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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Noloop (talk | contribs)
2,974 edits
Noloop (talk | contribs)
2,974 edits
Line 882: Line 882:


::I made an extensive plea for communication on the Talk page. That's how consensus works.... [[User:Noloop|Noloop]] ([[User talk:Noloop|talk]]) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
::I made an extensive plea for communication on the Talk page. That's how consensus works.... [[User:Noloop|Noloop]] ([[User talk:Noloop|talk]]) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

:::This is equivalent to a statement of intent to edit war: "I'm not going to respond to his discussion on the talkpage; he's spouting nonsense and it's a waste of time." --DocTropics [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlatersteven&diff=308774843&oldid=308498964] It's interesting that one can always report a "mass deletion" and it automatically looks bad, but it's much harder to report a "mass addition of POV-promoting [[WP:WEIGHT]]-violating" material, and have anybody care. You are editing without the consensus of 2 of the roughly 5 editors active on the article. [[User:Noloop|Noloop]] ([[User talk:Noloop|talk]]) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:52, 18 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.


    PiCo reported by ReaverFlash (Result:15h each)


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


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


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

    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: [8]
    • 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]

    Hi. I feel that I was wrongly blocked in this instance. The so-called "reverts" cited were all removal of unsourced material. I assumed that removal of unsourced, original writing is okay. It is listed at the top of this page as NOT an excuse for blocking someone and shouldn't count towards 3RR. I just want to put that on the record and see if there is a way to reverse that "block" for archival purposes. Since I think it was unjustified for more than one reason. Furthermore, Erik is the one that is trying to OWN the page. He and others were told not to edit war. Immediately, he set upon completely restructuring the entire page to suit himself and allowing unsourced original plot material. I request that he be blocked for edit warring as all the examples he cites are instances where unsourced material was re-reverted by him and his colluding meat puppets. I would also like to request that someone do a sock puppet check of all recent contributors to the page The Hurt Locker as I think an administrator Ckatz may be using a sock puppet to be destructive and is definately using WP:MEAT puppets such as Erik. Neither has revealed their close association on the page. Erik continues to OWN the page (when Ckatz isn't there reverting) and has made at least ten or more contributions today alone, completely unraveling everything. Also, he went straight to blocking without discussing the unsourced plot material on the page and without warning. He did not warn of each revert leading to 3RR on my page either. I didn't even have time to write a defense before I was being blocked. He is uncivil and hostile, like several others he has associated himself with. Inurhead (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, Inurhead returned from his block and has immediately begun edit warring again. AN ANI has been filed and he continues making personal attacks against multiple editors. A longer term block appears necessary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:21, 17 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: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]
    Keka, If your soul intent was to revert something that you thought was mathematical nonsense, then why didn't you just talk to me when I tried to open a dialog and asked you why you were reverting my additions? I tried to take this off line and ask you, on your personal talk page, what was the deal, and you reverted that without a reply.
    As for your statement "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.", I would like to know what exactly you think was patent nonsense". Perhaps you would like to contest that ω = 2pi? ω can technically be what ever it is defined to be, but it is regularly used to symbolize 2pi.
    I can understand your concern about 0^0=1, and that you think that it is undefined, but you need to educate yourself on the current standards. I would like to point you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_zero_power where it is documented that, despite some debate, 0^0 is widely accepted as equal to 1. Of course I am citing Wikipedia since I am here, but there are numerous other sources that are much more emphatic that 0^0=1. The fact of the matter is that mathematics is not perfect, though we are all working towards that goal. You can find flaws in many aspects of its framework. I'm sure you know that there have been philosophical debates about even whether or not 1+1=2. Should we take down all math related pages, just because there is an objection to the established standards?
    I didn't remove the alternate ways to define these functions, I just added an alternate method to looking at them. Reg Holmes (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keka states that Reg Holmes changes "are so lacking that they should be counted as vandalism". That is not Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism which explicitly states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Disagreements should be handled on the Discussion tab, not via Revert. Please also reference Wikipedia:AD which states how disputed information is to be handled.

    Malachid (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [14]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]
    • 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: [24]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]


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


    • Previous version reverted to: [26]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]
    • 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: [32] (note: IP user immeditately registered an account following this edit)
    • 2nd revert: [33]
    • 3rd revert: [34]
    • 4th revert: [35]


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]


    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: [37]


    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: [38]
    • Previous version reverted to on History of Somalia article: [39]


    On Somalia article:

    On History of Somalia article:


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

    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: Blocked as a sock)


    • Previous version reverted to: [42]




    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]


    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)[45] (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: [46]. User:Lidua is also possibly his sock: [47]. 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: Already blocked)

    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]

    User:Slatersteven reported by User:Noloop (Result: Nominating editor 48h)


    [48]

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

    [49]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]
    • 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 [55].[reply]

    You have editied 7 times [56] 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 [57], 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[58] 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[59]. Claims consensus when he has none [60] and block reverts 5 editors edits[61] 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]

    Err I hate to rasie this (as it might seem I am trying to push the issue) but is the block for 24 or 48 hours?Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, 48h, my typo - fixed. Black Kite 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HAl reported by User:scientus (Result: Page locked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [62] There are earlier ones



    On lead, trying to remove the most covered part of OOXML

    Argumentative removal of critisism

    Microsoft-run sites

    • 1st revert: [75] Note purposeful confusion of POV tag
    • 2nd revert: [76]
    • 3rd revert: [77]
    • 4th revert: [diff]

    Ghettoblaster on same WP:SELFPUB sites.

    Google sourced critisism - discussion here

    • [80] Ghettoblaster - remove sourced information
    • [81] HAl

    All edit wars simultaneously, i.e. wholesale reverts, by HAl


    The stuff on the Microsoft-run sites, which HAl has repeatedly tried to hide the fact that they are Microsoft-run has been hashed out months ago. - Note that User:Alexbrn, aka Alex Brown has a conflict of interest on this topic as he is personally involved in OOXML development.

    user:HAl has a long history of only editing Microsoft-run sites and towards Microsoft's point of view.

    user:HAl also has a history of harassing editors. It appears he used a IPSock to both insult and straw-man his opponent, with 71.112.18.171, an IP located in Redmond, Washington. [84]

    user:HAl also has a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to the fact that the sites he is trying to add comes from Microsoft, and have Microsoft copyright notices, and that therefore they cannot be "response" to a Microsoft-developed format, nor do they satisfy WP:SELFPUB. This has been explained numberous times, yet he continues with this straw man in inappropriate venues.

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

    Mud slinging, with no response on real content issues:


    Response Fortunatly I notice this edit because user:Scientus has of course not informed me of his action here directed against me. I just noticed this because I have asked for third party review on the WP:Wikiproject Computing on the edits made by user:Scientus on the Office Open article and user:Scientus reacted on that request for mediation with a link to here but subsequently removed that link so that I would not notice his actions on the ANI board. The above list does show a long list of edit conflict with user:Scientus on the Office open XML article but only a few of those edits were actuallly made in the last few days. Also it should be noted that user:Scientus has a lot more of these edits on the Office Open XML as he been reverting against several other users like user:Ghettoblaster and user:Alexbrn as well. I consider user:Scientus to be a disruptive editor on the wikipedia article of Office Open XML. He has engaged in fact tagging asked a dozen or more extra citations for the most basic of things on an article that has more citations that most on wikipedia already. After that he started to use tendentious disruptive deletions on the article removing very obvious information on support for Office Open XML and blatant tendentious diruptive edits adding stacks of unreleated critisism citations to neutrl text in the article lead. From this user:Scientus has moved on to campaigning to drive away productive contributors which the above is and example of. He now tries to get me a temporary block by formulating a damaging claim but it is almost entirely made up of links that are edits from several weeks ago or older and mostly of actions where he was actually reverted against several users and thus making lost more similar unjustifiable edits. user:Scientus actually got an edit ban for edit warring on my personal talk page. Also he actually claims some kind of ridiculous strawmann claim from Redmond which is just to laughable. When confronted with his actions on the talk page of the Office Open XML article by me and byy user:Ghettoblaster he refuses to go into subject matter or tries to avoid the discusion on the article topic but in stead tries to communicate through wikilawyerling. The WP:Disruptive editing article firstly suggest to keep reverting on disruptive edits and if this not helps to seek mediation or dispute resolution. Because of our edit clash before I taken the subject to the WP:Wikiproject computing to ask for independant verification of the edits made by user:Scientus. I would ask the admins to wait for the outcome of that request for independant intervention or even to invite any admins knowledgeable on computing subject to help out on the Office Open XML. hAl (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I already responded to this above:
    "user:HAl also has a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to the fact that the sites he is trying to add comes from Microsoft, and have Microsoft copyright notices, and that therefore they cannot be "response" to a Microsoft-developed format, nor do they satisfy WP:SELFPUB. This has been explained numberous times, yet he continues with this straw man in inappropriate venues."Scientus (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This only serves to show your bias.
    The Office Open XML format is an official ISO/IEC standard developed by multiple companies within Ecma(also including Apple and Intel) and organizations (like the US libary of congress) and ISO national boies who all want a compatible succesor to the binary MS Office files. You only see a big MS sign on all edits. hAl (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/ site has a Microsoft copyright notice, and is provided and hosted by Microsoft, then it probably is written by Microsoft. Taking efforts to hide these facts sure seems to me to be incongruous with the goals of Wikipedia, especially the goal of building a better encyclopedia.Scientus (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. All I see from the edit history is two users working against each other. I locked the article for a week for you to work though this constructively. Once you stop fighting I'm happy to unlock or you can ask at WP:RFPPSpartaz Humbug! 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    99.132.143.162 reported by Ramapoughnative (Result: Incomplete report)

    There is a user who is known by IP address vandalizing the Ramapough page. He 1st complained on how it was written as "high school writing" then procedes to call me a liar when I post about elders able to speak Munsee. I gave him the reference pointing to the tribal website showing they are instructing Munsee classes in the Ramapough tribal office. Now they are adding links to other group as if we were related with no references to back it up. I request an arbitrator and the page blocked from changes until this is resolved. Thank you. Ramapoughnative (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Asked to collect evidence and use the submission templateScientus (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned both of them, and left a note at the talk page of the article. Am going to watch it and make sure the war doesn't restart. lifebaka++ 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To assist others in watching the article, I added some header information. The IPs are all from the Chicago area. They are most likely one single person who identifies himself here as a long-time editor who chooses to be anonymous. The IP seems more familiar with our sourcing rules than is Ramapoughnative, but he seems not to have picked up much diplomacy in his WP career. Lots of personal attacks on both sides. In the last two days both parties have broken 3RR. Admins should take action if the war continues. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Systemizer reported by Verbal (Result: 1 week)

    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: 08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 05:25, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "Added some sourced content")
    2. 07:09, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid an unexplained deletion of sourced content")
    3. 07:27, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "The sources were written by McKenna himself, so YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL THEM UNRELIABLE.")
    4. 07:41, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "This version of the Summary section is sourced directly from McKenna and is INDISPUTABLE")

    The user refuses despite repeated notes in edit summaries and on talk pages to engage in debate, and continues to edit war against multiple editors who have attempted to discuss the edits. Please also review their block log.

    —Verbal chat 08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an ongoing problem: 5. 12:05, 17 August 2009 (I think my timing on some may be an hour off, due to locale settings - not sure!) Verbal chat 11:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 1 week King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xashaiar reported by User:Alefbe (Result: )

    User:Xashaiar is not a new user and he is already familiar with the 3RR rule. Alefbe (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left him a warning. This shouldn't preclude a block, if anyone still feels it necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Goramon reported by User:JoshuaZ(Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [92]
    • Did not warn user since user repeatedly in the edit war claimed other users were violating 3RR: See [93].
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Disscussion on talk page here


    Note that the user was so willing to repeatedly revert without discussion that he actually reverted to the version he didn't want when he failed to read the relevant edit summaries. See [94][95]. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 23:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.214.191.81 reported by User:Falcon8765 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [96]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]


    Normally, I wouldn't care about the removal of one word in an article, but the diff of the first edit shows that he's not acting in good faith.

    Falcon8765 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.214.191.81 reported by User:Cybercobra (Result: Dup)


    • Previous version reverted to: [105]


    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, since this is rather trivial and obvious.

    Apologies if I've made any mistakes in filling out this report, this is my first one (or at least the first one I can recall). --Cybercobra (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note – Duplicate report. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, beaten to it. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Knight Prince - Sage Veritas reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [110]


    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111].
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 03:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PasswordUsername reported by User:jacurek (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [112]


    • 1st revert [[113]] 18:31, 17 August 2009] (edit summary: "/* The Caucasus */ Removed misrepresented source. "Frequently", "often" are not found in the source. "Russophobia" or "anti-Russian sentiment" not found anywhere in the article either.")
    • 2nd revert [[114]] 19:51, 17 August 2009] (edit summary: "/* The Caucasus */ That Chechens have an overwhelmingly negative view of Russians may be true, but it's not in source. Please stop adding misrepresented material.")
    • 3rd revert [[115]] 21:23, 17 August 2009] (edit summary: "Undid revision 308551436 by Martintg (talk) Not OR -- text is sourced to what is found in a notable court case.")
    • 4th revert [[116]] 01:23, 18 August 2009] (edit summary: "/* Baltic states */ improper tagging - see talk")

    User informed [[117]] but not warned (repeat offender)--Jacurek (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    He self-reverted his last: [118], so it's only 3 reverts in 24h. Offliner (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1st revert 15:59, 17 August 2009 (Marked as a minor edit) (edit summary: "/* Russia and the Soviet Union */ Removing material irrelevant to subject of collaborationism per WP:COATRACK and minor rewrite for coherency.")
    • 2nd revert 16:04, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 308499149 by Vecrumba (talk) The article isn't about this. What Shthern stocks are isn't even explained.")
    • 3rd revert 17:02, 17 August 2009 (edit summary: "Rvt again. Please explain WHY this is relevant information for an article about collaborationism. No one has done this, days after my request. Nothing has been said on talk despite days of asking.")
    --Martintg (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I self-reverted myself yesterday long before Jacurek made his "4RR report." ([119] - I'm not sure how Jacurek could have missed that one, because I self-reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 308591443 by PasswordUsername (talk) fourth revert -- undo") I think that sufficiently addresses my editing at Anti-Russian sentiment, where every change is very well justified. As for what's brought up by Martintg's piling on top of this, I'd like to point out that I've also asked others, like Jacurek and Martintg, to put up an argument for including material outside the scope of WWII collaborationism before reverting my changes at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, on whose talk page Jacurek simply contended that Stalin's pre-1941 relations were significant to be detailed in an article dealing with WWII collaboration with the Nazis, without ever explaining why - others agreed with my edits on talk, and Martintg reverted, but never even participated. So explain their reasoning they never even did (please take a look)–although happy to revert they were, even without discussing the subject rationally and seriously. This report is ridiculous. Not only did I undo an accidental 4th revert as I reverted myself, I actually bothered to use the talk page where I had to in good faith undo the changes of these content opponents. I recommend that the admin reviewing this take note of Jacurek and Martintg's contributions - because I think that this report should be withdrawn in good faith. PasswordUsername (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    PasswordUsername, please focus on the fact that you did revert extensively recently on many articles instead of attacking other editors. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Password Username has also been edit warring over at Nochnoy Dozor (group) (1st [120], 2nd [121], 3rd [122].) as well. Note that like on the other two articles (there may be other articles where this is going on) he is careful not to "officially" break the 3RR barrier but he's edit warring against multiple editors none the less. I believe this is usually seen as an attempt at "gaming the system" or "fence hugging" - I'm sure that since he's been blocked for 3RR before, PU knows he can't do 4 reverts (he got a little ahead of himself on "Anti-Russian sentiment") but he seems pretty keen on getting "his" 3 reverts per day on multiple articles at once. Furthermore, he also had 3 reverts, right-up-to-but-not-past-the limit on Neo-Stalinism a couple days ago (1st [123], 2nd [124], 3rd [125]. I'm sure he feels his edits are "justified" - but then people who revert always do.radek (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Those diffs aren't even all reverts–do let me know what reversion you see in this: [126]. Nice try there. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a revert. Standard strategy among some editors who try to POV articles - present favorable sources' unequivocally and without attribution in text, while preceding all information from unfavorable sources with "according to an opinion..."radek (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfectamundo. Attributing a source is now a revert–do everyone a favor and stop bringing your content disputes to an edit warring noticeboard. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When done selectively, yes. And please watch civility.radek (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please observe WP:HOUNDING. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IslamForEver1 reported by User:Jeff5102 (Result: socks blocked)

    This user is sockpuppetteer of a lot of sockpuppets, at the moment he uses User:GladHights, User:LeafyPlus, and User:Androizant. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IslamForEver1/Archive


    • Previous version reverted to:See below:


    And so on and on.

    The problem with this user is going on since September last year, when he edited the article as User:72.81.208.215.

    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I edited the article talk-page 53 times. I think that would do.

    Jeff5102 (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • All 3 socks blocked indef and article semi'd for a month. Black Kite 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Another avatar reported by User:Boleyn (Result:96h)

    Persistent edit warring on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor. Was blocked for 48 hrs but still edited the page through an IP address, and has done the same again now the block has been lifted. Being investigated for sock puppets. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is really frustrating that "Another avatar" ignores all the references (see The New Cambridge Medieval History etc) and is doing original research. Henry of Luxembourg was never called "Henry VIII" but ever "Henry VII"; Henry (VII) of Germany was never "head of the empire" or emperor - his father Frederick II was the emperor. If you can understand german: read the articles in the NDB (Neue Deutsche Biographie - New German Biography): Henry (VII) and Henry VII. --77.176.22.203 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 96 hours Black Kite 10:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aradic-es reported by User:Polargeo (Result: 48 hours )





    Also User:PRODUCER is involved in this edit waring with User:Aradic-es. I have not provided evidence of attempts to stop this because it seems that there is no point talking to these users. They are going at this edit waring across many articles. I first came across this waring in the article Karađorđevo agreement. However, in the case reported here Aradic-es appears to be repeatedly removing well sourced and accurate material from the lead section of the article. This material is simply showing details of a major international court case which the person is currently a defendent in and which the person is internationally most famous for. It appears Aradic-es wants to cover this up as much as possible. I think Aradic-es has been editing disruptively. I am new to this reporting of users so please forgive my mistakes. Polargeo (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reported Aradic-es here, please take a look for more information regarding the "edit waring across many articles", I have found discussing with this user to be ineffective even when a third opinion is brought in. PRODUCER (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Patriot_Missile33 reported by User:Rhode_Island_Red (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [144]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [152]

    This user is repeatedly deleting content from the article's lead despite the fact that they have not provided reasonable justification for doing so, have not adequately participated in ongoing discussions on the Talk page, have not included edit summaries, and have ignored input from other editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.48.41.215 reported by User:Hexagon1 (Result: Page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: The difference lies in the link to the British National (Overseas) passport, which is politically sensitive in Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China. Edit difference demonstrated in following reverts:
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Discussion on our respective talks: User talk:70.48.41.215 and User talk:Hexagon1, where I have warned the editor twice. The edit summaries of my edits too changed from explicitly referencing WP:AGF to a cautious warning tone.

    My edit summary requests for the editor to discuss on template talk have been ignored, though some discussion has very recently occurred on our user talks, accompanied by reverts. I have been very active on the template's talk and would welcome the IP's contributions there. This template, used on hundreds of often politically sensitive pages needs to reflect a neutral consensus-supported viewpoint, and this IP consistently violates such a consensus. I am hoping a brief cook-down block will help the IP understand that edit warring is neither productive nor efficient. I should note this user edits from a dynamic IP and would thus not be debilitatingly affected by such a block, merely made aware of Wikipedia policy's stance on constructive debate, which I have been trying to foster from the get-go. +Hexagon1 (t) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Very good! Hexagon1! why didn't you report yourself?? 70.48.41.215 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Because I have not to my knowledge breached WP:3RR, and unlike you, have consistently tried to move this away from edit summaries into discussion on the talk page. If you agree to revert the template to the consensus-supported state and commence discussion on the template's talk then there's no need for blocks. +Hexagon1 (t) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    are you 100% sure you are not breached WP:3RR? are you sure you have tried to move this away from edit summaries into discussion on the talk page? pls check carefully! 70.48.41.215 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I take that as a no, you won't agree to discuss. Good night then, it's twenty to three on Wednesday morning here. PS: 3RR is four reverts in 24 hours, not three. I have not breached it. +Hexagon1 (t) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that your pair of eyes are selectively blind. No matter it is technically fitted within 24 hours, if you keep reverting, it will also be counted or considered as edit warring or disruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.41.215 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that blocking the IP would probably not stop the dispute, I've protected the page. Settle it on the talk page or through DR somehow. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:192.87.123.115/User:Another avatar reported by User:Boleyn (Result: AA's block extended)

    User has been banned for second time in a week for edit warring on Henry, Holy Roman Emperor. Both times, his/her edits have been re-added by an IP address. Plus another avator has left a rude and defiant response to latest ban on his Talk page. I think the page needs protection from IP edits. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - User:Jerzy has extended Another avatar's block to 200 hours. I don't see the need for semiprotection to deal with a total of two IP edits. The block-evading IPs were 131.180.140.61 and 192.87.123.115, both from the Netherlands. (There is at least one good-faith IP working on the article, from the 77.* range). EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Noloop at Criticism of Human Rights Watch reported by User:Doc Tropics

    Two days ago this editor was given a 48 hour block for disruptive editing at the article linked above. Immediately upon returning his first edit to article space was a blanket revert of every single change made to the article (by at least 4 different editors) since his enforced break. This represents an unacceptable pattern of behaviour and deliberate flaunting of WP process. Please review and consider appropriate actions. Thanks, Doc Tropics 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you try talking to me first, and authority second? Noloop (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I made an extensive plea for communication on the Talk page. That's how consensus works.... Noloop (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is equivalent to a statement of intent to edit war: "I'm not going to respond to his discussion on the talkpage; he's spouting nonsense and it's a waste of time." --DocTropics [153] It's interesting that one can always report a "mass deletion" and it automatically looks bad, but it's much harder to report a "mass addition of POV-promoting WP:WEIGHT-violating" material, and have anybody care. You are editing without the consensus of 2 of the roughly 5 editors active on the article. Noloop (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=308775969"