Jump to content

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:Patentman72 reported by User:Gnome de plume (Result: ): The editor may have a conflict of interest.
Line 331: Line 331:
::::George Louis and Collect are long-term colluders who are both involved with WP Project Conservatism and have been POV pushing for quite some time. They have a long history of obstructionism, whitewashing and harassment of editors on the Vandersloot page. This type of witch-hunt is getting to be an almost weekly occurrence with these guys. Who in their right mind would object to removal of a video that violates copyright? Epic dickery! [[User:Rhode Island Red|Rhode Island Red]] ([[User talk:Rhode Island Red|talk]]) 22:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
::::George Louis and Collect are long-term colluders who are both involved with WP Project Conservatism and have been POV pushing for quite some time. They have a long history of obstructionism, whitewashing and harassment of editors on the Vandersloot page. This type of witch-hunt is getting to be an almost weekly occurrence with these guys. Who in their right mind would object to removal of a video that violates copyright? Epic dickery! [[User:Rhode Island Red|Rhode Island Red]] ([[User talk:Rhode Island Red|talk]]) 22:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::Read [[WP:NPA]] please. Also note that '''I am not and have never been a member of that wikiproject''', that '''I am not and have never "colluded" with any editor on VanderSloot''', that your edit war is the issue here, and that your history of making such charges is indicative of a battleground attitude. And if you consider 4RR reports to be a "witch-hunt'' that is even more proof of your attitude. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 04:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::Read [[WP:NPA]] please. Also note that '''I am not and have never been a member of that wikiproject''', that '''I am not and have never "colluded" with any editor on VanderSloot''', that your edit war is the issue here, and that your history of making such charges is indicative of a battleground attitude. And if you consider 4RR reports to be a "witch-hunt'' that is even more proof of your attitude. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 04:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Read [[WP:Don't_be_a_dick| WP:DONTBEADICK]] please. Also, note that I said that you were “involved” with WP Project Conservatism, which is a fact; there’s no need for such an emphatic denial of something that wasn’t said. In fact, your POV pushing has been an ongoing concern there, as indicated by comments like: ''"I'd like to point out that Collect's behavior is why there's a problem. He's a conservative editor who viciously and falsely attacks anyone who criticizes WikiProject Conservatism."''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism#To_consolidate_comments_in_the_above_discussion.2C_please_reply_here.2C_not_there.21]. And yes, I do consider your trumped up 4RR accusation to be a witch-hunt, and a waste of everyone’s time, since it’s obvious that I didn’t violate 4RR. You and George together use these retributive accusations to obstruct work on the page and intimidate opposition. It's time to straighten up and fly right. [[User:Rhode Island Red|Rhode Island Red]] ([[User talk:Rhode Island Red|talk]]) 16:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


== [[User:Patavium]] reported by [[User:Mai-Sachme]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Patavium]] reported by [[User:Mai-Sachme]] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 16:58, 7 November 2012

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    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

    User:174.84.195.0 reported by User:Tarage (Result: Semi)

    Page: List of Eureka Seven episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.84.195.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I left a warning on his talk page stating that if he continues to remove the above section without giving a reason, I would report him. Since giving that warning he has done it three more times. These have been undone by editor User:Sjones23 and myself.

    Comments:The issue in question is the inclusion of the 51st episode of the series Eureka Seven on the episode page. The editor has made no attempt to explain the removal of information, nor has any attempt to respond to questions about the edit been made. The editor appears to be an IP not interested in communicating or contributing in a collaborative manner.

    --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: Semiprotected two months. There might be some logic to the IP's position, but we'll never know what it is since he doesn't use the talk page or even leave edit summaries. This is a case of long-term warring by the IP since the reverts were not within 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Double sharp and User:Eka-bismuth reported by User:I Jethrobot (Result: Double sharp and Eka-bismuth warned)

    Page: Ununpentium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported: Double sharp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Eka-bismuth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Double sharp (talk · contribs):

    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]

    Eka-bismuth (talk · contribs):


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11], [12]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    • [13]
    • [14] - No discussion on article talk page, but editors are attempting to resolve issue on the WikiProject Elements talk page as the issue would be relevant to all articles on elements on the periodic table.

    Comments:

    • Editors were engaged in a content dispute over the addition of cultural information about Ununpentium. Eka-bismuth has repeatedly attempted to add this information, and Double sharp has repeatedly removed it. The current state of the article retains some of the original additions from Eka-bismuth from Double sharp's recent edit summary on the article: keep one paragraph, move rest to. This discussion seems to be constructive, and edit warring has since appeared to end, but 3RR was nonetheless violated. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Eka-bismuth has not continued to revert since I left a more detailed note on his talk page. The AfD which is now in progress may help to settle the matter. It is easy to see that serious-minded chemists might take umbrage at a large fraction of a technical article being taken over by popular culture. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Faulknerck2‎ reported by User:Zad68 (Result: )

    Pages:

    User being reported: Faulknerck2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Note: This is an attempt by Faulknerck2 to edit-war in unsourced/poorly sourced material or duplicate material across three articles. His edits were reverted by myself, Jayjg, RHaworth and 71.61.95.21 (a long-time productive IP editor) with numerous invitations to discuss.

    Previous version reverted to: 03:59, 31 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Male circumcision */")

    1. 03:58, 31 October 2012 -- Added [[Genital_modification_and_mutilation|Male Genital Mutilation]] to Template:Violence against men
    2. 20:23, 31 October 2012 (edit summary: "why not? MGM is a brutal thing that can do to a man ,and it's same as FGM. http://www.mgmbill.org/")
    3. 06:21, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "I made enough evidence why MGM should be in this list in the talk section so please refer them rather than removing this because you don't agree with me.")
    4. 08:53, 3 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521176362 by 71.61.95.21 (talk)")
    5. 09:17, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "it's not a domestic violence, Genital Mutilation is a different category. http://www.bestgore.com/tag/male-genital-mutilation/")
    6. At this point, Faulknerck2 created a WP:POVFORK of Genital modification and mutilation named Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) with basically the same content. I CSD'd it as an A10-dup of existing content. Faulknerck2 briefly edit-warred trying to delete the CSD tag, and then RHaworth speedy-deleted the page.
    7. 23:09, 4 November 2012 (edit summary: "obviously related to the topic. MGM is indeed a violence against men and boys - see the talk section")
    8. 00:55, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "")
    9. 01:03, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "Show me any duplication ? no place has mentioned about "other than circumcision make damage to the penis, scrotum, testes, glans are also considered as Male Genital Mutilation."")
    10. 01:08, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "He/she vandalized my details.")
    11. 02:45, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "I have a proper source for MGM now so don't remove this.")
    12. 04:06, 5 November 2012 (edit summary: "stop messing up with my edits. source is reliable you can check it out by yourself. and you broke the 3 Edit Rule in here.") -- Note: I did not break the 3RR there.
    13. 03:52, 6 November 2012 (edit summary: "source has been provided and they are also reliable so why remove them? so stop vandalizing articles.")

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Additional personal warnings I provided:

    • diff -- Warning and asked Faulknerck2 to work with fellow editors on talk to gain consensus
    • diff -- Another edit-warring warning with an explanation of the WP:BRD process and note that if Faulknerck2 continues, I will open edit-warring report
    • diff -- Still assuming good faith and giving Faulknerck2 one more try with an invite to join discussion section I opened at article Talk page

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See:

    Responses from Faulknerck2, largely WP:IDHT and personal attacks. My only reponses to his edits have been that they are unsourced/poorly sourced, or duplicate existing content.

    His editing is quite disruptive. I do not think an editor who refers to policy pages as "gibberish" will be a productive editor for Wikipedia. In my opinion, we could be in WP:COMPETENCE territory here. Zad68 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Refer this page. this man has been stalking me, disturbing me ever since I added about MGM into the Wikipedia Faulk (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC) he started the edit war because what I have edited didn't fit into his ideology. he believes there is NO such term called MGM and it's solely a made up story by even though I made a lot of proofs about that. MGM is a threat and it's a brutal crime and if you don't know . babies have died because of MGM.and circumcision is one of things belong to MGM and there could be a lot of types (I made them in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutilation in here but WIKIPEDIA DOESN"T SAY ANYTHING about that. seriously HOW COME PEOPLE IN THIS SITE FORGET ABOUT MGM?? ban me if you want but don't forget people suffer in this world because of MGM. I have seen them and I have heard that a lot) https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/548698_278766902205608_576479498_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulknerck2 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note. User:EdJohnston left a note on Faulknerck2's talk page at 17:14, November 6, asking the editor to agree to refrain from editing MGM articles and templates for one week. Faulknerck2 has not edited anything since 5:17, November 5. Although Ed left open the possibility of a block despite his advisement, I would prefer to wait to see if the editor will agree to the condition. A third admin may take a different view.
    Added. In the Genital modification and mutilation article history, I discovered that an IP reverted along similar lines to Faulknerck2 after Faulknerck2 stopped editing. This was still before Ed's advisement, but I find it disturbing. I have put the template and the article on my watchlist. I have also reverted the last change by Faulknerck2 to the template.
    Added. There was another reversion by an IP from the same location (Sri Lanka). I've reverted it and semi-protected the page. My suspicion is the IP is Faulknerck2, but although I see some contributions to articles that are related or possibly related to Sri Lanka by Faulknerck2 (e.g., Islam in Sri Lanka and Prophets in Islam), I'm hesitant to conclude the IPs are Faulknerck2. If another admin feels there is sufficient evidence of sock puppetry, then on that point alone Faulknerck2 should be blocked. I've semi-protected the article to guard against further disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotection looks like a reasonable step. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:14.99.166.211, User:27.124.16.197, and User:Imtitanium reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Protected)

    Page: Bigg Boss 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 14.99.166.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 27.124.16.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Imtitanium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning for 27.124.16.197; warning for Imtitanium

    Comments: The two users (one of which is has used two anonymous IP accounts) have been engaged in a revert war for several days. The IP accounts have been attempting to add text to the article, always without explanation, and User:Imtitanium immediately removes it, also usually without explanation. On 2 November I warned both users about edit warring, and asked them to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither has done so. After the warning, User:Imtitanium claimed on his user talk page that the information the IP accounts are trying to add is fake. (Previously, he had only claimed that it was "irrelevant".) I told him that if the edits constitute vandalism, he needs to report it as such; however, he hasn't done so, and has continued to revert without attempting to engage the user or assuming good faith (something he has often neglected in past interactions with other users, and has been warned about multiple times: [15] [16] [17]).

    Note that I don't know enough about the plot and media coverage of this television show to know whether or not the information the IP user is trying to insert really is false; I have just one user's word against another's. Perhaps the IP user is inserting correct (albeit unsourced) information, or perhaps IP account is inserting incorrect or irrelevant information in good faith, or perhaps they really are a vandal deliberately inserting false information. The point is that both editors are mindlessly reverting each other instead of trying to determine each other's motivations and publically establish the accuracy or usefulness of the content in dispute. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already reported it. Today morning. [18] The account is publicizing some unknown imaginary housewife named Madhu. Look at this : Out of over 1,00,000 people who applied online as a commoner,four people were selected,this included Anjali Patil,a radio jockey from Dehli,Jay Mishra a teacher from Mumbai,Madhu Lunia a housewife and a mother of three from Howrah,West Bengal and Kashif Qureshi,a martial artist from Hydreabad.After repeated calls from the authorities of the house Madhu did not attended the premier of the show.As a result,Kashif entered the show as a commoner.Kashif’s stay in the house was short and he got evicted from the show in the 2nd week itself.On public demand,a commoner will enter the house again and this time it will be Madhu Lunia on the basis of the votes that were casted between the current housemates of the house a week before.Madhu got seven votes,Anjali and Jay both got 2 votes.Sapna,Sana,Sampat,Navjot,Aseem,Denlaaz & Aska voted for Madhu to be a part of the game show.When asked the reason for the vote Sidhu said,”I want a housewife to enter the show,who can manage the house most efficiently”.The authorities will contact Madhu soon and she is expected to enter the house on 01/12/2012. Madhu must submit her three different photographs along with her permanent residence address at the official fan page of Bigg Boss by 9pm,on 05/11/2012 if she wishes to enter the house.The authorities of the house will visit her residence on 16/11/2012.The authorities have just confirmed that Madhu will not be entering the Bigg Boss’s house with her relative (as it was being said previously),though the housewife selected (Madhu) will enter the house with another popular housewife of silver screen Sakshi Tanwar on 01/12/2012.Madhu remained unavailable for comment. This is all fake information. I'm sure the account is itself some Madhu's. Arghh. This is so stupid. You are acting purposely stupid. Neglecting every bit of obviousness this case has to offer. I don't know why i'm even talking to you on this matter. I'll let this page rot on its own. Goodbye -- I'm Titanium  chat 12:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Due to the ongoing case here, I have declined the report at AIV. Blocks can be handed out by the closing admin here if deemed appropriate. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like Imtitanium's WP:AIV report was filed during the delay between my writing and posting this report. However, my concerns about edit warring and not assuming good faith remain. Suspected vandalism should first be reported to the account making the edits and not directly to WP:AIV. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that the edit warring has continued even after both users were informed about this report. Imtitanium has reverted again, claiming in the edit summary that the matter is "Too obvious to be discussed." —Psychonaut (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3RRNO might apply in mitigation. If unsourced details of named individuals are being removed WP:3RR may not apply. Leaky Caldron 13:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the material was really being removed on WP:BLP grounds, it would have been helpful if this were reflected in the edit summaries, and the user who inserted the text informed of our policies and given an opportunity to provide reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen I am not paid to edit on wikipedia. I do this cause i like to. If you are going to make the the whole page my responsibility i cant help but take actions on my own. Tell me who else regularly contributes to the page? Do you think I have absolutely nothing else to do? I have a proper life. I come to wikipedia to word what I see on TV, in turn, improving my skills to write. I have no compassion for the Wiki foundation. Do you think I would go warning these stupids IPs asking them to stop adding non-sense? Seriously? I do not have worthless time to invest in such non-profiting situations, I'm sorry. It's clearly unsourced and seems to be written by some guy/girl who wants to advertise some Madhu, Jay, Anjali. LIKE WTF??? This is so f*c*ed up, i swear.-- I'm Titanium  chat 13:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's exactly what we're asking you to do. Give users the benefit of the doubt; don't assume that they are deliberately trying to disrupt Wikipedia. We have warning templates available for this purpose, which save you the trouble of writing a custom warning. See for example {{uw-vandal1}}, {{uw-unsourced1}}, {{uw-error1}}, and {{uw-biog1}}, some of which may have been appropriate in this case. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Get out of my face. I refused to talk to you. Good day. -- I'm Titanium  chat 14:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected. I've semi-protected the page for a week. The material being added by the different IP addresses is so garbagy and so unencyclopedic (in addition to being unsourced) that it practically jumps all over you, and I know absolutely nothing about the show. @I'm Titanium, two things: first, next time report the problem to a noticeboard rather than edit-war over it. Second, don't get so riled up about it. It's not worth it, and it is no excuse for treating other editors disrespectfully (I'm referring to Psychonaut).Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cwmacdougall reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Protected)

    Page: White Terror (Russia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cwmacdougall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [19]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

    I have not used that talk page as the only edits i have done was revert mass removal of content. I logged in today and saw the above edit warring so am reporting it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    An editor refuses the most modest improvements to a crude biased piece of poorly sourced propaganda. I tried appealing to the NPOV page and to the Russia Group, with little effect. I have now filed a Dispute Resolution. cwmacdougall 23.09, 5 November 2012

    User:DemirBajraktarevic reported by User:Wüstenfuchs (Result: Both blocked)

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

    I said to the user that he shouldn't remove sourced infos, but still he continues to do so. Moreover, he repaces it by his own claim. --Wüstenfuchs 03:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    P. S.

    The edit-war warrning was made by me as well ([31]). --Wüstenfuchs 03:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    I am the said user. Osman Kulenović is the article. Osman Kulenović was born in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1880s into a Bosnian Muslim family. He moved to Croatia later in life and was involved in politics there. The point is: he was Bosnian - NOT Croatian. Wüstenfuchs has multiple times stated that Kulenovic was a Croat. RIDICULOUS AND NOT TRUE. --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If a person feels in certain way then there's no need for a dicussion. Kulenović, both he and his brother, were known for their Croatian nationalist attitudes. You made a conclusion that he is a Bosniak just because Kulenović was a Muslim by his religion. That is not valid argument. Needless to say, both he and his brother considered Bosnian Muslims to be Croats. Besides, the information is sourced as well and you are replacing it with your own oppinion. --Wüstenfuchs 03:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both editors blocked. Wüstenfuchs has a history of edit warring, and was blocked recently as 1 month ago, so he received a longer block of one week (his last block was for 3 days). DemirBajraktarevic has never been blocked before, so I gave him a 24 hour block. --Jayron32 05:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.253.75.84 reported by User:Jenova20 (Result: 1 week)

    This editor appears to be waging a personal edit war against me across two articles just to revert war. I've started discussions with him but he's done it again since then and to another article aswell (just to get at me i suspect) and is at 2 or 3 reverts on the one article. It's not majorly important stuff but it's incredibly annoying and he's already been warned by me and someone else on his talk page and he's still doing it. Articles in question are Template:LGBT rights table Africa and LGBT rights in Texas. I've since noticed also that he/she's currently engaged in 10+ edit wars across difference articles with other editors...I also realize i've used rollback on the user on one of my examples when i should have restored the previous version, apologies, i will correct that now. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see User talk:Largoplazo#LGBT rights in Africa and User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries for further context. This IP-hopping editor has been active for several months on various LGBT rights in various "LGBT rights in X" articles, where X is usually an African country. The editor adds a lot of well-sourced information, much of which nonetheless constitutes synthesis of legal arguments and interpretations strongly favouring a pro-LGBT POV (e.g., "Country A's constitution says X, Y, and Z; taken together one must therefore infer that homosexuality enjoys constitutional protection."), and undue weight to same. For the last week User:Largoplazo and I have been attempting to engage this user without success. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Is he under any obligation to respond to requests to explain his actions so we can avoid arguments and edit wars? Thanks for the reply ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a (possibly incomplete) list of IP addresses the user has used:

    —Psychonaut (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know that he/she can be said to be under any obligation to respond, but I think there will be a difference between the way to proceed with a person who willingly engages in discussion and a person who ignores all attempts to discuss. I'm the one who has twice deleted boilerplate text from 13 "LGBT rights in X" articles. The second time through, I left in the edit summaries a link to the explanatory article Psychonaut mentioned above, User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries. Because this person refuses to engage—and assuming others agree with my rationale for the deletions—I wondered whether the next step is to go right to semi-protection, since being an IP user, who will never see "You have new messages", is helping him/her evade discussion. With semiprotection, he/she could choose either to discuss, or to register, in which case he/she would then have a talk page. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But, we can't just protect 10+ articles and in the process prevent others from editing because he won't discuss his WP:Synthesis? Any other solutions to this? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just semi-protection which is being proposed, which prevents editing only by those using anonymous IPs, or very new accounts (less than a few days old). Considering some of the alternative remedies which could be employed if he does not stop the disruption and start discussing (for example, a block of his entire IP range), I don't think short-term semiprotection is too great an imposition. (Also, it's not just his synthesis which needs to be discussed; it's also his POV-pushing, adding information of very general scope to very specific articles, and "ownership" of the articles. It's not just the three of us he's reverted; if you examine the page histories you'll find that many other editors have had their edits immediately undone by him.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But, he's editing a lot of articles...And LGBT rights in example country is a range of about 200 articles he could start warring on. I support your proposal for protection Psychonaut but there's no way we can prevent his POV-pushing this way as he'll move along to other LGBT rights in example country articles. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above looks to be small enough of a range to allow for a technical range block: what does the rest of editing look like on that range? I'm not a real expert in giving range blocks, but one could work well here. --Jayron32 13:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in. I'll agree to any proposal now. I've just been warned i'm edit warring by the same user on my talk page in retaliation - despite him making more reverts than me and me opening discussions with him over the warring.
    He's also still warring on other LGBT rights in example country articles. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the latest IP is edit warring as we speak, and collateral damage looks to be minimal, I've blocked 70.253.0.0/16 for a week. I'm hoping this person will create an account because there might be some usable content here, but the 12 article edit war with dynamic IPs has gotten a bit disruptive now. – Steel 15:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He's continuing from 75.34.101.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is outside your range block. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor started posting to User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries and User talk:Jenova20, though so far he doesn't seem willing to entertain the possibility that his edits may violate consensus and policy. Hopefully he will create an account and continue the discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is much more activity on this one, but mostly minor edits and some vandalism, so I've blocked it (/16) too for the same length of time. If it turns out next week that a longer term solution is required for these pages then I'm happy to semi-protect the lot. – Steel 16:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't accept that he's at fault and personally attacked me on my user page. He's quoting a policy to me while violating about 4 himself but doesn't accept the criticism. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A new account, User:AfricaTanz, has been created, and has started editing LGBT rights in Kenya in a manner consistent with the IP user's edits. I have left a message on their talk page asking if they're the IP user and inviting them to discuss their contributions at User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WikiCalambenyo reported by User:P199 (Result: )

    Page: Calamba, Laguna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: WikiCalambenyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    On August 2012 I made my 1st edit to Calamba, Laguna, as part of larger editing series to clean up and bring consistent formatting to Philippine municipality/city articles, including removal of duplication, redundancy, and non-encyclopedic business listings. Since then, 5 IP users (all from the same company in Makati (same as WikiCalambenyo? Please check.)) keep on reverting my edits in one shot without any explanation. Then User:WikiCalambenyo also reverted my edits without comment or reason, 4 times by now: [32], [33], [34], [35]. Note that intermediate edits make it more difficult to see and detect that WikiCalambenyo keeps on reverting my edits.

    I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page and user talk page, and even on the IP user talk pages: User talk:112.207.3.238, User talk:112.207.16.116, and User talk:112.207.24.193. No replies. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:Collect (Result: )

    Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [36] prior to IP edit

    • 1st revert: [37] 21:26 5 Nov
    • 2nd revert: [38] 00:59 6 Nov
    • 3rd revert: [39] 03:55 6 Nov
    • 4th revert: [40] 15:22 6 Nov


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41] with request ot self-revert

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42] extended discussion in fact

    Comments:


    Editor has been repeatedly warned about edit war (including lengthy blocks and other warnings), and this is a clear 4RR absolute biright-line violation. Collect (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    RIR made four reverts, as listed above. The first of the four is this one, which is claimed to be removal of a copyright violation -- a Youtube video of a local TV news broadcast. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a 4RR or even 3RR here. Two of those reverts in the list above are unrelated. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't have to be the same edit. Also, I don't believe copyright is given the same exemption that BLP is given regarding the 3rr. Arkon (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "4RR" does not require all the reverts to be the same - the fact is that there are four clear reverts in 24 hoors, and this has been noted in the past for the same editor. I do not think the youtube video at hand representa the BLP exception. What I find most troubling is that the editor seems to do this on a regular basis on this article. And I think edit war where a single editor makes dozens of reverts on the same article each month is pretty evident. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    George Louis and Collect are long-term colluders who are both involved with WP Project Conservatism and have been POV pushing for quite some time. They have a long history of obstructionism, whitewashing and harassment of editors on the Vandersloot page. This type of witch-hunt is getting to be an almost weekly occurrence with these guys. Who in their right mind would object to removal of a video that violates copyright? Epic dickery! Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:NPA please. Also note that I am not and have never been a member of that wikiproject, that I am not and have never "colluded" with any editor on VanderSloot, that your edit war is the issue here, and that your history of making such charges is indicative of a battleground attitude. And if you consider 4RR reports to be a "witch-hunt that is even more proof of your attitude. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:DONTBEADICK please. Also, note that I said that you were “involved” with WP Project Conservatism, which is a fact; there’s no need for such an emphatic denial of something that wasn’t said. In fact, your POV pushing has been an ongoing concern there, as indicated by comments like: "I'd like to point out that Collect's behavior is why there's a problem. He's a conservative editor who viciously and falsely attacks anyone who criticizes WikiProject Conservatism."[43]. And yes, I do consider your trumped up 4RR accusation to be a witch-hunt, and a waste of everyone’s time, since it’s obvious that I didn’t violate 4RR. You and George together use these retributive accusations to obstruct work on the page and intimidate opposition. It's time to straighten up and fly right. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Patavium reported by User:Mai-Sachme (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [44]

    Everthing started with the actions of User:Felisopus, who started an edit war, trying to add completely unsourced information to an article: [45] and following edits. After being reverted, invited to the talk page and asked there for sources, he went to the Italian wikipedia and asked User:Theirrulez (here on en.wikipedia a subject to extended 1RR restriction on WP:ARBMAC-related topics) for help. And so he did. Now we come to User:Patavium, who slightely changed the unsourced claims and reinserted them, ignoring the discussion at the talk page:

    He was reverted and asked for sources. One hour later, after apparently reading two entire books (an impressive accomplishment), he reverted again, this time citing sources.

    Nevertheless, the added information was still partly unsourced, partly unrelated to the topic of the article and partly ignoring Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.), for example citing a book about World War I for a proceses in the Holy Roman Empire...

    • 4th revert: [49] (The edit summary line is missleading: he didn't bring more sources, he just reverted.)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]


    I repeatedly tried to convince him to discuss the topic at the talk page 'before editing again: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51], [52], [53]. Since he didn't change his attitude, I have to report him here. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • I added clear sources in the text. Unfortunately Mai-Sachme continued to revert ignoring the sources.
    • There were three users, Felisopus, Theirrules and me agreeing on the edits.
    • Discussion with Mai-Sachme is quite difficult:
      • Here he wants a source for "the development of an own Ladin consciousness in the 19th century".
      • Previosly he said: It's completely uncontested that Ladins have developed a national ethnic identity in the 19th century.
    • Book WWI: refers to Austrian Empire, not to HRR.--Patavium (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Patavium is edit warring on the page since October 9th [54] when he reverted a series of about 20 single corrections (most mine, all using the edit summary) putting a misleading claim in the edit summary, removing sources and giving undue weight to doubtful ladin communes.--Sajoch (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Patavium, if I were you, I wouldn't highlight that an edit warrior, who didn't have any kind of sources, and a user with an 1RR restriction on WP:ARBMAC-related topics were your forerunners. The main problem here is that both User:Sajoch and me asked you to discuss the edits before reverting. You didn't feel the need to do that.
    I don't know, what you are trying to prove with those diff-links. I asked you for a source that the development of a Ladin ethnic identity in the 19th century (which is completely undisputed) stopped the process of Germanization as you reverted (without giving any kind of source) repeatedly in the article.
    The book we are talking about is called Una trincea chiamata Dolomiti: 1915-1917. It could be a good source for Italian Campaign (World War I), you used it as a source for a process which you claim to have started several centuries ago. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are clear figures from the census. Manipulating them makes no sense.
    The books talks about major efforts of Germanization during the war. As the article says now In the vast Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and then after 1804 the Austrian empire, the Ladins underwent a process of Germanization. Actually Austrian in not fully correct, as it became Austria-Hungary in 1867. But as a matter of fact, the Austrian authorities incremented their assimilation efforts during war. So a book about WWI is a very reliable source.
    My previous editor maybe did not post the sources, but he had a clear and correct idea - as most of his edits were common knowledge. I added some info, sources and changed the style.
    I therefore doubt that we need a previous discussion on common knowledge - at least in an Italian context, as the one which regards the Ladin area (or most of it). Unless the aim is preventive censorship, concealing Germanization and leaving only the message of Italianization. That would be quite a distorted view of Ladin history.
    On the contrary the system of total revert you use is not helpful, because vital information gets lost.
    Moreover, my view of events is slightly different. All reverts were performed by Mai-Sachme. I started with an edit, which was then reverted several times by Mai-Sachme, [55] even if I tried to integrate his objections. The rest of the sequence can be seen here [56]. Mai-Sachme is the one who removes the contents. Of course this would fall under another category than edit-war.--Patavium (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Patavium, we're not talking here about article-related topics, that's what articles' talk pages are made for. We are talking here about the fact that you reinserted controversial edits, completely ignoring the discussion, and even after being invited to take part in the discussion, continued to revert. You must realize that this kind of behaviour is not going to work out. Well, finally (but only after opening this case here) you seem to have stopped the edit warring. That's great, I'm sure we're going to find a consensual solution. But on the other hand I'd like to make sure that you don't start again with unilateral changes without searching for a consensus at the talk page. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How could be considered an edit-war a simply attempt by an user to improve an article which is clearly affected by lack of neutrality? It sounds a little self-contradictory.. even considering that Mai-Sachme has been compelled to quit his contribution on it.wiki after was underlined his evident non-neutral approach, and Sajoch was blocked for a year (as he currently is) for pov-pushing and edit-war.
    Note: I was blocked "together" with Patavium for edit-warring, as i tried to correct some false statements. Admins on it.wiki do not care about who's wrong or right, but prefer to block whoever is involved in an edit-war.--Sajoch (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest to avoid every attempt to accuse other users just in order to discredit them or to intimidate them, I really hope sourced edit will be no more reverted by Mai-Sachme, and any contents or reliable sources will be no more removed aritrarily or just claiming for "no consensus". --Theirrulez (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we didn't have sufficient prove that something's going wrong here, now we do. Patavium's desperately trying to gather some supporters. Theirrulez' interventions here follewed this edit on it.wikipedia, where Patavium asked him for help at this page, because I am supposed to have "eliminated" (yes, these are his words...) other users before him. By the way, Theirrulez seems to be some kind of emergency reserve. As I showed above, he also took part in the edit war, ignoring the discussion and simply reverting, after being asked to do so on it.wikipedia... Wikipedia:Meat puppetry at its highest level.
    Theirrulez, for you, being a user with an impresssive history of Italo-Balcanic edit warring and subject to extended 1RR restriction on WP:ARBMAC-related topics, it's an interesting move to appear here. Do you think your voice will be heard as a neutral comment? And do you think that false claims will help your and Patavium's case? Mai-Sachme has been compelled to quit his contribution on it.wiki after was underlined his evident non-neutral approach... What? I was compelled? By whom? I left the Italian wikipedia voluntarily after realizing that academic standards are not valued at all there. I left with a light heart and an empty blog log. Do we really need to have a look here at yours and Patavium's instead? And what should we think now, seeing that you're hastily clearing the last logged ARBMAC-warning from 27 april?
    Anyway, Patavium stopped edit warring now, but I'd really like to see an administrator constantly monitoring the situation. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLANKING#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings. On it.wiki users aren't allowed to delete/hide anything, and would be blocked for such behaviour. How does en.wiki handle this?--Sajoch (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been involved in this discussion (without any warning until this morning, when I noticed to him) by the user Mai-Sachme, then I would reply. This will be my only speech, because this report is baseless. First, i did not start any edit-war (it's quite funny: for him I was doing an edit-war alone, because he doesn't mention any other user) because all my edits in three "ladin-related" articles were wiped out by a single user, Sajoch. This user on it.wiki has been blocked many times (and now for a year) for the same reason: edit-wars on everything related to Ladins. This has also affected the user Patavium, and this is not an insignificant detail. Certainly it's more relevant than an inexistent Meat puppetry: I wrote in a user talk page and only after the user Mai-Sachme asked to investigate the sources of it.wiki and he wrote that I needed help to express my opinion in English (sic) and that's exactly what I did, asking a more experienced and skilled user of it.wiki, about this topic. In conclusion, I reiterate that this report is baseless and can be closed. --Felisopus (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    a) You haven't be warned by me, because you stopped the edit warring and hence are not the subject of this report here.
    b) I didn't ask you to bring over some friends of yours or to investigate the sources of it.wiki. It's completely irrelevant what the Italian article says, that's unsourced hokum. It's sad that you made it obvious that you edited the article Ladin language without even knowing reliable scientific literature as to the topic. You must try to find sources before editing, and not afterwards. And it's even worse when you start an edit war without having sources...
    c) Well, maybe you had the best intentions asking Theirrulez for help, but the "experienced and skilled" user ("experienced" indeed, I alredy wrote about some interesting aspects of his wikipedia history...) didn't even bother to have a look at the talk page or to add sources or to explain his motivations: he simply restored exactly your additions, containing grammar mistakes, spelling mistakes and still unsourced claims.
    d) This report is not baseless. It may become baseless when the reported user (but the others, whose names were mentioned here, too) finally commits himself to find a consensual solution on the talk page of the article. I already wrote quite a lot there. Naturally, this can't work out as long as users edit unilaterally the article. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about Patavium, not Felisopus, but anyhow:
    Felisopus repeatedly added the statement that ladins were subject to a constant process of "germanisation" (here, here and here) and denies the existence of the ladin ethnic group (here, here and here) without giving a single source and despite being reverted on that matter by 2 different editors. After realizing, he's alone with his POV, he calls for help, and two other editors (Theirrules and Patavium, both known on it.wiki for edit-warring on the same topics) chime in and revert, again without pointing to a single source. I would propose a ban for all three wranglers, that were unable to underpin their edits/reverts.--Sajoch (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Corporate Minion reported by User:Cantaloupe2 (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: more or less this version: [57]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58] AND the user's page [59] and they were both ignored. User refused to participate, then used Twinkie to revert edits he disagree with.

    Comments:
    User exhibits pattern of using anti-vandalism tool Twinkie to revert edits he does not agree with. Here are some examples of such usage in addition to the aforementioned conflict:

    Request for IBAN (again)

    I was not aware of the rules using Twinkle (nor did I even realize that's what I was using).

    I would like to request an interaction ban again, as I have done before on AN[60] and on COIN[61] between myself and this user that continues to WP:HOUND and embrace a battleground mentality in a campaign targeted against me. For weeks this editor has been stalking every edit I make and finding every possible excuse to criticize me - creating contentious arguments at every opportunity. As I have said before, Cantaloupe has made me uncomfortable contributing anywhere knowing he will pounce on me. I do not have the patience or willpower to argue with him about every sentence of every article until the end of time.

    He says I reverted edits I "disagree with." Cantaloupe has spent hours criticizing my sourcing - I can't reasonably assume he doesn't know better. Given the context, we both know these edits are targeted at me and are not good-faith improvements, nor do they represent even an attempt at being neutral. Using your editing privileges to target editors is the definition of hounding. Corporate 01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Both editors are in violation of 3RR at this point. I don't think much would be accomplished by blocks, however, since both have stopped edit warring, and this is an ongoing issue.
    • I concur with Corporate Minion (CM) that Cantaloupe has been "wiki-stalking" him. Corporate Minion does have a disclosed COI as a PR professional so extra scrutiny is expected and proper, but at some point that can cross the line into harassment.
    • A large part of the contested material that Cantaloupe added was sourced to a personal blog.
    • CM should have engaged on the talk page instead of edit warring, but I can understand his reluctance to engage with Cantaloupe in discussion over the content, given the history.
    • I don't think there's any issue with Twinkle access here. Nothing either user did with Twinkle couldn't have been done just as easily without Twinkle.
    • I was notified of this discussion by Corporate Minion. I was the responder to CM's requested edit template who inserted his replacement draft of the article, because I found it to be an improvement and not particularly promotional in tone.
    • An interaction ban may be justified if Cantaloupe continues to harass CM by destroying his work at all costs, using tactics like inserting negative information sourced to personal blogs, and baiting edit wars just to report CM. Gigs (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rules say that bright line is when you exceed the 3rd edit, meaning 4th edit, which I have not crossed. Further, in each revert, I asked corporate to provide explanation on talk page which he's ignored and resorted to repeatedly revert using Twinkie script. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how 3RR works. It's not a magic "gotcha" where you can do exactly 3 reverts and bait someone else into doing 4 and expect to get them blocked and not you. These sorts of tactics are exactly why I feel CM is justified in his claim that you are harassing him. Gigs (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a technical point, twinkle is now a gadget, and we therefore no longer have the ability to disenable it for a particular editor. Even when we did have it, we did so only for consistent abuse of it, not accidental misuse a few times. I and every active editor have selected the wrong thing from a menu once in a while. I've seen it called a slip of the mouse. It's true we are getting very dependent upon twinkle, but then twinkle has been getting more and more capable, DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually recommended that Corporate try for an IBAN earlier to head further conflict like this off, but Cantaloupe was unwilling to enter into a voluntary one and the AN thread was largely ignored. This may be due to the fact that the majority of the discussion actually occurred at COIN. Of course, that followed discussion Cantaloupe started at the NPOV board (note that link is not yet archived). My recommendation to Corporate for an IBAN is preserved at my talk archive. Cantaloupe has engaged in TE, HOUNDING, BATTLEGROUND mentality, and (it now seems) BAITing concerning Corporate. --Nouniquenames 06:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing/votestacking

    Corporate has canvassed four different editors of his choosing in a span of 20 minutes to come here and comment in a seeming attempt to recruit someone to represent him to sway the discussion rather than let the discussion run its course.

    Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    DGG and myself are both known for being pretty tough on COI issues, and both of us were involved in the Crashplan talk page discussions prior to this edit war. I don't consider his solicitation of either of us two to be improper. I can't comment on the other solicitations. To me, this is yet another illustration of your trying to find any little excuse to catch corporate minion breaking a rule. This kind of behavior is harassment and isn't acceptable. Gigs (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While my COI disclosure is what has attracted the harassment, I don't find it particularly relevant otherwise. I think the editors that would be good to canvass are those that care deeply about civility issues. Corporate 02:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Having commented on the discussion, I would naturally follow that page and pages related to it. And I suppose people knows that canvassing me does little good, as I do not always say what someone might expect. I note that I as well as Gigs have objected to some of the material CM added; but only some of it, not everything about which is possible to fabricate the objection. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    CM asked me to look into something on his talk page since I have had dealings with both users and their conflict before. This was a natural extension. I have provided him guidance there in this manner specifically relating to WP:EW. I don't consider his asking me to join in as improper, as I have watched a large portion of the history unfold. --Nouniquenames 06:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would take it a step further than DGG's comment and say that some of my past work is so bad it's embarrassing. Sometimes content that was shared on the Talk page six months ago was actually written by me over a year ago. In large part, my personal shortcomings as an imperfect editor has given Cantaloupe validation for his stalking and personal attacks. So long as there is even a shred of valid content-based complaints, it is difficult to take a clear side. In this case in particular, given the context, it is not reasonable to AGF the case. Cantaloupe has complained about my use of blogs as sources to inject promotionalism when these blogs are some of the most recognizeable names in the field and are highly ranked; he criticizes the use of valid reliable sources as "just opinions" but adds critical content from a personal blog. Any reasonable person familiar with the background would know that both the edits and this complaint are not made in good faith. This latest incident is the clearest possible confirmation - we do not AGF in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and in the context of civil/battleground/ABF/HOUND/etc. problems.
    If civility, AGF, and hounding are policies, they must have some kind of enforcement; otherwise they are nothing more than tips. Corporate 14:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it that you're referring to this edit. The source isn't used to support any claim and it is primarily used for the email correspondence that marks the company's words. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Proudbulgarian and User:MacedonianBoy reported by User:Peacemaker67 (ARBMAC warnings needed) (Result: )

    Page: Independent Macedonia (1944) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Proudbulgarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: MacedonianBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [66]

    User:Proudbulgarian

    User:MacedonianBoy

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80] and [81]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

    Comments:
    I have not been engaged in this edit war at all, and have only been monitoring it as one of the Balkans articles I keep an eye on. The edit summaries referring to vandalism and their failure to go to the talk page in any meaningful way illustrate the edit-warring behaviour. I have reminded the editors on the talkpage about ARBMAC, but this behaviour has continued regardless. As this is an ARBMAC area, both users probably need an ARBMAC warning from an admin as well as any other sanctions considered appropriate, although User:MacedonianBoy has been onwiki for years and has been blocked half-a-dozen times (all in 2008-2009), the last time on ARBMAC [83]. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I was forced to revert the user, because I asked the admin Future Perfect at S. to react, three times, and I did not get any response. You can see that I was aware of the rule, I explained that to the admin. Additionally, the user Proudbulgarian reverts and deletes content without discussion, lead by his nationalistic frustrations. You can see that on the talk page of Independent Macedonia, I was talking to my self. Similarly he deletes contents from Karposh's Rebellion. Someone needs to react, you let him edit war for a long time, not just with me, but with the User:Edward321, Proudbulagrian reverts Edwars for a long time. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, the first edit of mine is interwiki (on mk Wiki we were editing the article) and I saw that some things were misspelled in Macedonian, so I corrected it. Than Proudbg came and started his thing.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Patentman72 reported by User:Gnome de plume (Result: )

    Page: AstroTurf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Patentman72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [84]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I attempted to engage the user on his talk page here, but his response was simply another revert. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • The editor may have a conflict of interest. Their edits reword things so that the term "AstroTurf" is always used as an adjective rather than as a noun, similar to how a trademark holder (or their IP lawyer) would insist their trademark be used. The edits even go so far as to label the nominal use as "incorrect". The first edit summary also reads, "Correction of improper use of ASTROTURF trademark." It needs to be made clear to the editor that Wikipedia, as a third party, is not beholden to any legal requirements imposed on the trademark holder to protect their mark from dilution. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=521848332"