Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:07, 14 August 2016

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:DPGCMonsta reported by User:Orion XXV (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ice_Cube_discography&oldid=731823777

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ice_Cube_discography&diff=prev&oldid=733728926

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADPGCMonsta&type=revision&diff=679098243&oldid=679025011

Comments:
Simply put, this user has been continuously providing false information on this page and I have been reverting it back for the past year and a half. All of the certifications on Ice Cube's page have reference links directly to the RIAA's site, and all of DPGCMonsta's edits are being made deliberately to boost the sales numbers on the page. The link to the talk page is indeed the user's because I have made it known that there is a discrepancy with the edits. Readers on here should get the facts and not some skewed numbers that, and neither I nor anyone else should have to maintain a constant watch. Orion XXV (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Declined. The reported user has not edited since 9 August, and you haven't notified them or tried to discuss the problem anywhere. If you believe they are adding false information, you need to better explain what is wrong. File a new report if you have properly explained the issue to them and they still won't stop. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston I've already told the user and someone who has had multiple citations is well aware of what he/she is doing. It's not a secret. Plus, if you made an effort to read the talk page, you will clearly see that I put in the comments that the problem is due to inflated sales numbers. In addition, August 9, 2016 was only 4 days ago and not a month or two like some people's reports. I filed this shortly after the incident reoccurred for the 20th time. Orion XXV (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 1 month. The filer of this report didn't make it easy to check the true sales numbers, or give an example of a falsification. But this edit from August 9 appears to be artificially changing sales numbers by increasing the leading digit of each number. User can be unblocked if he can give sources for these highly implausible changes. A previous ANI report (September 2015)] is linked from User talk:DPGCMonsta#Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3. As User:NeilN stated in that thread, "If DPGCMonsta is deliberately adding factual errors they should be blocked". Ice Cube's actual gold and platinum awards are listed at this RIAA page. Evidently Ice Cube has no US triple-platinum albums (sales over than 3 million), contrary to User:DPGCMonsta. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resnjari reported by User:Athenean (Result: Withdrawn by filer)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

At Konitsa
[1]
[2]
[3] (partial rv of this [4])
[5]

At Albanians
[6] (partial rv of this [7])
[8]
[9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:
Brightline 3rr vio at Konitsa, accompanied with even more ferocious edit-warring at Albanians (3 reverts in the space of 20 minutes). Athenean (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Given that I was in error at Konitsa, and that we have reached an agreement at Albanians, I am withdrawing the report. That said, I certainly do not appreciate the mud-slinging and character assasination by Resnjari in his defense below. Athenean (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari's reply: Of the Konitsa article the editor who reported me was pushing POV by distorting the sentence [12] (and claiming "bad grammar" as a reason) whereby the source did not say what that editor was claiming (see footnote 49: [13]). This editor only recently edited the page after a long absence. In a dialogue of good faith in the talkpage i am currently engaging other editors over content [14] which he has not in recent times contributed too thus far. Of the Albanians page i explained to the editor that the sentence placed in the lede was a condensation and based on Ramet (which he deleted [15][16] and placed Giakoumis who deals only with southern Albania while the editor then wrote a sentence that implies all Albanians based on that source) as she sums up the conversion process of Albanians more so than any other scholar [17]. His first response to me was about myself trying to "make the Albanians look more western" [18]. His second response was about misgivings of trusting me, implied source manipulation and accusations of cherry picking [19]. In a third reply he referred to "Funny, duress due to excessive love of Europe" [20] which left me perplexed. I point to these edits because the editor is involving his own personal POV (of possibly Albanians) instead of just engaging with the sources which is why i reverted his article edits which i felt had a POV overtone to them. While in here he accuses me of "ferocious edit-warring". I recently edited, heavily referenced the Islam in Albania article which allowed me to address shortcomings of other articles by removing [21] POV issues with the Albanians article which this editor had placed [22] such as Albanians being "the main pillars of Ottoman Porte's policy in the Balkans" (which the Clayer source makes absolutely no mention of). I would like to note that I have been on Wikipedia since 2008 and my record is clean [23]. That editor on the other hand has been blocked three times [24]. He has also been subject to an interaction ban with a past Albanian editor in 2010 [25] and in 2011 [26] for displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND rapport. He has also had discretionary sanctions applied to him in the past [27], [28], [29], [30]. I cite these examples because that editor has displayed similar WP:BATTLEGROUND tendencies when interacting with me over time. I ignored it then for the sake of good faith and making Wikipedia better. For example in the recent past he has deleted my comments on an article talkpage (without explanation) [31] which is a breach of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. He has also referred to me as "paranoid" and claimed that my talkpage comments are "rants" [32], again in breach of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. This has made editing at times very unpalatable. Other editors have taken the matter further [33] and he has been noted by an administrator for his "bad language". I don't know if it has to do with his personal views of things, though i have always placed sources and their content in determining the discussion above trivial things. It is within that context i reverted his edits as his other commentary (on the edit summary box and talkpage) concerned me about whether his edits were based on the sources or his own point of view separate to scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident's reply: Athenean's past records can not justify your multiple and repeated violations of the 3RR, Resnjari. Nor the fact that he has been blocked in the past while you have a clean record, makes your argument against his report more valid, I am afraid. Your latest edits on Konitsa were not in accordance with what the cited source says, and thus I had no other option but to have your edits reverted. -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment: I have given my reply. Reverts where done as stated in the above section for the reason's outlined. An editor at the very least should base themselves on the scholarship, not on their opinion of what a particular group is considered "Western" or how Western etc. In the Konitsa article Baltsiotis says the Muslims of the town where considered of Turkish origin while at the moment it states that they themselves perceived themselves as Turks. That's a big difference.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have undone my revert to Resnjari's edit on the article Konitsa, here: [[34]]. More specifically, upon re-checking the sources, I realized that self-declaration and consideration should not be confused with each other as they are two completely different things with different meanings when it comes to intentities. The one is by-self, the other is by-others. And therefore, the sentence has been restored to its previous version. However, the sentence is still problematic and the way it was worded, can not prevent from further confusion in the future. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment by Resnjari: This is footnote 49, the whole thing from Baltsiotis [35]:

According to a basically common legal process, a few hundred more individuals, Muslims, living mostly in urban centers declared themselves to be of “Albanian origin” and some others obtained Albanian nationality and thus avoided their inclusion in the exchange process. On the other hand the (Muslim) population of Preveza, and the majority of that of Yanina and of the small towns of Konitsa, Parga and Poghoniani (ex-Voshtina), were considered “Turks by origin” and were included in the exchange of the populations

.

And this is what the current sentence after your change recently done says[36]:

With the onset of the Balkan Wars and the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey, roughly two thirds of Konitsa's Muslims declared themselves to be "of Turkish origin" and left for Turkey.

.

SilentResident, have i been reading Baltsiotis wrong or is there a difference between self declaration and outsiders considering someone to be something ? Its why i reverted. As the sentence stands it states that Konitsa's Muslims declared themselves to be of Turkish origin, edits [37] that were done in the first place by the editor who reported me here. Baltsiotis who is peer reviewed stated that they were considered of Turkish origin and up for population exchange, not declared (that is OR).Resnjari (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari, the whole sentence is very problematic as it stands now. I reverted the previous edit but I am still having the impression it is still not good to go. Like I said above, it causes confusion the way it is worded. I believe the sentence needs to clarify that they were self-determined as Albanians before it says that they were considered by others to be Turks. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident, Thank you for the recent edit. Now its in line with the sources and no OR or POV and was the reasons why i reverted in the first place.Resnjari (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence has been fixed now as: [[38]]. But you know, this should have been achieved without edit warring and breaching the 3RR rules. I recommend next time you refrain from such behavior as this is not the way to go. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use the talk and have (and most editors know i have, some have said that i use it too much as i like detail -because that way no need to do the discussion over and over again). When i have used the talk in the past with the editor who reported me, lets just say instead of the sources at times being the first and mainly only port of call in guiding the discussion, other trivial things have come up (as i have cited with the examples above pertaining to the recent edits where i have been reported on). The Konitsa article now has been dealt with and even the Albanians one after the editor who reported me came up with a compromise (but only much later) which i am ok with that does not over bloat the lede. Nonetheless i don't know what's going to happen here. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jekyllhide reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

17:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734180721 by Marianna251 (talk)"
17:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Have added notes to talk page as requested Marianna. Undid revision 734178925 by Marianna251 (talk)"
16:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC) ""
16:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism revision 734177520 by 2602:30A:2C89:C8D0:A0A3:994F:5744:ACED (talk)"
16:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism revision 734176926 by 2602:30A:2C89:C8D0:A0A3:994F:5744:ACED (talk)"
16:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid vandalism revision 734175696 by 2602:30A:2C89:C8D0:A0A3:994F:5744:ACED (talk)"
15:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Clearly more vandalism Undid revision 734094466 by 107.77.231.194 (talk)"
21:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC) "Clearly vandalism: Undid revision 733651808 by 2602:30A:2C89:C8D0:44AA:7F4A:38FD:5964 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kent Harper. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

17:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC) "/* Movie roles listings */ new section"

Comments:

The IP was not vandalising the page, but was instead removing material that contravenes WP:BLP. I've given Jekyllhide as many chances as I can to discuss instead of continuing to revert, but they're continuing to edit war. I'm at 3RR so can't continue to remove defamatory content that only has self-published sources. Marianna251TALK 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the article per WP:CSD#G12. Jekyllhide has clearly been edit-warring and their comments about vandalism are obviously misguided. However, I'll let another administrator decide whether to sanction Jekyllhide.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That solves the main issue with the page, at least! Cheers. Marianna251TALK 21:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:TripWire reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
This is not a violation of 3RR, but a case of continued edit warning despite both a warning and the fact that one of the three editors TripWire has reverted had opened a discussion of the content on the article's talk page. TripWire's insistence on retaining their preferred version is unhelpful while the talk page discussion is under way. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response by TripWire

A clear case of WP:BOOMERANG as the user reporting has made no significant edits of the article himself, nor has he participated at all in the discussion(s) being carried out. The user has a potential CoI with the article and perhaps this is the reason he is not happy with leaving a sourced content that does not suit his POV. Though I need not to explain my edits as they are not violating 3RR, but as the matter has been brought here, I will like to reply:

The very first edit quoted by the complaint was made at 19:33, 8 August 2016 in response to when a longstanding info (that Sirmila Bose is an Indian academic) was removed by Czyrko without any explanation. How else should someone deal with such an edit which was borderline vandalism? The edit summary I gave was: "She's of Indian descent. Attribution to her has been discussed at talk"

The second edit being quoted was made at 00:36, 10 August 2016 when Aditya Kabir mistakenly reverted me thinking that I was t-banned which was not the case. As there was no reason behind Aditya's revert, so it had to be undone.

The third edit being quoted was made at 15:47, 10 August 2016 in response to Kautilya3's revert with the edit summary: "She's an Indian. Added sources. Plz read and also understand WP:ASPERSION before throwing around policies" - this was infact the first proper edit that was made by me in which two sources were added by me to support the content which were not present initially. How else do we build WP - by adding content based on sources, no? The first two being mistakes, per WP:3RR cannot be taken as reverts. It was here that a discussion commenced at the articles talk-page per WP:BRD. Dont see anything wrong here either.

~~The fourth edit being quoted is the repeatition of the same edit already mentioned at serial 3, I dont know if I should take it as a mistake or a poor attempt at adding false weight to the report?~~

Lastly, a discussion at the talk page is currently being carried out and per WP:BRD the longstanding and sourced content cannot be removed unless a consensus is gained by the party trying to remove it. So, I dont see a problem here and dont understand the reason behind this report except that it is sheer WP:HARASSMENT and a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In short, as the complainant himself has said that this is not a case of 3RR vio, I am still wondering why am I even replying to this? A WP:BOOMERANG will be in order especially when the complainant is an uninvolved editor with no contribution or participation in resolving the dispute, and as he has filed an undue report wasting precious time of Admins.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 18:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Worldbruce's Fresh Comments

As I have mentioned earlier, my first revert was in response to "Unexplained removal of content", a reason which is quite common and frequent on WP. You remove legit content without giving any reason, it is bound to get reverted unless the initial edit was made to counter vandalism etc. So, speaking frankly your opinion didnt matter as my revert equaled an attempt at countering vandalism.

Second, when you say you had "cautioned me against editing against the consensus of three other editors", I must say that you are again wrong here. Because, the first editor committed borderline vandalism by removing content and then not explaining why. The second editor, (wrongly) reverted me thinking I was t-banned i.e. his dispute was not with the content but with me as a person. And the third person again just jumped the gun despite knowing that the previous edits by two other editors were not legit. So, sir, you cant possibly say that I was going against the consensus of three editors.

Third, I do not agree with you when you say that you tried to "de-escalate" the conflict, as there was NO conflict because the first revert was in response to vandalism, and the second one was in response to a mistake. The conflict only commenced when Kuatilya joined in and then opened a discussion.

Fourth, my edit history will show you that I am quite active at talks/prompt in opening discussions and participating in the same. I would have opened up the discussion myself as I have done so many times in the past whenever a dispute has risen, but I dont understand why would I open a discussion when I was reverting "Unexplained removal of content"?? Yeah, sure, per WP:BRD I was about to open a discussion when Kuatilya reverted me as that was the first legit revert but he beat me to it. So, your caution to me well before there ws any conflict was out of place and will be considered as WP:HARASSMENT.

Last, as you have corrected your mistake, I shall too strike my comment. And as you have added a fresh diff, the response is that this edit was made at 21:07, 12 August 2016 AFTER the discussion had progressed, and as per policy, content in dispute ought to stay unless there is a consensus to ultimately remove the content i.e the clean/original version of the article stays till consensus has been gained. So, again, I dont see anything wrong with it either especially when it was WP:NOT3RR.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 20:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kuatilya

Kuatilya, first, this forum is not for discussing content disputes but edit-warring, so if you have anything to say about the latter, please do so or else there is not need to complicate a very simple issue of Harassment and a poor report. Still:

Re:Stonewalling: A little glance at the discussion at talk-page will show who was actually stonewalling. Kautilya3 having no locus standi for his revert first himself brought in the Sarmila's nationality issue to the discussion and then brought in the merits and demerits of Sarmila's book which had nothing to do with the current dispute, and then bold enough, asked me to stop discussing both of these issues though it was him who stonewalled the discussion at the first place. What's even strange that he accuses me of stonewalling while he himself totally sidetracks and stonewalls in response to a very direct question related precisely to the dispute. This was my desperate attempt to bring Kuatilya back into the actual discussion so that a resolution can be reached to which he paid no attention whatsoever. I would request the admins to please take a look at the discussion themselves and see if it was me or Kuatilya who was deflecting the discussion.
All this was done by Kuatilya while he blatantly violated the restrictions placed on him recently.

Re:Synthesis: Kuatilya is just misrepresenting the source which clearly says that Sarmila is an "American... of Indian parentage", while he safely omits the mention of another independent source which explicitly says that Sarmila is an Indian author. I wonder if he actually knew what he meant when he said that I synthesized the content even though it was not added by me.

Re:Longstanding: The content in dispute was added after an exhaustive discussion [47] [48] [49] had taken place and consensus had been reached to which Kuatilya had been a party to. I wonder what prompted him to against the consensus to which he had been heavily involved and had agreed to just months after?
Strangely enough, whereas Kuatliya himself advises others not to modify content without leaving an edit-summary or else they risk a reversion, but at the same time fails to follow his own advice and instead supports unexplained removal of content by Czyrko by reverting me which infact is cause of this entire dispute! Unfathomable, innit?
Kuatilya, the main point is that as the consensus has not been reached (for removal of the said content), it should stay there till an agreement has been reached, but then you removed it twice already.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 20:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sutish

Sutish, I dont know you and you dont know me. We have never interacted, never crossed paths, nor been in disputes or even probably edited the same articles. But I have found you to be quick in jumping into reports involving me and Kuatiliya. Second, your comment here show that you have absolutely no idea what WP:3RR is, please educate yourself on it first.

'To Admin I would request you to speedily close this case as the usual attempts of WP:SOAPBOX are underway. And if possible, please look into the fact that why always a set group of editors who have never communicated with be before are always available to comment on such reports.

@TripWire: Thank you for pointing out my pasting error in the above list of reverts. I have struck the duplicate and added the revert I intended to include.

At the time of your first revert, I had no strong opinion as to which version was better. Indeed, my early feeling was that this was developing into a contender for lamest edit war ever. As you say, I am an uninvolved editor with clean hands. I have not engaged in the edit warring, and have attempted to de-escalate the conflict by cautioning you against editing against the consensus of three other editors and encouraging you to open a discussion on the article's talk page, advice you decided not to take. Kautilya3 opened a discussion on the talk page, and I have been following it. If you were to advance there a cogent and persuasive argument for why your version better serves the reader, you might even win my support. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a probably a bit more complicated than the standard edit-warring situation. TripWire did participate in the talk page discussion, but their participation has been the usual stone-walling. The points I have raised have not been addressed, and TripWire reinstated the disputed content before reaching a consensus. Whether that is sanctionable or not I leave to the admins to decide.

All I can say is that the rationale given for the final reinstatement [50] is not valid. The first citation, the author's personal page describes her as an "American... of Indian parentage." The fact that reducing it to "Indian academic" is an unreasonable synthesis is not something TripWire appreciates or probably ever likely to appreciate. The contention that it is "long-standing content" is also not exactly true. This content has been inserted after 4 March, a period of intense disputes, resulting in two full page-protections and two topic bans. So, this is problematic content and there is loads of such content on that page. The real problem is that all the knowledgeable editors that could have fixed the page have gotten tired of the disputes and left. The ratio of POV pushing to well-qualified editing has gone sky high, and the Wikipedia is degenerating. So, until some brave new souls come who have the knowledge and the energy to fight, this junk will just stay there. Those are the facts of the situation. This edit was just a drop in the ocean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TripWire has given lengthy responses above, filibustering as they normally do. I deliberately avoided content dispute here. But if the two sources disagree, the discussion of their relative merits should have happened on the talk page and consensus reached before an edit was made again. The main point is however that consensus has not been reached before they reinstated the disputed content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A clear breach. I don't think I have had any involvement with TripWire on articles but I have noticed their antics - wild accusations against others, TLDR responses involving misinterpreted policies, POV pushing, a tendency to pay lip-service to BRD while continuing on their merry way etc. I did comment at the recent AE case, suggesting that enough is enough. I maintain that opinion and the content of this report merely reinforces it: they seem yet again to be incapable of following our norms and I have little doubt that this is ultimately going to end up before ArbCom and/or with a community-imposed indef topic ban from everything related to South Asia. - Sitush (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SameboyA reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion required. Large blocks of unsourced text in a BLP, including wholly unsourced claims of criminal activity and substance abuse, should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Restoring party made no attempt to discuss or obtain consensus for their preferred version.

Comments:
After User:SameboyA was warned about edit warring/3RR and BLP issues, they continued to revert using IPs rather than their named account. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Junkoo reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
19:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734352639 by JJMC89 (talk) PLEASE refer to the talkpage before thank you."
17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC) ""
17:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734333997 by Drmies (talk)"
17:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734333543 by Drmies (talk) its not excessive no reason to turn it into a stub"
16:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734333190 by Drmies (talk) blah?"
00:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 734241001 by Yannaynay (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

19:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Black Pink.) (TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I had started a discussion on the users talkpage he did not argue any further and did not revert it was settled then the user who reported me did the same i reverted it and started a general discussion regarding the matter on the talkpage since it involed an extra user.Junkoo (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Acroterion (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ::{{AN3|b}} – 1 month. The filer of this report didn't make it easy to check the true sales numbers, or give an example of a falsification. But [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ice_Cube_discography&diff=prev&oldid=733728926 this edit] from August 9 appears to be artificially changing sales numbers by increasing the leading digit of each number. User can be unblocked if he can give sources for these highly implausible changes. A  previous ANI report (September 2015)] is linked from [[User talk:DPGCMonsta#Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3]]. As [[User:NeilN]] stated in that thread, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#User:DPGCMonsta|"If DPGCMonsta is deliberately adding factual errors they should be blocked"]]. Ice Cube's actual gold and platinum awards are listed at [http://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=Ice+Cube&ti=#search_section this RIAA page]. Evidently Ice Cube has no US triple-platinum albums (sales over than 3 million), contrary to [[User:DPGCMonsta]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
-== [[User:Resnjari]] reported by [[User:Athenean]] (Result: ) ==
+== [[User:Resnjari]] reported by [[User:Athenean]] (Result: Withdrawn by filer) ==
 '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Konitsa}} <br />
@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 <u>Comments:</u> <br />
 Brightline 3rr vio at [[Konitsa]], accompanied with even more ferocious edit-warring at [[Albanians]] (3 reverts in the space of 20 minutes). [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 08:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
+'''Update''':  Given that I was in error at Konitsa, and that we have reached an agreement at Albanians, I am withdrawing the report.  That said, I certainly do not appreciate the mud-slinging and character assasination by Resnjari in his defense below. [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 05:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 :'''Resnjari's reply''': Of the Konitsa article the editor who reported me was pushing POV by distorting the sentence [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Konitsa&diff=734038977&oldid=734008682] (and claiming "bad grammar" as a ''reason'') whereby the source did not say what that editor was claiming (see footnote 49: [http://ejts.revues.org/4444]). This editor only recently edited the page after a long absence. In a dialogue of good faith in the talkpage i am currently engaging other editors over content [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Konitsa] which he has not in recent times contributed too thus far. Of the Albanians page i explained to the editor that the sentence placed in the lede was a condensation and based on Ramet (which he deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albanians&diff=734065469&oldid=733807868][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albanians&diff=734066290&oldid=734065469] and placed Giakoumis who deals only with southern Albania while the editor then wrote a sentence that implies all Albanians based on that source) as she sums up the conversion process of Albanians more so than any other scholar [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albanians&diff=734114942&oldid=734114206]. His first response to me was about myself trying to "make the Albanians look more western" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albanians&diff=734114206&oldid=720745942]. His second response was about misgivings of trusting me, implied source manipulation and accusations of cherry picking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albanians&diff=734115767&oldid=734114942]. In a third reply he referred to "Funny, duress due to excessive love of Europe" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albanians&diff=734118976&oldid=734116698] which left me perplexed. I point to these edits because the editor is involving his own personal POV (of possibly Albanians) instead of just engaging with the sources which is why i reverted his article edits which i felt had a POV overtone to them. While in here he accuses me of "ferocious edit-warring". I recently edited, heavily referenced the [[Islam in Albania]] article which allowed me to address shortcomings of other articles by removing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albanians&diff=733616174&oldid=733615308] POV issues with the [[Albanians]] article which this editor had placed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albanians&diff=699420559&oldid=699412491] such as Albanians being "the main pillars of Ottoman Porte's policy in the Balkans" (which the Clayer source makes absolutely no mention of). I would like to note that I have been on Wikipedia since 2008 and '''my record is clean''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AResnjari&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype=]. That editor on the other hand '''has been blocked three times''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AAthenean]. He has also been subject to an interaction ban with a past Albanian editor in 2010 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive70#Athenean] and in 2011 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive85#ZjarriRrethues] for displaying a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] rapport. He has also had discretionary sanctions applied to him in the past [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAthenean&type=revision&diff=359679213&oldid=359483535], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAthenean&type=revision&diff=360731266&oldid=359764613], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAthenean&type=revision&diff=387925887&oldid=387831527], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAthenean&type=revision&diff=420194536&oldid=420083804]. I cite these examples because that editor has displayed similar [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] tendencies when interacting with me over time. I ignored it then for the sake of good faith and making Wikipedia better. For example in the recent past he has deleted my comments on an article talkpage (without explanation) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turco-Albanians&diff=prev&oldid=696721416] which is a breach of [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:CIVIL]], and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. He has also referred to me as "paranoid" and claimed that my talkpage comments are "rants" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turco-Albanians&diff=next&oldid=696721641], again in breach of [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:CIVIL]], and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. This has made editing at times very unpalatable. Other editors have taken the matter further [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187] and he has been noted by an administrator for his "bad language". I don't know if it has to do with his personal views of things, though i have always placed sources and their content in determining the discussion above trivial things. It is within that context i reverted his edits as his other commentary (on the edit summary box and talkpage) concerned me about whether his edits were based on the sources or his own point of view separate to scholarship.[[User:Resnjari|Resnjari]] ([[User talk:Resnjari|talk]]) 12:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards