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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎User:Slatersteven reported by User:Noloop (Result: ): I see a pot calling a kettle 'black'
Line 846: Line 846:
== Slatersteven, Criticism of Human Rights Watch ==
== Slatersteven, Criticism of Human Rights Watch ==


== [[User:Slatersteven]] reported by [[User:Noloop]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Slatersteven]] reported by [[User:Noloop]] (Result: Nominating editor 24h) ==


* Page: {{article|Criticism of Human Rights Watch}}
* Page: {{article|Criticism of Human Rights Watch}}
Line 881: Line 881:


'''Comment''' - A review of the article's talkpage indicates that [[User:Noloop]] has [[WP:OWN|ownership]] problems. A quick look at Noloop's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ANoloop&diff=307549923&oldid=306234201 userpage] indicates that s/he is a suspected sockpuppet of indef blocked [[User:Free Hans]]. Hopefully an admin will look deeper than the surface on this one. [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
'''Comment''' - A review of the article's talkpage indicates that [[User:Noloop]] has [[WP:OWN|ownership]] problems. A quick look at Noloop's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ANoloop&diff=307549923&oldid=306234201 userpage] indicates that s/he is a suspected sockpuppet of indef blocked [[User:Free Hans]]. Hopefully an admin will look deeper than the surface on this one. [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

{{AN3|nb|48 hours}} - whilst Slatersteven should have disengaged, I don't see a blatant violation here. The history of the article shows that [[User:Noloop]], however, has serious [[WP:OWN|ownership issues]] with the page and repeatedly reverts back to his preferred version even when consensus is clearly against him. This is disruptive. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<font color="black">Black Kite</font>]]</b> 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:25, 16 August 2009

    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.

    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

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:UkFaith reported by User:Mitsube (Result: 24h)


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


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]
    • Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]


    I initially removed a section of the article for reasons explained on the talk page. UkFaith then undid this change and did not address my concern that the section was unbalanced, or that one of the sources used seems to be user-edited. Rather than edit-war I added a great deal of well-sourced material to balance the section without removing any material. UkFaith then undid this three times, once after another editor restored it and once after I restored it. I am not sure why. His short explanation on talk page does not make sense. His edit history indicates that he has been engaging in a great deal of such behavior recently. Furthermore when I put a uw-3rr1 template on his talk page he responded by calling me a "bully": [7]. Mitsube (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Mitsube began by deleting an entire section from the article without discussing any of it with anyone first. I believe this action falls within the scope of vandalism. I was able to successfully revert this and I posted my reasons on the talk page. Mitsube went on to say his reasons for deleting the section were that the references were untrustworthy. The references in fact included Giuseppe Tucci who was a world learder in his field of Buddhism history.
    After this Mitsube set about rewriting almost the entire section of the article, completely changing its view. I tried to revert this also, however I was unaware at that time of the 3RR rule and I did not know how to revert Mitsube's edits, which were split into three or four, as one revert. I there for broke the 3RR rule just trying to restore the page to its original wording. I posted my ressons on the talk page. Mistube then reverted my revert quoting vandalism as his reason. He knew full well of course that it was not vandalism and that I was unhappy about him making such a massive change to an article that had respectable references without any discussion. His reason of vandalism was not acceptable in my opinion and I again reverted the changes to restore the page to its original wording and again asked for a discussion on the talk page.
    At this point Mitsube contacted William M. Connolley who immediately blocked me for the 3RR rule without any discussion. I feel that William M. Connolley was too eager to block someone without understanding the situation.
    The very next day when I was able to edit again I returned to the article and 'worded' the section as it was originally worded without reverting and again asked for a discussion. Mitsube immediately contacted William M. Connolley again and told him I had reverted the article and William M. Connolley immediately blocked me again. He did not even bother to check if it was true.
    The upshot is that Mitsube has changed what was a well referenced article into his own personal opinion and if I try to challenge it in anyway I get blocked, unfairly and against Wikipedia policy in my opinion, by William M. Connolley who iseems to be supporting Mitsube's changes. I dont believe that William M. Connolley is an expert in the field of Buddhism history or that his knowledge out ranks that of Giuseppe Tucci and there for I dont believe he should be taking sides and supporting changes he is not qualified to judge.
    Anyway I dont see there would be any point in my continuing to contribute to the Wikipedia project at this point. I will of course forward my experiences where possible after which I will delete my account.
    The article as it stands is in a mess and has a number of omissions and mistakes and opinions. I have read more and more outside articles that say the same thing about Wikipedia and state that many other users feel they were bullied by abusive admin people in similar situations.
    For the record these reverts were the very first ever edits I have made to this article. I have only ever edited one other page in the entire time that I have been a wikipedia member. It is an out right lie by Mitsube to say "His edit history indicates that he has been engaging in a great deal of such behavior". In my opinion Mitsube set out from the very beginning to discredit me rather than discussing the article because he did not have a sound foundation for his changes.
    I also note from Mitsube's talk page that he has been reported in the past for vandalism by other members.
    Its very discouraging and disappointing to see that behaviour such as Mitsube's is supported by the admin team. UkFaith (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try to work out the problem on the talk page. In the past, I have been in a content dispute that involved Mitsube, and in my experience, he goes out of his way to resolve the problem and insure harmonious editing. I've been following your edits on the talk page, and you seem to be focusing on attacking editors rather than working with them to improve the article. The LAST POST EVER DELETING MY ACCOUNT NOW gambit is somewhat tired, and you might find things would turn out differently if you appealed to our intellect rather than our emotions. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had posted on the talk page stating my reasons why I reverted Mitsube's changes and asked for a discussion. Mitsube ignored this and called all my edits vandalism and reverted them knowing full well they not. My experience is that Mitsube will say anything and will play dirty games to ensure he gets his own way.
    As per my previous post Mitsube's talk page shows that he has been reported in the past by other users for simiar behaviour. UkFaith (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinated hacking attack on this Wikipedia article? Result:Semiprotected

    Please help here! I will repeat below the note I have just written on the Discussion page for the Melbourne International Film Festival article. It should be self-explanatory, but if you would like any further information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "There have now been three deletions over the past three days of the same short, referenced account I added to this article on the screening of Rebiya Kadeer's film The 10 Conditions of Love at the recent Melbourne International Film Festival.
    Interestingly, all three deletions have been done from anonymous I.P. addresses which have no record of ever having been used to contribute in any other way to the Wikipedia, and none of them gave any reasons or justifications for their deletions. Also of interest is that all three I.P.s are registered with the same internet provider company in the U.S., one from New York, and two from Washington, D.C. The last deletion was done after I specifically requested that referenced material not be deleted.
    I am now going to reinsert the section again and report the incidents to the WP administrators. If it is deleted once more without prior discussion I will send all the details - not only to to the WP administrators - but also to the people who are investigating the previous hacking of the Festival website and the journalists who covered that story. Please stop this blatant vandalising!" John Hill (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    Comment – Who are you attempting to report for edit warring? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotected Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)-[reply]
    Thanks to Alex Bakharev for the "semiprotected" status. In reply to the previous note - I am sorry, I have no way of telling who was behind the edit warring - I could only track three different IP addresses to their servers - I have no special tracking tools available to me. But this use of anonymous IP addresses which were apparently specially activated for one purpose only is typical of coordinated internet attacks. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    University Canada West reported by User:Ronz (Result: 24h)

    Well it's come to this. I'd like to request assistance in resolving the edit war plaguing this article, one way or the other. Ingoman (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please give a little more information about the dispute, and what exactly you want resolved? Cool3 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy enough to just resolve the edit war to a stable article version with NPOV. Ingoman (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    helping user file report...

    Reporting User:99.225.160.205

    diffs:

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_Canada_West&diff=307774562&oldid=307774003
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_Canada_West&diff=next&oldid=307774712
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_Canada_West&diff=next&oldid=307778010

    User warned:

    User refused to engage in dialogue. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence

    (Note: I was in the process of writing up a report, not noticing that one had already been started until I went to contact Ingoman. I decided to just attach this here to avoid confusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]


    August 14 update


    (somebody, do something)Seb az86556 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Edit-warring with Ingoman (talk · contribs) who hasn't been warned until just now. Editors Hairhorn (talk · contribs) and Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) stepped in to help. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit-warring continues. Help, please. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vercetticarl reported by User:LjL (Result: 1 week)


    • Previous version reverted to: [19]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not given, user was repeatedly warned and blocked
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

    I am assuming that User:Vercetticarl and User talk:190.53.244.15 are the same user because of statement to that effect by administrator refusing unblock. --LjL (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 1 week Cool3 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Systemizer reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 72h)

    Timewave zero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Systemizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • 1st revert 20:47, 12 August 2009 (edit summary: "Read the first sentence. Holistic theories are irrational and subjective by definition, which exempts them from such objections")
    • Diff of warning: here

    This editor has been blocked for disruptive editing and 3RR on this article before, and should be quite clear that he is editing against consensus. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    72h, edit warring and incvility William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thikkamasala reported by User:Drmies (Result: Seek DR)


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



    This is an ongoing matter. While I have some doubts about the notability of this subject, I have tried to edit the article to where it became an encyclopedic article--which included the removal of fluff and peacocks, trivial information, unreliable sources, etc., but also the addition of some valid references (and making the tracklist for the album look clean...). The creator continues to revert many of these edits, insisting on for instance reinserting that the subject's brother is an accountant and that the subject is a Zoroastrian (the latter could possibly be relevant, but adding that Freddie Mercury was one too is simply namedropping).

    To cut a long story short: user has been blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations twice by User:EdJohnston ([33] and [34]), and while they have stated they will abide by the rules they show no awareness of the Wikipedia guidelines (the usual alphabet soup of WP:RS, WP:EW, WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL, and especially WP:OWN--see their edit summaries) and no inclination to follow them. The latest: an SPA butchering the article in a manner reminiscent of some of Thikkamasala's earlier edits.

    EdJohnston suggested I come here, since I don't really know what to do. Two blocks seem not to have helped. Your advice is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Um. Are you aware that the last (presumably objectionable) revert, is the version you've just reverted Editor004 back to? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Am I supposed to just revert and revert Thikkamasala, and possibly fall foul of 3RR? Look at the history and see how often I've reverted Thikkamasala--it's not unlike flogging a dead horse and that isn't pleasurable. BTW, Editor004, I strongly suspect, is simply a sock. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    GHcool reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 24h)

    Kafr Saba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    First 24-hour period:

    • 1st edit: 21:54 August 10, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence.
    • 1st revert: 22:22 August 10, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence; misleading edit summary.
    • 2nd revert: 23:47 August 10, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence.
    • 3rd revert: 17:38 August 11, removes "Palestinian-Arab" from the first sentence.

    Second 24-hour period:

    • 4th revert: 17:16 August 13, inserts a comma between "Palestinian" and "Arab" in the first sentence, so that it no longer reads "Palestinian-Arab."
    • 7th revert: 20:14 August 13, adds the "dubious" tag after "Palestinian-Arab."

    Comments

    GHcool wants to remove from the first sentence of Kafr Saba that it was a Palestinian-Arab village because, he says, the residents did not see themselves as "Palestinian" for much of their history.

    He and LoverOfTheRussianQueen, a new account and fairly obvious sockpuppet (though I'm not saying it's a GHcool sock) have been reverting against four editors. Based on the diffs above, I believe GHcool is trying to game 3RR. Although his final edit with the "dubious" tag does not revert to a previous version, the effect of the edit is to undermine that the village was "Palestinian-Arab." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h, edit warring. Would have been better to warn him of this report. It isn't obvious that LotRQ is an obvious sock; I think you want RFCU or whatever William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.251.166.99 reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: 24h + Prot)


    • Previous version reverted to: [35]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]


    Falcon8765 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and full protection to sort dispute. Nja247 07:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marlin1975 reported by User:Morphh (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [42]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]
    • User has not attempted to resolve the dispute on the article talk, but many other editors including myself are engadged in discussing the proper content inclusion. User was directed to the talk page. Here is part of that discussion:[48]
    • The user also personally attacked editors in the comments and violated WP:CIVIL ("Undo vandalism, and yes it is vandalism when right win trolls keep trying to put their POV on it.") Comment of 4th Revert

    Oddly, his last edit restored an edit I made, so it's not necessarily the content but the edit waring (after a warning), uncivil behavior (after a warning), and failure to discuss the content and gain consensus (after several comments). I submit this as a "calm down" block. I also wouldn't mind a WP:CHECK.

    Morphh (talk) 1:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Though reporter should also mind they are subject to the same rule. Nja247 07:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lvivske Reported by User:Fire_55 (result: both warned)

    I have showed this user the WP:Flag policy many but he continues to undo my edits. I have tried to explain to him that Nikolai Zherdev doesn't deserve an Ukraine flag because he has never played under Ukraine and only Russia. Our discussion of me telling him the WP:Flag policy, which he still doesn't get is below.--Fire 55 (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [Extended discussion from elsewhere clipped - WMC]

    Malformed report. Please use the template. More: you and L are both edit warring and both risk a block. The article has a talk page; please use that to resolve disputes, rather than users talk pages. L's use of "vandalism" as a reason for reverting you [49] appears improper; this is just another nationalist dispute William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I considered it vandalism because he knows full well the WP's policy on the matter and he's making the changes simply to irritate me. --Львівське (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DAFMM reported by User:BarretBonden (Result: Warned)

    The editor in question began adding full stops to initialisms on 3 August [50] and has resisted attempts to remove them ever since [51] [52] [53] [54]. I contacted him on his talk page and two other editors also advised him the edits were against a long standing consensus. It was suggested he create a discussion to establish a new consensus at Manual of Style. He created a discussion but the consensus favoured the omission of full stops from initialisms. He has since failed to engage in dialogue and refuses to heed the advice given to him. It is not the first time he has edit warred on this article: previously he repeatedly and incorrectly added the honorific prefix 'Sir' [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]. Despite efforts to discuss these edits with him [62], he blanked his talk page and continued to revert until given a 3rr warning [63]. DAFMM gave his views on resolving editing conflicts at his recent reqeust for adminship [64]. Barret (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Warned. Many people have told DAFMM that his preferred style is now out of favor in Wikipedia. I have warned him that he may be blocked if he continues to revert changes in this article that other editors have made to comply with the Manual of Style, unless he gets consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like the pillory here! You're 'warned' he's given '15 hours' you 24 etc.! It's 'Pillory Club'! DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009. P. S. I will be taking this further. See EdJohnston's talk page.

    PiCo reported by ReaverFlash (Result:15h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [65]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

    ReaverFlash (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 15 hours You were both edit warring and should have sought protection or dispute resolution if talking on the talk page wasn't working. Nja247 07:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.246.220.204 reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result:31h )

    William Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.246.220.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 03:01, 14 August 2009 (edit summary: "Clearly there is a need for possible complicity in at least a section. How about a productive editorial effort instead of a complete revert to the false "just a driver" article, please?")
    2. 03:46, 14 August 2009 (edit summary: "DOUBLE STANDARDS! Stop reverting and start editing. I don't see where citing Lifton's published work is any different than citing Power's or Manchester's.")
    3. 05:48, 14 August 2009 (edit summary: "STOP! Don't revert! Edit!")
    4. 15:02, 14 August 2009 (edit summary: "See discussion page. Clear double standard. Please make spedific edits instead of reverting.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    User inserting fringe views and original research. Three different users, including myself, have attempted to explain the relevant policies. Gamaliel (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nja247 07:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Inurhead reported by User:Erik (Result: 31h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [72]
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

    Editor has assumed ownership of The Hurt Locker and fails to assume good faith of others' contributions, calling them "vandals" and their edits "malicious". Behavior is not conducive to Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Rex Dominator (Result: Protected)

    Editor fails to assume good faith of others' contributions. After many attempts to explain WP:SOURCES the user continues to remove cited information, one example is the 2nd revert. The editor assumes ownership.Rex Dominator (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted completely misquoted information. With all due respect, I asked for assistance in dealing with this problem, and there is simply no other way to handle the outrageous edits by User:Rex Dominator. The user is completely misquoting the source, placing it out of context, ignoring the talkpage completely, and cramming it all in the lede to push his POV.
    Be absolutely sure that this is an attempt at petty revenge. I have just introduced seven new, published, professional sources in the Chetniks article, and have fully sourced the disputed text Rex was opposed to. User:Rex Dominator has just lost a debate and is trying to get me blocked for this. Of course, its me I'm talking about, but objectively, Blocking me for trying to contain POV-crusaders and restoring sourced statements would be a mistake. (Being somewhat new, Rex does not realize all the above can be applied to him, even more so.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the discussion page of user Direktor and I am astonished: it is full of edit wars with Serbians, Bosniaks, Italians, Montenegrins et al. Why has he been allowed to do all this for such a long time? Direktor is one of the worst balkan editors, and if banned a lot of fighting inside en.wiki will disappear.--Easy4all (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Rex... thanks for making yourself a sock. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you Easy4all. This is the book of my personal suffering caused by this user. The propaganda edits seem to be exclusively in the Balkan related articles. Rex Dominator (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My very well sourced propaganda, Rex, lets not forget. With your sock report I doubt you'll have to endure the um..."suffering" for much longer. ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Stop filing reports at random places against each other and sort out the dispute please. Nja247 07:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This did solve a lot of problems with edit wars, yet i think that this user should be watched more carefully by the admins.Rex Dominator (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pungimaster reported by RDavi404 (talk) (Result: 15h)

    Maulana Masood Azhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pungimaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 23:10, 12 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 21:33, 13 August 2009 (edit summary: "This is the truth, if you dont like it, close your eyes")
    3. 07:15, 14 August 2009 (edit summary: "Rdavi go suck ISI cock")
    4. 18:18, 14 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 307956115 by Rdavi404 (talk)")

    —RDavi404 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [User_talk:Rdavi404#If_we_go_by_your_defination]

    WP:PA may be in effect here to. I have attempted to communicate WP:TERRORIST to the User but I believe there is a lack of a desire to communicate. I believe he is a new user and does not understand wikipedia polices. I will leave his last change as it is until issue is resolved.--RDavi404 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A discussion also is listed on the article's talk page at Talk:Maulana_Masood_Azhar#WP:Terrorist. No attempt is made to use that forum for discussion either.--RDavi404 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 15 hours Nja247 07:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Globalmartialart reported by User:Nanominori (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [78]; please look at [79] in which I have added references to prove the information from



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

    I have tried to discuss the validity of the information on kumdo with User:Globalmartialart; however, User:Globalmartialart ignored the plea and did not participate in the discussion. The user accused to the editors that the article was lies made up by some Korean nationalists ([89]); Globalmartialart had an undone edit from User:Caspian blue for unsourced POV pushing by SPA. Nanominori (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keka reported by User:Reg Holmes (Result: Both warned)


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


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

    I'm not sure what you're asking for here, but my edit was made on August 13th. Keka reverted, 5 hours after I published. I happened to be showing my friend the page and my entry was gone. I thought it was an accident and reverted back. Keka reverted again 1 minute later. I saw that and tried to find a way to communicate, but being new didn't know how, so I figured revert it again and the more experienced user would try to make contact. Later, another friend said I should leave a message on their talk page, so I left a message to try and start a dialog on Keka's talk page. I waited a day and came back to find my message to him/her deleted and no other attempt to communicate with me, so I looked into this policy and it said there had to be greater than 3 reverts, so I reverted again, and within 15 minutes, Keka reverted the page again, making 4 reverts.

    As it so happens Keka also reverted my post on Floor_and_ceiling_functions, at one point, but I reverted it back, and Keka has not re-reverted that one.

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

    I did not specifically warn, but I found this page through Keka's talk page so it would seem reasonable that they would know it.

    My attempt to communicate is here. I hope this is what you are looking for. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keka&oldid=307755040

    I'm very new to editing wikipedia, and I came up with a series of equations that work for Modulo, floor and ceil, so I thought I would share them. I didn't try to be self serving/promoting or even ask for any credit.

    These were straight algebraic equations that anyone could verify, and yet this Keka person reverted my post. I posted a comment on Keka's talk page asking why s/he reverted my post and they deleted that post calling my attempt to communicate with them as nonsense.

    I'm a little disappointed if this is the norm. I have found open source projects to typically be a much more friendly environment.

    Reg Holmes (talk)

    • Warned Both warned about edit warring. Nja247 07:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reg Holmes has been adding patent nonsense, including (but very far from limited to) 0 raised to 0 which is mathematically undefined, to the two pages he mentions. Those pages happen to be on my watch list. Even though hidden by the way of using math formulas, the suggested additions by Reg Holmes are so lacking that they should be counted as vandalism. Hence my reversals. Reg Holmes, as anyone else, is of course welcome to do constructive, encyclopediatic, and helpful edits. But absoute and obvious nonsense should not be kept. Maybe Reg Holmes's edits were intended to be made in good faith, but given the content of the edits it did not appear so. Indeed, given the content, I counted the edits as disguised vandalism. I should have written "rvv" or "reverting vandalism" already on the first reversals to make the reason clear, but reversal via "popups" does not allow for that ("save" is done automatically). I don't find that vandalism, even when hidden in math expressions, need be discussed in detail with the other editor. keka (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tamildiaspora, User:Daedalus969 reported by User:Pseudomonas (Result:24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [90]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There seems to have been discussion onUser talk:Gogo Dodo about this.

    This looks like Tamildiaspora is trying to make a point about other material that they wanted added and which was disputed by Daedalus969 and Gogo Dodo Pseudomonas(talk) 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nja247 08:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Patriot Missile33 reported by User:Bytebear (Result:Blocked)



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]


    This user was a previous anon IP who recently created an account after the page was locked down for putting in issues in possible violation of WP:BLP. There is much discussion as to the noteworthy nature of certain recent controversies involving the subject of the article. Rather than discuss the issues and work toward a compromise, he contiues to add information not yet agreed upon by all editors. I think because he is a new user, he just needs to learn to cool it until all editors can agree on content. And he needs to learn how to argue the content, and not the other editors. Bytebear (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • 03:34, 15 August 2009 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs | block) blocked Patriot Missile33 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule) Nja247 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Whippletheduck reported by User:Kevin (Result: warned )


    Then a break for a day or so


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]


    Although Whippletheduck has not quite made it to 3RR on either occasion, he/she is clearly edit warring, and the block log show that it is not an isolated incident. Kevin (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I was also coming to file, editor also appears to reject the notion of the consensus [110] ("I can wait 24 more hours and then put it back").

    Well I certainly will welcome this challenge......

    This is the original edit in question.

    [b]In June 2009, during a Transformers promo tour in Korea, Fox was asked how she would stop Megatron from demolishing the world. she replied, “I’d make a deal with him and instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?”[103] This response was panned by the conservative NewsBusters, writing that "While Fox may be a star on the big screen, her words certainly don’t make her shine."[104] The Naples Daily News was also highly critical of her comments.[105]. [106], [107][108] [109] [110].[/b]

    This is what was said in the Biography of Living Person NoticeBoard by my accuser, user KEVIN, and his ally in this edit war that is more largely launched by Sandor Clegane

    [b]""As I said at Talk:Megan Fox, there is no doubt that she made the comments, the issue at hand is whether those comments have been reliably reported (i.e. by some source other than a blog), and whether a whole paragraph carries undue weight, as this is a single comment, not widely reported, held against the totality of Fox's life. I think this fails on both counts. Kevin (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks, Kevin. As I've been trying to say, it was never a matter of verifiability but notability. No one's doubting that she said it. It just doesn't warrant inclusion on the article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)p[/b]

    So, in good faith, and a few experiments, I first off, upgraded the level of the sources. The sources used were both more or less verified now as valid and meet Wikipedia Verification standards for NPOV, and No Original Research. Further more, I was originally going to use as a new edit Megan's ENTIRE quote, and leave it at that. I left out the entire part about Newsbusters or the Naple News criticization, as that is outside the scope of the edit. This is the new edit that I have put in.

    [b]Also in June, during a Transformers promo tour in Korea, Fox made comments against white, middle class americans. [108][109][/b]

    Not exactly a HUGE edit warring slam is it?

    Despite this new edit, which is what both Sandor and Kevin have both claimed was the problem, they are now crying about Consensus as their new motto. According to No Undue Weight, [b]Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.[/b].

    Now if I am reading that correctly, then I understand that if an article is notable, meets verification, etc, etc, then it does not matter how many editors oppose it. It would be like if a million editors claim the world is flat, the first editor to confirm via source that it is round wins, correct?

    Furthermore, both users KEVIn and SANDOR have taken a lot of relatively minor personal shots at me as well, nothing that I will get into a tissy with, but at the same time, they are coming off as they are more into protecting Megan at all costs.

    I remember reading in the I think the Electronic Art's article here at wikipedia, that you all were able to confirm that favorable EA edits were coming from EA HQ. Is there a way to confirm if Kevin or Sandor edit's are coming from whatever PR or Agency that represents Megan Fox. When you consider what megan said, and how it was largely ignored; and contrast that with how Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks was treated in 2003 for her "I'm embarrased that Bush is from Texas" remark; what Megan Fox said was a million times worse, yet it was largely ignored and wonder if this is part of the attempt to spike the story. I can certainly see how they would not want any mention of it in one of the largest viewed sites in the world in Wikipedia.

    More to come I'll let Sandor and Kevin chime in again. Cheers. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Whippletheduck, the issue here is not really whether you're right or wrong. The issue is that you have been engaging in an edit war to attain your desired result rather than discussion. Several editors have disagreed with you and reverted your changes. Rather than just continuing to insert the quote and related material, you need to engage in discussion. I know that a discussion has started on the talk page. Please let that discussion run its course rather than just taking matters into your own hands. Would it really be the end of the world if the page did not include the quote for a few days while things are straightened out? Cool3 (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned. I have warned Whippletheduck about edit warring and I remind all parties to let the RfC run its course.Cool3 (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:96.247.3.170 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Stale)


    • Previous version reverted to: [111]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
    Doniago (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Another avatar reported by User:Boleyn (Result: 48h)

    Repeated undoing of my edits on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor. As far as I'm aware, I've included in each edit summary why I made the changes - removing piping, correcting the category, that we don't add notes to a dab and changing one entry which led to another dab. Avator has not given reasons for reverting. Avator has now reverted 4 times. I left a 3rr warning message on avator's page, but he/she simply left one on mine (to my calculations, I haven't gone past three, another editor also reverted avator's edits). Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Another avatar tries to rename Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor to "Henry VIII". This is simply false. Henry VII of Luxembourg is ever called "Henry VII" and NEVER "Henry VIII". Henry (VII) of Germany was NOT an emperor - he was rex romanorum and his father Frederick II remained emperor during his reign. For references see for example: The New Cambridge Medieval History V, p. 384ff. [for Henry (VII)] and NCMH VI, p. 529ff. [for Henry VII] ; Lexikon des Mittelalters (vol. 4, col. 2047ff.); Gebhardt. Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte 1 and so on.... but no historian (no german, no french, no english historian) calls Henry of Luxembourg "Henry VIII". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.15.207 (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NottsStudent09 reported by User:Meco (Result: 24h)


    • 1st revert: [117] (note: IP user immeditately registered an account following this edit)
    • 2nd revert: [118]
    • 3rd revert: [119]
    • 4th revert: [120]


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]


    The article has been subjected to content dispute for a prolonged time, which obviously isn't alleviated by a new user rushing in immediately engaging in edit warring. __meco (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:117.199.10.178 reported by User:Pectore (Result: Stale)




    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:20
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122]


    This IP user has been warring on Teesta Setalvad, being reverted by a wide array of users. Not only have they reverted 7 times, but each revert adds obvious political bias and removes references, and so can be reverted as vandalism. I have not reverted on the page, but I would request the admin not to block Lyricmac (talk · contribs) since the IP edits do fall under the banner of simple vandalism. Also, Geolocate indicates the IP is from Kerala, India, which is where banned troll User:Kuntan operates from. I would request a block for this reason, because the user seems quite adept at using wikipedia and isn't a naive IP user. Thank you.Pectoretalk 18:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies-I was seeing what seemed a problem of POV in the edits, hence the reverts.--Lyricmac (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Somalia1995 reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: Stopped)


    • Previous version reverted to on Somalia article: [123]
    • Previous version reverted to on History of Somalia article: [124]


    On Somalia article:

    On History of Somalia article:


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126]

    This user has been adding long paragraphs of unsourced, original research to the articles above, and has in the process breached 3RR on both articles. Middayexpress (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Did not revert after warning. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnnypd reported by User:Martintg (Result: Reported)


    • Previous version reverted to: [127]




    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]


    User:Johnnypd appears to be an SPA, most likely a sock, request an indef-block on this account. --Martintg (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is quite possibly a sock of User:Jacob_Peters as Radek suggested at my talk page. For example, one can compare this revert by Moreschi in Decossackization (see edit summary by Moreschi)[130] (the segment of text restored by Moreschi and deleted by Peters was "The suppression of the Don Cossack revolt in the spring and summer of 1919 took the form of genocide."), and that is an opinion of Johnnypd about genocide of the same Cossacks: [131]. User:Lidua is also possibly his sock: [132]. An attention of Checkuser would be helpful.Biophys (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:131.180.140.61/User:Another avatar, reported by User:Boleyn (Result: )

    Repeated violation of 3RR on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor (see Talk:another avator). Persistently does this and was blocked, I think only yesterday. Investigation ongoing into sock puppets. Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I fixed the report header to identify the correct account. Looks like User:Another avatar is evading his block using an IP. He has made only one IP edit so far to the contested article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Slatersteven, Criticism of Human Rights Watch

    User:Slatersteven reported by User:Noloop (Result: Nominating editor 24h)


    [133]

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

    [134]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch#Fringe_criticisms_and_undue_weight

    Noloop (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Note, I've had 4 edit sessions in the last 48 hours or so on this article, but the first is a typo fix [140].[reply]

    You have editied 7 times [141] of which three were reverts of my edits. one of which reverted 2 days edits from 6 editors Here he seems to say that he is only deleting my additions [142], this is not the case Much of the material I am re-inserting is by other edds. My last edit addressed the issue of the speech[143] clearly attributing it. Noloop has constantly removed material that is soourced and attrubuted based upon the fact that he does not agree wiith it. All he has done is to try and enforce rules he had set up for page[144]. Claims consensus when he has none [145] and block reverts 5 editors edits[146] without consensus. User acts as if he owns the page, and that consensus only counts when he agrees (and indeed when he agrees and a majority don't).Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - A review of the article's talkpage indicates that User:Noloop has ownership problems. A quick look at Noloop's userpage indicates that s/he is a suspected sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Free Hans. Hopefully an admin will look deeper than the surface on this one. Doc Tropics 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours - whilst Slatersteven should have disengaged, I don't see a blatant violation here. The history of the article shows that User:Noloop, however, has serious ownership issues with the page and repeatedly reverts back to his preferred version even when consensus is clearly against him. This is disruptive. Black Kite 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=308333085"