. 13:32, 15 February 2014
3. 18:22, 18 February 2014
4. 04:24, 20 February 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was warned in the edit summary [81] and I have even started a discussion about this on WP:ANI seen here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This was discussed at WP:ANI entire section here

Comments:
As can be seen from the attached links, I have tried to talk this through with the user in question both in edit summaries and on WP:ANI. I have specifically warned him not to transfer the conflict from the other article in which he was also involved [82]. He denied this on WP:ANI but as you can see from his last edit/revert, he expliticly refers to that article confirming what I have argued on ANI in the first place, he seems to think he is doing some justified retaliation or whatever his motivation is. Now this isn't a classic 3RR since the edits are not exactly within 24hrs however you can see the pattern and that the last 4 reverts are his, I believe he decided to back down for a couple of days only because of me reporting this to ANI. I have decided to back down when he did the third edit, knowing someone will most likely revert him again...as it did happen, and he again did the same revert prior to me warning him. Looking from the relatively recent history, this user seems to be heavily involved in these "number wars", where he either inflates or deflates the numbers regarding specific ethnic groups, he has been reported for this several times. Shokatz (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to add something here, User:Правичност is already been reported for 3RR (see here [83]), (see here [84]) and (see here [85]). Constantly offends other colleagues who disagree with him. (see here [86]) Thanks.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Shokatz why do you say you tried to discuss this with me, when you havent, i already told you i put my arguments on "Croats talk page" but nobody was interested in these changes, so why revert me back if you dont want to discuss new possibilities? This all started when Croatian editors would support eachoder in an attempt to raid "Serbs article", Sokac121 was the main perpetrator of this idea, to degrade number of Serbs and remove good sources. I seen same editors also edit numbers at Croats article... so then i asked my self, why do they come to degrade number of Serbs and remove good sources and on the other hand they use unnofficial sources next to the official ones to inflate numbers of Croats and as you can se my edit`s are actually of good contribution to the Croats article, because they show a realistic picture- as you cannot count more than 6,5 million Croats in that infobox (and even 6,5 mil. is too high, because it consists weird figures such as 250,000 and 400,000 Croats in Argentina and Chile... that is biased) However it doesnt go over 6,4 mil. counting all together.. this is why Sokac121 inflated number of Croats using unnofficial sources for USA and New Zealand to make it look much larger and even with these sources it doesnt reach 7,4 million... The total population of Croats is 1,2 - 2,2 million more than it is in reality on "Croats article" and you are trying to justify that, and collectively involved in making a mess of "Serbs article" trying to turn demographics on its head... editors like Sokac121 calls any Serbian source "Greater-Serbian-chetnik-nationalist-propaganda source" .. but he aprooves every Croatian source stating 10 times more Croats in a significant country than there are in reality. One of your Croatian editor`s Scrosby asked me kindly to back away from editing Croats article and Croats wont edit Serbs article in exchange, because he hates these edit wars from both sides and that he is aware of Sokac121 actions, but he cant stop him... I agreed and then what happened next... Sokac121 shortly after backing up started edit attacks again (4th time on same thing in last couple of months) and again as he came, accusements came aimed towards me, like it is my fault for him coming to Serbs article edit warring with bad arguments (that were never supported even after article got protected 3 times because of him) same thing over and over again in past 8 months or so (Total number of Serbs) .. these figures are something that is burning his soul from inside as i can assume. I believe it isnt neccesarry to dig out Sokac121`s edit warre history (with help of some other Croatian editors) on Serbs article... because anybody can see it in his edit history... 1 million times edit warring same thing, after 3 times of made consensuses, finished debates he comes again and strikes again 4th time with same argument ("number of Serbs is too much, ebcause i think so") and he never even got warned or reported- is this a serious user, contributor to wikipedia? - no, not for me. Name anything aimed against Serbs - he will be there, name anything agaisnt me- he will be there- Name anything in favour of Croats- he will be there... his contributions to wikipedia are of nationalist political aimed goals.. obviously trying to make a propaganda .. how to make Croats number more than Serbs (first he claimed Croats number 8 mil. , then 9 million ... first he claimed Serbs number 10 million, now 9 million) .. its so obvious ... eventhough official demographics of both ethnic groups in the Balkans and estimates of both diaspora`s show clearly that Serbs THROUGHOUT history, number about 1x more than Croats in general... but he and some other croatian editors want(ed) to change that on wikipedia. If anybody should be silent of accusing, it`s Sokac121, 1 year constant edit warring on number of Serbs and he is still in game - the true master of internet war disaster.... And btw Shokatz (reffering to the other editor who reported me here) .. You have reported me for 3 rule edit warre, but i didnt do 3 reverts... so i dont understand.. any collective accusements from the Croatian team that puts against me, meets no success.. in this conspiracy where i am "fighting alone" without any support of any other Serbian editors, this makes me feel proud, because i know i am not doing anything wrong; all im am trying to do is stop nationalist attacks on Serbs article (one comes with linguist sources to replace existing sources, one comes with arguments sources are bad and "too many Serbs, too many Serbs" ("cry,cry")), but they are all actually just being bothered to see so many Serbs more than their ethnic group counts, that is a natural reaction of someone being nationalist ofcourse... that is why a nationalist raider also cant understand something as logical as a fact that today remaining 8 million Serbs in Balkans, throughout history produced a Serbian diaspora of over 3,5 million people. But on the other hand it is totally acceptable for them to claim that today`s 4,5 million Croat population in Balkans produced a 4,5 million diaspora also. Double standards, double faced way of thinking, but more important - not respecting "neighbour`s" soruces, but always supporting "your homeland" sources. This will all stop when Sokac121 will stop vandal attacks and start to behave normally, without dragging Croatian team to edit warre Serbs article number of Serbs. Regards (Правичност (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC))

User:As11ley reported by User:GSK (Result: )

Page

IOS 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

As11ley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC) to 15:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596345356 by BigBenzino (talk)"
   2. 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "iOS 7 has not "ruined" the iPhone 4. Reverted this edit because of vandalism."
   3. 15:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid vandalism edit. iOS 7 has received mostly pssitive reviews, please do not change this. If you want to dispute this then please do so on the talk page."
2. 12:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596315242 by Emaren19 (talk)"
3. 09:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596250125 by Emaren19 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Harassment of other users. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Hello everybody, I am user As11ley

I recently got involved in an edit war with user Emaren19. I do appologise for violating 3RR. I was unaware that such rule existed! However I feel that Emaren19 has been continuously making disruptive edits to iOS7. I have only attempted to undo revisions in which I feel are disruptive to the article. In undoing the revisions I asked Emaren19 numerous times to discuss this on the talk page for iOS 7, however he ignored and carried on with what I feel as disruptive editing. Also to add, Emaren19 has also been leaving harassing and rude comments to me on my talk page, I would like someone to check this out as I feel quite shocked by this.

Thanks for your time and really hope to get this situation resolved as quickly as possible.

As11ley (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2014 (GMT)

User:Oknazevad‎ reported by User:Dogru144

I have written several pieces that have been deleted by bad faith edits by User:Oknazevad‎.

I have attempted to address the issues on the Talk Pages. Yet User:Oknazevad‎ habitually reverts my edits.

There is a pattern that the editor seeks to delete the historical record of certain train lines. I have thoroughly addressed the pertinent issues on the talk pages.

First, re the Raritan Valley Line.

Latest revert: [87]

Editor's previous revert at the same page: [88]

Earlier revert of my work at same page: [89]

Earlier revert of my work at same page: [90]

There are more instances of reverts at the next one, Main Line (NJ Transit). As I stated in the talk page, there is no need to separate out into different article when there is a commuter rail line that crosses state boundaries. As I stated, there are wikipedia precedents in commuter rail lines that cross from Illinois to Indiana, and are jointly run by two different states' transportation authorities. The same happens with the New Haven Metro-North Line from New York to Connecticut. It is jointly run by NYS and Connecticut transportation authorities. Nevertheless, unique to the existence of two different states (New Jersey and New York) the user insists on striking out material related to the history of the Main Line, today NJ Transit Main Line and maintaining the article as two different articles. This is different from the old Pennsylvania RR route between NYC Penn Station and Philadelphia. In that instance users must disembark from a SEPTA train at Trenton and enter a NJ Transit train in Trenton. Furthermore, I pointed to the under-construction extension of one of the NJ Transit Dover Lines into Pennsylvania, Lackawanna Cut-Off (NJ Transit). Will the User then insist one splitting the article into two articles because operating a train from NJ into the Poconos (in PA) on to Scranton (in PA) will involve two different state agencies?

The user is ignoring the point that I have in good faith made on the User Talk pages, that the Main Line does not terminate at Suffern, NY. It continues to Port Jervis. The longer distance trains have a precedence of by-passing intermediate stops going back to the days of the road being operated by the Erie Railroad. (There are other long distance commuter lines which skip over intermediate stations. This happens on the NJ transit NE Corridor line and on several lines of the LIRR. Skipping stations does not make the line into two different lines. If one inspects the Pascack Valley Line schedule, the other NJ-NY interstate commuter line, one will see that there are some trains that skip several stations. But the article for that line is not one targeted for making two separate articles.) After all, the line is four-tracked to allow for such by-passing. The tickets are sold by NJ Transit machines all along the route, regardless of whether one is in NJ or in NY. In conclusion, there should be a merging of the Port Jervis Line article with the Main Line (NJ Transit) article.

Latest edit, Jan. 13: [91]

Previous edit, Jan. 8: [92]

Previous edit, Jan. 7: [93]

Previous edit, Jul. 27: [94]

I am appealing for Wikipedia administrators to arbitrate in this case. Dogru144 (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad‎ reported by User:Dogru144

I apologize for entering my complaint on the wrong page.

I have written several pieces that have been deleted by bad faith edits by User:Oknazevad‎.

I have attempted to address the issues on the Talk Pages. Yet User:Oknazevad‎ habitually reverts my edits.

There is a pattern that the editor seeks to delete the historical record of certain train lines. I have thoroughly addressed the pertinent issues on the talk pages.

First, re the Raritan Valley Line.

Latest revert: [95]

Editor's previous revert at the same page: [96]

Earlier revert of my work at same page: [97]

Earlier revert of my work at same page: [98]

There are more instances of reverts at the next one, Main Line (NJ Transit). As I stated in the talk page, there is no need to separate out into different article when there is a commuter rail line that crosses state boundaries. As I stated, there are wikipedia precedents in commuter rail lines that cross from Illinois to Indiana, and are jointly run by two different states' transportation authorities. The same happens with the New Haven Metro-North Line from New York to Connecticut. It is jointly run by NYS and Connecticut transportation authorities. Nevertheless, unique to the existence of two different states (New Jersey and New York) the user insists on striking out material related to the history of the Main Line, today NJ Transit Main Line and maintaining the article as two different articles. This is different from the old Pennsylvania RR route between NYC Penn Station and Philadelphia. In that instance users must disembark from a SEPTA train at Trenton and enter a NJ Transit train in Trenton. Furthermore, I pointed to the under-construction extension of one of the NJ Transit Dover Lines into Pennsylvania, Lackawanna Cut-Off (NJ Transit). Will the User then insist one splitting the article into two articles because operating a train from NJ into the Poconos (in PA) on to Scranton (in PA) will involve two different state agencies?

The user is ignoring the point that I have in good faith made on the User Talk pages, that the Main Line does not terminate at Suffern, NY. It continues to Port Jervis. The longer distance trains have a precedence of by-passing intermediate stops going back to the days of the road being operated by the Erie Railroad. (There are other long distance commuter lines which skip over intermediate stations. This happens on the NJ transit NE Corridor line and on several lines of the LIRR. Skipping stations does not make the line into two different lines. If one inspects the Pascack Valley Line schedule, the other NJ-NY interstate commuter line, one will see that there are some trains that skip several stations. But the article for that line is not one targeted for making two separate articles.) After all, the line is four-tracked to allow for such by-passing. The tickets are sold by NJ Transit machines all along the route, regardless of whether one is in NJ or in NY. In conclusion, there should be a merging of the Port Jervis Line article with the Main Line (NJ Transit) article.

Latest edit, Jan. 13: [99]

Previous edit, Jan. 8: [100]

Previous edit, Jan. 7: [101]

Previous edit, Jul. 27: [102]

I am appealing for Wikipedia administrators to arbitrate in this case. Dogru144 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not editwarring. (No where near 3RR). Here's the truth Dogru boldly added a line to the Main Line article way back in July 2013. seing it as more appropriate to the Port Jervis Line article, I reverted it, explaining that in my edit summary. Six months later he reverted my reversion without explanation, which is when I noticed that it contained a key, completely geographicall impossible factual error. So I reverted again, back to the state of the article before the error was introduced. The indignent reponse and edit warring to reinsert the error, despite being clearly explained multiple times, just got annoying, but DDogru did cease eventually. The discussion on the talk page wasn't productive, either, as the it was only two editors with differing opinions, and no consensus to make a change was agreed upon. Dogru did say he would seek a third opinion at WT:NYPT, a project that the Main Line article falls under the scope of, but at no point has he ever started such a discussion. As for the RVL part, I have no idea where he ever gets calling four unrelated edits spaced months apart edit warring. Especially when there are factual errors introduced in some of them as clearly explained in the edit summaries.oknazevad (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad is not aware that when you make 4 edits you are violating the 3 revert rule. This is the definition of edit warring.

The user has clearly made that violation. This is simply a matter of that User to dismiss this as a content dispute. One person's content dispute is another person's edit war. This is not for that editor to judge. This is for the administrators. Also, I noticed that you have just deleted some of what I had posted on this page. I'd suggest that you write carefully and refrain from deleting my comments, especially on this page. If User:Oknazevad is confused, I suggest that the editor carefully read what I have posted on the Talk Pages for the two articles under dispute. Again, User:Oknazevad has not substantively responded to my points, particularly to the multiple precedents of other commuter rail lines being operated across state lines by different states but having only one wikipedia article. Dogru144 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I realize that the opening statement should have read as "when you make 4 reverts you are violating the 3 revert rule."Dogru144 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Three things - 1: the three revert rule isn't a rule, you can be editwarring even if you have fewer reverts. 2: with that said I don't see any indication that User:Oknazevad was editwarring at all. 3: But I do see you immediately assuming bad faith. And considering the edits that's perplexing. Perhaps I'm missing past involvement between the two of you; but I don't see any WP:3RR violations or any other editwarring. Simonm223 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad was deleting back and forth my valid, factual contributions. That's edit warring.

User:Oknazevad did not respond to my substantive comments on the Talk Page such as my above comments, which get to the crux of the issue on the debate over the NJ Transit Main Line article, that there are other commuter lines that cross state lines and are administered by agencies of the two different states yet they don't have separate articles. His edit reverts after I had taken time to address the issues on the Talk Page. That is bad faith editing on his part.Dogru144 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Useitorloseit reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: )

Page

Ta-Nehisi Coates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Useitorloseit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596396966 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Gamaliel violated the 3-revert rule; please do not reward their behavior by defaulting page to that version."
2. 21:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596393933 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) This isn't undue since author writes on blacks and crime and cites this incident in his work."
3. 20:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596387711 by Gamaliel (talk) Revert unexplained "disagreement" with previous edit. Please explain why you are deleting this or don't delete it."
4. 20:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596380297 by Gamaliel (talk) As already noted, this is relevant due to author's subject matter in writings."
5. 02:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596265889 by Gamaliel (talk) Author's work makes this relevant"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ta-Nehisi Coates. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Arrest for assault */"
2. 21:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Arrest for assault */"

Comments:

User has been warned, discussion attempted - to no avail, the reverts keep coming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)