Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 593: | Line 593: | ||
*[[User:Cantucove]] and [[User:Garden Mixer]] {{an3|b|36 hours}} for starting and propagating an unnecessary edit war. Looking at the page history, this user clearly claimed to be attempting to update old and outdated information—including obviously noncontentious updates—and acknowledged that they were going to put sources, and yet these two users kept reverting their all of their edits ''while'' WK was still in the process of making their update. Yes, if they had fundamentally changed the article and didn't add sources and clearly weren't going to, that's one thing, but it's completely inappropriate and extremely disruptive to simply revert a user before they're even given a chance to finish what they're trying to do and ask questions later. Of course, I will talk to WK about their role in this but at some point you have to give people a break when they're dealing with completely bad faith and disruptive editing such as this and don't exactly know how to handle it. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em grey'><big>'''S</big><small>warm...'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><sup>'''—X—'''</sup></span>]] 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
*[[User:Cantucove]] and [[User:Garden Mixer]] {{an3|b|36 hours}} for starting and propagating an unnecessary edit war. Looking at the page history, this user clearly claimed to be attempting to update old and outdated information—including obviously noncontentious updates—and acknowledged that they were going to put sources, and yet these two users kept reverting their all of their edits ''while'' WK was still in the process of making their update. Yes, if they had fundamentally changed the article and didn't add sources and clearly weren't going to, that's one thing, but it's completely inappropriate and extremely disruptive to simply revert a user before they're even given a chance to finish what they're trying to do and ask questions later. Of course, I will talk to WK about their role in this but at some point you have to give people a break when they're dealing with completely bad faith and disruptive editing such as this and don't exactly know how to handle it. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em grey'><big>'''S</big><small>warm...'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><sup>'''—X—'''</sup></span>]] 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7]] reported by [[User:Contributor321]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7]] reported by [[User:Contributor321]] (Result: Page protected) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Jessica Barth}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Jessica Barth}} <br /> |
||
Line 621: | Line 621: | ||
2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 doesn't seem to understand, or simply won't abide by, [[WP:VERIFY]], [[WP:USERGENERATED]], [[WP:ONUS]] or [[WP:EDITWAR]]. 2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 persists on adding [[Vassar College]] to [[Jessica Barth]]'s Education section of the article's Infobox, even though the only source provided (after repeated requests) is her own website. [[User:Contributor321|Contributor321]] ([[User talk:Contributor321|talk]]) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 doesn't seem to understand, or simply won't abide by, [[WP:VERIFY]], [[WP:USERGENERATED]], [[WP:ONUS]] or [[WP:EDITWAR]]. 2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 persists on adding [[Vassar College]] to [[Jessica Barth]]'s Education section of the article's Infobox, even though the only source provided (after repeated requests) is her own website. [[User:Contributor321|Contributor321]] ([[User talk:Contributor321|talk]]) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
*{{AN3|pe}} Obviously self-published sources are generally not the best because anyone can say anything about anything. We all get that. However, when the content in question is something like a non-contentious bit of information about a school someone went to, that doesn't mean we have to outright ban its inclusion because the source given is the subject's personal website. A personal website can still be used as a primary source of information. Obviously we prefer secondary sources, but that doesn't mean it's okay to edit war because someone's adding something backed by a primary source. As with everything, common sense applies, and it seems like you're [[WP:LAWYER|Wikilawyering]] rather than contesting the content for a good reason. Please discuss the issue. [[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em grey'><big>'''S</big><small>warm...'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Swarm|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'><sup>'''—X—'''</sup></span>]] 20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Newspring1]] reported by [[User:Cfd954]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Newspring1]] reported by [[User:Cfd954]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 20:06, 20 March 2015
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
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.
| ||
User:Sniffdafanny reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indef)
- Page
- Everton F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Sniffdafanny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Crest */"
- 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Revert. Original Latin translation"
- 21:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651105255 by WikiDan61 (talk). Already explained"
- 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651105620 by WikiDan61 (talk). Already explained"
- 21:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "I added some new information"
- 21:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- This isn't edit warring, it's just persistent vandalism. It's not like the user has a different opinion about the topic. He is changing the translation of the team's motto (Nihil satis nisi optimum) from "Nothing but the best" to "No goals this season". That's just vandalism. And it has been repeatedly reverted. The user is currently reported at WP:AIV for vandalism past a level 4 warning, as well as spam (two article creations that were clearly promotional) and an offensive user name. I think the AIV people will resolve the issue and no action need be taken here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
See also [1], [2], [3], [4]. So if I breached then so did Wikidan! Sniffdafanny (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- WP:3RR clearly states an exemption for reverting obvious vandalism, which this was. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- SDF, it's not going to help your case by acting immaturely. While I also believe your edits to be disruptive, if you truly believe your version is correct, you should bring it up on the talk page first rather than edit war. - Amaury (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely – for vandalism. Also, repeated creation of spam articles and offensive user name. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Marc87 reported by User:Hirolovesswords (Result: Blocked)
Page: Nancy Walton Laurie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marc87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [5]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:User:Marc87 has repeatedly removed a referenced category from Nancy Walton Laurie and added a category that the article gives no clear indication for inclusion. User:Zigzig20s attempted to resolve this conflict on Marc87's page, but was unsuccessful. [13] --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Page: Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hadraa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Preferred version
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 01:44, 18 March 2015
- Revision as of 02:17, 18 March 2015
- Revision as of 02:21, 18 March 2015
- Latest revision as of 02:35, 18 March 2015
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Users talk page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Articles Talk Page
Comments:
Hello. AcidSnow (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
User:EvergreenFir reported by User:Galestar (Result: Filer already blocked per WP:AE)
Page: Antifeminism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 20:06, March 17, 2015
- Revision as of 20:08, March 17, 2015
- Revision as of 22:56, March 17, 2015
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Comments:
- I notice
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
is missing... wonder why... It's because I'm the one who started it. Anyway, I didn't violate 3RR. The reporter, on the other hand, has been warned by myself, Ian.thomson, and NE Ent about their editing behavior and have an WP:AE request filed against them by Strongjam. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- PS - I was never notified of this AN3. Just saw it in Galestar's contribs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- You started a discussion **after** violating 3RR. I warned you twice about your behavior on your talk page and each time it was deleted with comments such as "WP:DENY" and "rm spa crap". In other words you do not take warnings about your own disruptive behavior seriously. Similar to our conversation on talk, you believe in one set of rules for you and one set of rules for everyone else. Galestar (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please show where I made a 4th revert? Also, fixing disruption is not itself disruption. I removed your templates because they were nonsense (and because of WP:DTTR). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- My edits were not disruptive. I am attempting to bring a NPOV to an article that has been tagged with "undue weight" for over a year. You have been very active on this article and others in the same space, so I can see why you have a personal attachment to their content. Remember though: you do not own this article or any others. Galestar (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please show where I made a 4th revert? Also, fixing disruption is not itself disruption. I removed your templates because they were nonsense (and because of WP:DTTR). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Filer is already blocked 48 hours per a complaint at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Justinw303 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Drake discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Justinw303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 21:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC) to 21:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- 21:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC) ""
- 21:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Mixtapes */"
- 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Studio albums */"
- 21:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Studio albums */"
- 14:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC) "Corrected Discography"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
So this is happening again. Justinw303 reverting User:Drizzy010's edits at the Drake Discography article. They were both blocked by Swarm for edit warring three days ago, blocks were lifted today and both editors went right back to the same behavior. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Today is Tuesday. The ban was lifted Saturday. I corrected the page (the current listing is incorrect) and Drizzy continues to revert the page to an incorrect version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinw303 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – 1 week, for resumption of previous war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Drizzy010 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Drake discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Drizzy010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 22:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC) to 22:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- 22:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC) ""
- 22:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Mixtapes */"
- Consecutive edits made from 14:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC) to 14:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- 14:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651783794 by Justinw303 (talk)"
- 14:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Guest appearances */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
So this is happening again. Drizzy010 reverting User:Justinw303's edits at the Drake Discography article. They were both blocked by Swarm for edit warring three days ago, blocks were lifted today and both editors went right back to the same behavior. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – 1 week, for resumption of previous war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Page: Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harari234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Preferred version
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 23:28, 17 March 2015
- Revision as of 00:51, 18 March 2015
- Latest revision as of 03:13, 18 March 2015
- Latest revision as of 03:48, 18 March 2015
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Users Talk Page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page
Comments:
For the past few weeks (almost a month now), Harari234 has conestantly broken WP:CONSENSUS on multiple articles. These articles include:the Walashma Dynasty (see here: [14]), the Adal Sultanate (see here: [15]) the Ifat Sultanate (see here: [16]), the city of Harar (see here: [17] and the Harari People (see here: [18]. Despite mine and others attempts to reason with him he doesn't care. He simply waits for 24 hours to pass and then reverts again in an attempt to avoid 3RR. However, this time he slipped up. AcidSnow (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Clear 3RR violation from an editor who just came off a block a week ago.[19] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – 4 days for continued warring. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Page: Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AcidSnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:[20]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 19:18, 15 March 2015
- Revision as of 05:30, 16 March 2015
- Revision as of 05:18, 16 March 2015
- Latest revision as of 00:09,18 March 2015
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:User Talk Page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Acidsnow has broken the WP:CONSENSUS on these articles:Walashma Dynasty (see here: [21]), the Adal Sultanate (see here: [22]) the Ifat Sultanate (see here: [23]), the city of Harar (see here: [24] and the Harari People (see here: [25]. I clearly don't know why his breaking consensus. For the page of the Adal Sultanate I kept adding what was their long before, but he kept removing it. I just wonder whats up with that guy, he doesn't listen. He also argues with other members too. He stays on his computer and keeps reverting.
- I never broke consensus and those edits are three days apart. AcidSnow (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- AcidSnow made valid points and there indeed was no consensus. One can probably be worked out with Harari234, though; he seems like a sincere, good faith editor. This is just a misunderstanding. Middayexpress (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 4 days by another admin --slakr\ talk / 02:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
180.215.124.88 reported by User:Akhilan (Result: Semi)
Page: Media in Kerala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.215.124.88
Previous version reverted to: [26]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]
Comments:
- Result: Article semiprotected one month. Multiple IPs have been warring. User:Akhilan, if you disagree with these changes please explain the issue on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
User:129.59.79.123 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Semi-protection)
- Page
- Southern strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 129.59.79.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651924713 by North Shoreman (talk)The NY Times says this is a myth hence it is in dispute. Discuss in talk BEFORE undoing this change again!"
- 14:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC) ""
- 14:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651930929 by Gobonobo (talk) AGAIN MOVE TO TALK BEFORE UNDOING CHANGE AGAIN!!!! Why should we believe the original biased NYT article vs the later one?"
- 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Added link to opening paragraph showing the facts are in dispute. Removed claim that does not support SS hypothesis."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Warning given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:129.59.79.123
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 14:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Weak intro, maybe even a one-sided slant */"
- Comments:
A 2nd IP from the same geographical area has also made two reverts -- I have also requested page protectionTom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Page protected for 10 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The ones guilty of the edit war are those who are trying to remove a New York Times article that adds some balance to the article. Additionally the user in question is removing a POV tag. A review of the history of the article shows that a number of editors have questioned the neutrality of the article. What we are seeing is a few people goal tending to avoid creating a balanced article.--129.59.79.123 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't matter who's "right" or who's "wrong" – everybody thinks they're right. Edit-warring is forbidden for all. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- But why are they allowed to undo my edit with out justifying or anything else? I'm not the one undoing. They are the ones undoing MY edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.79.123 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- If several people are reverting you, then you might contemplate if you could be wrong. They often leave clues in their edit summaries, or on the article's talkpage. Try to discuss the matter with them on the article's talkpage. Edit-warring isn't the solution. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- This appears to be a classic case of political bias in the editors who have taken an interest in the article. I've tried to engage them on the talk page but they didn't bother to discuss before reverting edits. The history of the edits of this article show that many people have tried to add some balance but they don't have the patience to deal with a few of the editors who have their own biased point of view. When an editor says the New York Times isn't at least credible enough to be included as an opposing view you have to assume that editor is probably not credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.79.123 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- If several people are reverting you, then you might contemplate if you could be wrong. They often leave clues in their edit summaries, or on the article's talkpage. Try to discuss the matter with them on the article's talkpage. Edit-warring isn't the solution. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- But why are they allowed to undo my edit with out justifying or anything else? I'm not the one undoing. They are the ones undoing MY edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.79.123 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- This appears to be a classic case of accusing other editors of one's own shortcomings. When POV editors are reverted, they often accuse others of POV. Classic pattern. Please read WP:BRD. The acronym means Bold, Revert, Discuss. You Boldly add something, someone Reverts it, you start the Discussion. Please note that there is only one R in WP:BRD. That is, you don't revert back, and then start to discuss – or demand that others start the discussion. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- The IP has been blocked by another admin for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- This appears to be a classic case of accusing other editors of one's own shortcomings. When POV editors are reverted, they often accuse others of POV. Classic pattern. Please read WP:BRD. The acronym means Bold, Revert, Discuss. You Boldly add something, someone Reverts it, you start the Discussion. Please note that there is only one R in WP:BRD. That is, you don't revert back, and then start to discuss – or demand that others start the discussion. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
User:69.172.85.34 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 72h)
- Page
- Creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 69.172.85.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Creationism
- 02:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652012773 by EoRdE6 (talk) sources exist, vandalism"
- 02:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652019552 by Mann jess (talk) all content is available on wikipedia with links"
- 02:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652021271 by Mann jess (talk) vandalism"
- 2:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652021806 by Apokryltaros (talk) vandalism"
- 2:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "Hinduism"
- Hindu views on evolution
- Undid revision 651917134 by Kapil.xerox (talk) does not need source
- Undid revision 651917134 by Kapil.xerox (talk) source added
- Hindu cosmological view of creation
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 02:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Creationism. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
No violation of 3rr. User is adding unsourced content to a variety of articles, edit warring on several, including Creationism and Hindu views on evolution, among others. Will not provide sources, or go to talk. IP appears to be static, and this disruption has persisted for the last week. — Jess· Δ♥ 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. User violated 3rr despite warnings and just getting off a block for the very same issue, refused to communicate and accused other editors of bad faith, despite their very reasonable rationales for their reversions. Swarm... —X— 03:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Page: Harar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zekenyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Preferred version
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 02:55, 19 March 2015
- Revision as of 02:57, 19 March 2015
- Latest revision as of 03:04, 19 March 2015
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on Talk Page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion
Comments:
Although it's only 3 Reverts there's much more underneath it. Zekenyan has learned nothing from his pervious 24 hour block (see here:[35]) administrated by admin Swarm. Since his arrival he has deliberately and consistently violated numerous policies. Such as: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:PERSONATTACK, WP:ORGINALRESEARCH, WP.FRINGE, and WP:EDITWAR. Despite being well aware that he is breaking consensus on numerous articles, he don't care even the slightest. These articles include the Walashma Dynasty,[36][37][38][39] the Harari people,[40][41][42] and the city of Harar.[43][44][45][46][47] He has even opted to run a way from discussions like he did at Talk:Walashma dynasty and Talk:Harari people, as well as denying the existence of sources that have already been presented by multiple editors.[48][49][50] For the sources see here: presented on Talk:Walashma dynasty, Talk:Harar and the ANI Noticeboard (here: [51]).
Zekenyan has even made numerous attacks against users involved in the dispute. Such as claiming that I never discussed the despite it being far from the case.[52] As well as insulting my English skills, [53] accusing me of original research, [54], that if am supposedly spamming the noticeboard,[55] that I have some how insulted you,[56] and that I am not cooperating.[57] Ironically, he demands that others respect him.[58] As anyone can see, Zekenyan is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but rather just to cause disruption; of which numerous users have already concluded: Midday,[59] Abdi,[60] and I.[61] AcidSnow (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC) ′
- Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Got pinged when you posted this to ANI and I remember this situation. After reviewing everything I've gone ahead and reblocked the user as I find their behavior to be obviously disruptive. Also agree with the WP:NOTHERE sentiment, and if this doesn't prove to be sufficient, the next block may need to be indefinite. Swarm... —X— 03:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
User:41.84.141.46 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: )
- Page
- Guntur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 41.84.141.46 (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
- 06:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Guntur. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
False claim as Guntur is not a Metropolis. Vin09 (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
User:173.16.82.136 reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: Semi)
Page: San Salvatore in Lauro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.16.82.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [62]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67], [68]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]
Comments:This is a case of low intensity edit warring. As you can see from the diff, there is also another IP involved here, User:198.40.228.43. The info which I removed is unsourced, and as it is clear from the history and the talk page, I have been asking five times for a reliable source, but in vain. After that, I asked for half protection of the article, but instead of that the article was full protected three days because of this content dispute. During this time, the IP(s) did not answer to my thread in the talk page.
- Result: Semiprotected two months. Revert war by IP-hopping editor who geolocates to Middletown, NY. The IP is trying to insert an unsourced name for the church. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Saladin1987 reported by User:Krzyhorse22 (Result: )
Page: Pashtun people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saladin1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [70]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75], [76], [77].
Comments: Saladin1987 is a pro-Pakistani/anti-Afghanistan POV pushing vandal who as his editing policy must always remove "Afghan" and "Afghanistan" from pages. [78], [79], [80], [81], [82] I avoid people who have negative energy circling around them but this one had to be reported at this time because he's destroying well written articles.
To me Saladin1987 is one of the most disruptive editors who hasn't been detected by admins since his last 1 month block. He appearantly hasn't learned his lesson. In addition to his extreme anti-Afghanistan pov pushing and vandalizing pages, I'm almost 100% certain that he is another sock puppet of User:Mar4d. They are both Pakistani ultra-nationalists editing from Australia (likely "Brisbane"), making identical edits [83] [84] on the same articles and showing the same racist attitude toward Afghans and Indians.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Krzyhorse22: Do not make accusations against other users that they are socks. If you are so certain, then open an WP:SPI. You have been warned about this before.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
i have thrice asked User:Krzyhorse22 to reach a concensus before adding anything in the article. He has deliberately added content without having a discussion on talk page which i have started in the talk page. If i am wrong anybody can have a look at the talk page which clearly states that lets reach concensus before added disputed information. He has reported me but himself has broken 3 revert rule Saladin1987 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The links he has mentioned has no sense as Afghan in modern sense relates to Afghanistan and not to Pashtuns anymore. He seems to live in 16th century who wants the articles according to 16th century identities. if the poet is born on Pakistani side , pakistan is going to be added. Similarly there was no Afghanistan before 1800s but there are articles which User:Krzyhorse22 has added Afghanistan to although the articles belong to people born far before than that. But as he has reported me for the article Pashtun people, i should stay with this article. I have many times left comments on talk page and edit page that we should have a concensus before proceeding but he seems to push his own opinions neglecting the opinions of millions of pashtuns of Pakistan. If i am found guilty and wrong, i surely should be blocked but i would appreciate the admins to have a look at the edit history and talk page before making any decision. thankyouSaladin1987 18:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
i even asked assistance here but you can see his reply on the talk page. he is making baseless accusations against me being anti indian. [[85]] Saladin1987 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I left several message in talk not to remove certain content but he did it anyway and laughed. [86] This guy doesn't care about Wikipedia rules or anything, he just wants to promote Punjabis/Pakistan and put down Pashtuns/Afghanistan, and he doesn't care about being blocked (indication he is a sock, notice the main account is not coming here to deny the sock charge). His lenghthy nonsense regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his wild (unsourced) claims everywhere are very disruptive. Most of all, he is targetting a specific group and country (Afghan people / Afghanistan) and he isn't even shy to admit this. He defines an ethnic group by language and wants to force this view in Wikipedia on everyone.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have figured a little bit. Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Ryantheravensfan1 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: Protected )
Page: Riffian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryantheravensfan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&oldid=651469396
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=652064750
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=652064149
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=652027429
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=652017659
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=652014730
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riffian_people&diff=prev&oldid=651469396 is not a revert, but the original removal of cited text without explanation.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARyantheravensfan1&action=historysubmit&diff=652063515&oldid=652018565
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I may find myself facing a block too; well, fair enough. It takes two to tango, although I'm not the only editor reverting Ryantheravensfan1. I'll participate in a talk page discussion, but I lack the will to open one about a straight-up removal of a cited section for an article.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Tunisia&diff=prev&oldid=615782487
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccan_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=615876097
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Tunisia&diff=prev&oldid=616125549
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccan_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=616128109
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccan_genetics&diff=prev&oldid=616645609
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Tunisia&diff=prev&oldid=616646467
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chadic_languages&diff=prev&oldid=620068033
... and frankly, this user may be perfectly good on football-related pages, but as far as I can see all they do beside that is strip out large sections of cited material without discussion, often misusing the minor edit facility. I don't know if I'm edit warring, or reverting vandalism. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Full protection for 3 days - settle the issue on article talk. Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I thought 3RR violation was a bright-line rule? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is, however with more than one editor in violation and no discussion on the talk page, I thought protection the better option. Go there and talk... Vsmith (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- No other editor has violated 3RR (even if they have not covered themselves in glory), not least because every other editor with eyes on the page appears to agree that stripping out a section without discussion is unhelpful. The reported user has never shown any indication to engage at article talk pages. They have a total of *zero* edits to article talk pages, having used Wikipedia for two years. Why exactly do you suppose this is going to change, given that from their point of view, their existing approach has been entirely successful and that the only effect of reporting them for edit warring has been that their preferred version is locked in for three days?
- It is, however with more than one editor in violation and no discussion on the talk page, I thought protection the better option. Go there and talk... Vsmith (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I thought 3RR violation was a bright-line rule? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you are wrong to protect the page. I've read WP:WRONG, and I'm not saying you should lock in my preferred version. However, I am saying that you are sending a clear message to a 3RR-violating editor that the only consequences for doing so is to get what they want. Hand me a block, fine; but I would appreciate it if you would actually follow what is supposedly a non-negotiable rule.
- Put another way, to engage on a talk page with the reported editor will be tricky when I have no reason to suppose they'll even read it - let alone reply. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Which other editor apart from Ryantheravensfan1 is in violation of 3RR? Ryantheravensfan1 has repeatedly removed sourced data from the article without any attempt to communicate on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see multiple users involved and reverting and no discussion on the article talk page. Wrong version protected? Sorry 'bout that. So, go ye to article talk and discuss. Vsmith (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- So what happened firstly to the idea that 3RR is a bright line and secondly to the idea that the onus was on someone wanting to remove sourced information to discuss that removal? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:David Biddulph, if you discuss on the talk page and the other party doesn't then the outcome of the next 3RR case may be different. The dispute about Riffian people appears to depend mostly on the use of Carleton S. Coon as a source. It's fair to say he is not the ideal source to use on a question about race. There do appear to be other disputes, though, that do not involve Coon. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- So if someone believes that Carleton S. Coon is an unreliable source they can say so on the article talk page, or they can add something sourced onto the article to say that there are alternative views. Which of the 7 exemptions at WP:3RRNO do you believe justifies Ryantheravensfan1's repeated reversions? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps one of EdJohnston or Vsmith would be so kind as to make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring regarding the idea that policy should change so that 3RR is a guideline at best - although if it doesn't apply to an editor who in two years has never touched an article talk page, who continued to revert after being warned at their own talk page, who is willing to revert multiple other editors in quick succession, and essentially whose entire approach to any content dispute is, and has always been, to bludgeon their way through with repeated reverts (mixed with spurious threats and equally spurious accusations of vandalism), it's not clear to me who it would apply to.
- User:David Biddulph, if you discuss on the talk page and the other party doesn't then the outcome of the next 3RR case may be different. The dispute about Riffian people appears to depend mostly on the use of Carleton S. Coon as a source. It's fair to say he is not the ideal source to use on a question about race. There do appear to be other disputes, though, that do not involve Coon. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- So what happened firstly to the idea that 3RR is a bright line and secondly to the idea that the onus was on someone wanting to remove sourced information to discuss that removal? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- In the mean time, would *someone* please enforce the quote bright-line rule unquote? Because I really don't have a lot of faith that Ryantheravensfan1 is going to suffer a Damascene conversion after being shown that they can violate 3RR with impunity. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- However blocks are not punishment. Hmm these two policies contradict each other a bit, especially if the user is willing to participate in a good natured discussion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- The latter policy is not described as a bright-line rule.
- However blocks are not punishment. Hmm these two policies contradict each other a bit, especially if the user is willing to participate in a good natured discussion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- In the mean time, would *someone* please enforce the quote bright-line rule unquote? Because I really don't have a lot of faith that Ryantheravensfan1 is going to suffer a Damascene conversion after being shown that they can violate 3RR with impunity. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I'm not suggesting it as punishment. Ryantheravensfan1 is sufficiently sporadic an editor that I doubt it would inconvenience them in the slightest. I'm suggesting it because it seems desirable to change their mode of interaction and that presently what is being done is to send a clear message that their existing mode of interaction gets exactly what they want. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Alansohn reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: Declined)
Page: Battin High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [87]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]
Comments:
I have had an issue with this editor and edit warring in the past. Please see here.
I enjoy editing articles about New Jersey, and have created many new articles about the state. I have also added hundreds of photos to articles about the United States via my Commons account. Unfortunately, I have again and again been frustrated by this one editor. I feel my edits to Battin High School were positive ones, and I tried to discuss my concern about inaccuracies in the article on the talk page. I'm sorry to have to keep coming here, but I'm not sure what I could have done differently, and this editor simply will not stop.
As for "Wikistalking"; it would be difficult to edit any New Jersey article without bumping into Alansohn.
Thank you again for any help you may give. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Magnolia677 is up to his usual abuse of process. He doesn't edit school articles. He has never edited any of the four or five articles that link to Battin High School; The article had been created hours before and was not linked into the network of articles about the state, as he claims; He had to go out of his way to find it. As is his rather bad habit, he has persistently engaged in WP:WIKISTALKING, trying to manufacture conflicts so that he can run off to claim that I have done something terrible. Four previous failed trips to WP:ANI by Magnolia677 and one previous case (here, just a few weeks ago), and we're back again.
- Magnolia677 fails to understand WP:BRD and insists that his version must stand over any other, subject to him deciding that another editor's edit meets his standards. I have pointed to a source that explicitly states that the school was constructed in the year stated, and cited that source both in the article and in the edit summary. If he can provide alternative sources, I look forward to changing and expanding the article, but the article is based on several sources that cite the 1913 date.
- There is no legitimate issue here. This is sadly someone who just is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and I don't know why anyone should have to put up with his bullshit. Can anyone tell Magnolia677 to get over his vendetta and move on? Even a block of a few days or weeks might help tone down the levels of crap here. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that I wanted to try a less formal method to resolve this, but have not had luck with that either. Last January I tried "Third Opinion" with this edit. Despite the instructions at third opinion--in bold--that "no discussion of the issue should take place here", Alansohn "somehow" noticed I had left a message there, and added his own comment to mine 18 minutes later. Again, thank you for your assistance. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Declined. This is the wrong forum for the allegations by the filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Westkennedy reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Two editors blocked)
Page: University of Tampa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Westkennedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 1
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notice (note this was after they violated 3RR and I notified them about edit warring, they have continued to edit war)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I have not been involved in the case, but noticed a ridiculous number of reverts. They are replacing sourced content with unsourced, or poorly sourced content. The edit summaries of other users have been clear in noting the problems with these edits. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Cantucove and User:Garden Mixer Blocked – for a period of 36 hours for starting and propagating an unnecessary edit war. Looking at the page history, this user clearly claimed to be attempting to update old and outdated information—including obviously noncontentious updates—and acknowledged that they were going to put sources, and yet these two users kept reverting their all of their edits while WK was still in the process of making their update. Yes, if they had fundamentally changed the article and didn't add sources and clearly weren't going to, that's one thing, but it's completely inappropriate and extremely disruptive to simply revert a user before they're even given a chance to finish what they're trying to do and ask questions later. Of course, I will talk to WK about their role in this but at some point you have to give people a break when they're dealing with completely bad faith and disruptive editing such as this and don't exactly know how to handle it. Swarm... —X— 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
User:2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Page protected)
Page: Jessica Barth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [98]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]
Comments:
2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 doesn't seem to understand, or simply won't abide by, WP:VERIFY, WP:USERGENERATED, WP:ONUS or WP:EDITWAR. 2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 persists on adding Vassar College to Jessica Barth's Education section of the article's Infobox, even though the only source provided (after repeated requests) is her own website. Contributor321 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Obviously self-published sources are generally not the best because anyone can say anything about anything. We all get that. However, when the content in question is something like a non-contentious bit of information about a school someone went to, that doesn't mean we have to outright ban its inclusion because the source given is the subject's personal website. A personal website can still be used as a primary source of information. Obviously we prefer secondary sources, but that doesn't mean it's okay to edit war because someone's adding something backed by a primary source. As with everything, common sense applies, and it seems like you're Wikilawyering rather than contesting the content for a good reason. Please discuss the issue. Swarm... —X— 20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Newspring1 reported by User:Cfd954 (Result: )
Page: NewSpring Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Newspring1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [108]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Initial Warning: [122]
Page Blanked after warning by Newspring1: [123]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: