Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Brian Josephson reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Stale)

Page

Russell Targ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Brian Josephson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Remote viewing */ improving precision: the view that RV is PS is not held by _all_ as existing version implies"
2. 11:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608357278 by MrBill3 (talk) where there is controversy, a respectable encyclopedia would say 'generally'"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) to 11:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "including 'pseudoscience' is unnecessary as it is referred to in the article, and more significantly conflicts with WP:NPV"
   2. 11:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "restored 'generally', as it is untrue to say there is no controversy, as evident in many of the sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Assert mainstream scientific consensus */ new section"
2. 11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Assert mainstream scientific consensus */"
3. 11:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Improving the lede */ cmt"

Comments:

Note this editor has a COI and continues to edit the article directly rather than propose changes on talk and follow consensus. MrBill3 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by editor concerned: readers of the above will note that my edits involved straightforward points that should not reasonably have required discussion on the talk page (for example, RV clearly is a controversial area, contrary to what was asserted by the editor that I reverted). Also that I have received praise and encouragement for my editing by editors who obviously think I am doing the right thing. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If Brian Josephson is edit warring, so are the other participants: User:MrBill3 and User:Viewmont Viking. Users cannot edit war with themselves, it's a multi-person ordeal. And edit warring in tango with others isn't an exception to the edit warring policy.--v/r - TP 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis you seem to have also forgotten User:JzG. I saw that there had been an edit war and reverted it back to before the edit war started. Brian Josephson Made a bold edit, he was reverted; that is when he should have gone to the talk page. He continued to edit User:MrBill3 did go to the talk page on the revert. He also has a COI which he has been notified about, and just got off a block for legal threats. Yes it takes more than one to tango, but someone normally leads. VViking_TalkEdits 16:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis if you examine my edit history on the article with some care I think you will find my edits in keeping with policy and supported with discussion on the talk page. I think you will also find my comments on the talk page to be reasonably offered arguments supported with policy. If you take a look at the actions of several other editors I think you will find tendentious, disruptive and non policy based actions often against consensus. Should a report be made at another board or is this the appropriate place for discussion? - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

While all of that is probably true, I doubt I need to double check since I'm not opposing it, none of it is an exemption under the edit warring policy. Correct, sourced, policy-based edits that revert another editors multiple times are still edit warring. In any case, I've fully-protected the article for a day to facilitate discussion because the edit warring has gotten out of hand on this article. See the other report below.--v/r - TP 17:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Being "obviously right" or having "straightforward points" is never an excuse for edit-warring the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Meh. I've encountered him on numeorus pages related to pseudoscience and crank ideas. He is polite, yes he advocates fringe content and edits articles accordingly, but he rarely if ever edit wars and he is not some crazed kid on a mission, he is a Nobel laureate who advocates fringe ideas. He has sufficient self-awareness to recognise that his ideas are often well outside the mainstream, sometimes to the point of being in a different river altogether. My personal view is that he keeps us honest, without overwhelming us with crap. I think that's within the boundaries of OK, though not always and often not by much. I think patient cluefulness is the best approach here.

In short, some people are not worth dealing with, others are sufficiently intelligent and articulate that they benefit the Project even while being mainly wrong. I would far rather ten Brian Josephsons than a single Dana Ullman. The one thing you can say for Josephson, he has intellectual honesty. I do not believe he represents his views as anything other than alternatives to the norm, he seems to me to take criticism in good part. I even like him. He seems pretty calm, has access to the research, and so what if he concludes differently? He seems to accept compromise and consensus which is not flattering to him. I'd invite him to a certain party if I was not sure he'd be busy.

Some folks are fun and instructive to debate and encourage properly robust thinking. I think he is one of this rare breed.

I understand the context of the request, but a few decent editors with no COI are working with Josephson to fix issues without accepting his opinion on them, and he is genuinely co-operating. This is different in character form your typical advocate for refuted ideas. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully understand the constraints under which WP has to operate. I tend to take short cuts when I think logic strongly supports the edits I am making, but this doesn't always work out as I thought it should.
One point -- I don't know how many editors are aware of this -- is that there is an advocacy group dedicated to removing items they consider (from a very entrenched sceptical PoV) incorrect. There is a video on the internet where their leader explains how you can use WP guidelines to achieve this. I should imagine a number of this clique are working here on the various pages I have been involved with. Also there is reason to believe that some people watch over my edits and mindlessly revert these edits automatically. A spectacular case is where I spotted an error in the name of my physics master at school and corrected it, whereupon one of these trolls leapt up claiming this was a CoI, there was no RS for this (this is a classic case of problems with the guidelines -- the only reference to my physics master on the web has the name wrong, so in theory that wrong name is the one that has to appear in the bio. Fortunately in this case common sense prevailed and my correction was allowed to be put back). But to get back to the point, neither exploitation of the rules to support a PoV nor watching over an editor so as to revert whether or not there is good cause would seem to be in accord with WP ethics.
One more point before I close this already too lengthy comment: consensus is in principle fine, but the problem is distortion in the population of editors. By this I mean that many editors seem to have little in the way of the broader understanding needed to produce a good result (those who do tend either to be too busy or to be fed up with what goes on in the WP world so leave) with a consequence that might be described as insufficient wisdom. I'll stop there. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there can be very excessive scrutiny sometimes. An amusing case I remember: this very stern warning was posted on a user's talk page. Why? Because an article about a TV programme the user had directed mistakenly linked to a comedian with the same name. He had removed the link so as to leave his name as plain text.[1] When various people removed the warning from the talk page the scrutineer edit-warred to restore it.[2] Thincat (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Stale This happened 2 days ago, it's been thoughtfully discussed, and I think everyone involved understands the way forward. I don't see anything being gained here from a block, and possibly quite a bit lost. Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:86.154.93.189 reported by User:Wzrd1 (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Godwin's law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

86.154.93.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608464518 by Wzrd1 (talk)"
2. 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608464801 by Wzrd1 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Godwin's law. (TW)"
2. 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Using improper humor in articles on Godwin's law. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I reverted an inappropriate attempt at humor twice, IP editor reverted his changes to article. I warned IP editor in talk page and in edit comment that AIV would be filed if IP editor persisted. AIV now filed. Wzrd1 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Islam90 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Abrahamic religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Islam90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 11:46, May 13, 2014‎ UTC

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:06, May 13, 2014 UTC
2. 03:20, May 14, 2014 UTC
3. 09:56, May 14, 2014‎ UTC
4. 11:49, May 14, 2014‎ UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:34, May 14, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 23:17, May 12, 2014

Comments:

User is constantly adding a very small minority view, with no sources into the page. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

all of this because a minor change on this page , also user Jeff3000 treats others by religious intolerance. to get more information about this article See the talk page of article. --Islam90 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Another policy of Wikipedia is to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]. Please comment about user actions that reasons. The content of Wikipedia is based on policies, and your insertion is breaking WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:V. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours That's pretty lenient considering the level of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the obvious language barrier. However, if this behaviour persists, a competence block of longer duration may prove necessary. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You blocked him just because he is Muslim? --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Derntno reported by User:Dougweller (Result: No action)

Page

Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Derntno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "Note differences to address concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamophobia&diff=608547360&oldid=608423108"
2. 14:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "I hope this makes it clear."
3. 18:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Please read the reference cited before you revert this."
4. 18:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "If you read the reference cited, you'll see that Harris cites Cummins with glee, indicating the level of his personal rejection of the idea."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned before last edit.[3] Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Derntno has now "conceded". They made a new, last edit which was mostly copyediting and adding an appropriate source. User is pretty new - april 2014 - so they probably don't fully understand the technicalities in 3rr, but I believe they have ceased edit warring. Iselilja (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Derntno made the last edit but am closing based on your comment and their edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:DLM 1989 reported by User:188.26.239.114 (Result: Protected)

Page: Eternal derby (Romania) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:DLM 1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:57, 14 May 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4] [5] [6]

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

Comments:

Protect this version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eternal_derby_%28Romania%29&oldid=608565285

Cupa Ligii was a friendly competition. Read this article. http://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/nae-si-onofras-umiliti-de-ciini-in-ghencea-povestea-celei-mai-dure-infringeri-a-stelei-in-fata-lui-dinamo-211247.html

After finishing the 1999-2000 season the Red and White (Dinamo) were crowned champions followed a nature friendly competition: Cupa Ligii.

Mihai Stere, Dinamo player: Mihai Stere recalled for gsp.ro Ghencea memorable game in which even managed to score the first goal: "I remember the match with Steaua. Demoted with Farul and went to Dinamo. Signed with them for 6 months and was first my match. Even if playing in the League Cup, a match between Steaua and Dinamo can never be considered friendly.

Steaua used only player who was in trial (like Daniel Munteanu from Universitatea Cluj, Alin Savu from CSM Resita or Alin Biţiş) at Steaua, they have never signed with Steaua, or signed contracts in future years (Mirel Rădoi next year, and Marius Onofraş in 2010).

These players have never had signed contracts with Steaua, automatically were unable to play in a official competitive match, because they had no license to play for Steaua, and the referee had no way to start the game in this situation.

Sorry for my bad English.

• Page protected (semi) for six months by Casliber.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:31.210.104.114 reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: No violation)

Page: New York City Department of Correction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.210.104.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:I wanted to leave a message on this editor's talk page, but I saw a warning there about harassment of other editors and I'd rather not deal with that. I did my homework on the edit when I originally made it. Thanks!

Magnolia677 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

As far as I can tell, User:31.210.104.114 made an edit at 16:36, 15 May 2014‎, which was not a revert, and made a single revert at 16:44, 15 May 2014. So definitely no 3RR violation. Looking further back, there has definitely been disagreement/edit war on this one sentence. However, User:31.210.104.114 has only edited the article one other time which was over six weeks ago. Furthermore, there has been no discussion on the issue on the article talk page and no warnings were ever issued to User:31.210.104.114 on edit warring. Magnolia677, is there more to this situation? What benefit is blocking this specific IP when IP has had only two edits in the last month? Kirin13 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The user made two edits today, and it would have been my second revert, yes. As I said, I saw the warning on that user's talk page about harassing behavior and wanted to avoid that. I'll just revert it again, and add a note to the article's talk page. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an IP, we cannot assume it's the same person. Looking at contribs, I don't see a connection between BrayLockBoy ‎and any other pages this IP has edited. This event is also over a month ago. There is also no indication that this IP has ever harassed anyone who undid their edits or who attempted to talk with them. Thus, in good faith, I think we should consider those edits to be by a different person and ignore them in dealing with the current situation. Also, personally, I would be more offended by someone reporting me on AN/EW after I made a single revert and without any sort of talk attempts then if someone created an edit warring warning on my talk page - so if you're worried about being badgering, you're giving them more ammunition. At the moment, I don't think you have a case for getting this IP blocked. Kirin13 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. The IP has only made two reverts as has the reporter. As for the vandalism to BrayLockBoy's user page, I don't know if it's the same person (unusual geolocate), but I'm not going to block an editor for edits made in March.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmargi and User:Favre1fan93 reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: )

Page: List of Person of Interest episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs) and Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs)

What we have here are a couple of users who are systematically reverting anyone who tries to put (2014-2015) into various TV show articles. The fall schedules have been announced, yet they insist on preventing posting of the obvious, going so far as to post hidden comments ordering other editors not to add that info. I want an explanation from one or both user ID's as to why they're doing this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'd like to know why this user has used a. my talk page and b. this venue but not the article talk page to address this issue. I'll address this matter there. --Drmargi (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't answer my question on your talk page, so I have very little confidence you will do so on the talk pages of the various articles you're trying to take ownership of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Drmargi. First, neither of us were edit warring. Second, you should have taken this up on the article talk page, not both of our talk pages, and then here, when I didn't even have a chance to respond to you. As well, wouldn't you think if there was a hidden note there, it's there for a reason? If you actually read WP:CRYSTAL, it states that an article on the 2016 Olympics is fine, but even though we have confirmation that the show will premiere in the fall (again, only fall), there is still a multitude of potential setbacks that could prevent it from airing: Writers strikes, cast disagreements, a presidential speech, (God forbid) a cast member's death. As well, this has been discussed by the Television project and it has been agreed upon that years should not be added until episodes actually air in the television season. If you see it on other pages, then they are in the error, not this page. That is what I would have said to you if you took the proper channels, but since you haven't, I am no longer contributing to this discussion here. If you want to bring it up on the article's talk page, be my guest. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If that isn't a crystal-ball-based argument, I don't know what is. You could make the identical argument about any future scheduled event. Sorry, your argument doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• How does the above provide an excuse from edit-warring? You can edit-war after a single edit, as I'm sure you know. The process is WP:BRD - which does mean that Bugs should have been the one who started a discussion on the article talkpage, but then again, Drmargi refused to provide a valid reason for removal of Bugs' edit, so Bugs could be excused for believing that Drmargi had reverted in error the panda ₯’ 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your response. Drmargi did provide a valid response to Baseball Bugs's question, explaining both that there was a hidden note in the article, and that the "source says returning in 2014, not 2014-2015".[11] How then could Baseball Bugs believe that "Drmargi had reverted in error"? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

DP, did you actually read my response on my talk page? I refused nothing. The edit had been reverted once already (by Farve1fan), and I reverted a second time. There wasn't a lot more to say than what the FF's edit summary and the hidden note said already. Bugs left a message on my talk page, and I answered the question he asked clearly and directly, as anyone who took the trouble to read my response can see. The trouble is, Bugs wants an answer to a question he didn't ask, and seems to be nursing some old grudge or pissed off about something long ago forgotten by everyone else. No one is edit warring aside from Bugs. This whole situation is utterly farcical, frankly. --Drmargi (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The two editors are edit-warring against anyone who dares put the obvious (2014-2015) in. And by the way, the guy who said this should be on the article talk page still has not posted on the article talk page. As I had predicted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm still waiting for a valid explanation. The fact that it's not yet September ain't it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: from an outsider: can't this be resolved peacefully with a compromise? Say, leaving 2014-2015 in, but adding a qualifier such as "predicted"? Because it does seem like a fairly sure prediction, barring exceptional events. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is not a valid edit-warring or 3RR report. Neither editor has breached 3RR and Baseball Bugs hasn't demonstrated evidence of edit-warring. This is a content dispute so this is not the appropriate venue to discuss. To clarify though, adding "(2014-2015)", "(2014-15)" is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. The addition of years is based on a recent renewal notice and assumption that episodes will air in 2014-15. However, a renewal notice 6 months prior to the next season does not guarantee that episodes will air in a particular year. An examples of this is Hotel Hell, which was renewed in 2012 but did not air any episodes in 2012 or 2013. Episodes have only just been scheduled to air in 2014, 2 years after the renewal. There are many things that can happen between when a series is renewed and when episodes do eventually air. Two and a Half Men was expected to air for a full season in 2010-11 but production was halted twice and the season ended nearly three months before it was expected to end. The Playboy Club, Last Resort and Alcatraz were all expected to air for full seasons but were cancelled during their first season, The Playboy Club after only 3 episodes had aired and while several more were scheduled to air. Because of the uncertainty regarding TV series, including years in the section heading when episodes have not been scheduled to air is widely considered by the TV project to be WP:CRYSTAL and we do not add years because of this. This is why Drmargi and Favre1fan93, as well as other editors (including me) have been removing years from future season headings. It is, unfortunately, something we have to deal with every year around this time when the American TV season finishes. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Your argument is not valid. CBS has already said it is on the "fall schedule", which translates to sometime during the fall of 2014. What you're really doing is granting ownership of a number of articles to those two editors. Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Being on its fall schedule is no guarantee that the series will premiere this year. There is too much uncertainty with TV programs. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jazbar reported by User:Yerpo (Result: Blocked)

Page: Party of Slovenian People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jazbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks like the three-day block for edit-warring was insufficient (see previous AN report), immediately after it expired, the user reverted again, again accompanied by non-arguments and incivility in the edit summary [12] and on the talk page [13]. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Again lies and lies, Hey dude you have issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazbar (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:SuperNepoznat reported by User:No such user (Result: Blocked)

Page: Serbo-Croatian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SuperNepoznat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

Note that the revert is not always to the identical diff, but the substance is the same: reinsert the statement to the effect that Serbo-Croatian is a dead language and/or political construction, despite a long-standing consensus Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Informed in edit summary [19]
• Informed by another user [20]
• [21] (last para)

Comments:
Run-of-the-mill Balkan nationalist, probably actionable by WP:ARBMAC as well. No such user (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I was about to report this user for the same. Notice also the message they left on the article's talk page. It's a typical case of "I know the truth, why won't anyone believe me?" CodeCat (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:SuperNepoznat, User:Lighthouse01, User:LightWiki91 and User:WikiLite91 are the same person with same behavior. He also vandalizes other language Wikipedia's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.196.247 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A case for WP:SPI? CodeCat (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Also note that several of these accounts have been used to vote in a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10#Srpsko Sarajevo. CodeCat (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a WP:DUCK case:

SuperNepoznat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lighthouse01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LightWiki91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WikiLite91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks, 78.0.196.247. No such user (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

77.77.240.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the same user. Apparently it is a static IP. 93.139.51.224 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

195.222.56.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. CodeCat (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you submit it to WP:SPI? The sooner we stop this the better... CodeCat (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it will speed up the things, but it's a slow day for admins today. The sockpuppetry is so obvious that I don't doubt the outcome, but there will be a lot of damage to fix afterwards. No such user (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The user just added this here, but then removed it. Presenting it as further evidence. CodeCat (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You are funny. You can't stop me. ;) --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Clear demonstration of bad faith if I've ever seen one. CodeCat (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• No it's not bad faith. I registered here just to do good things. But then I saw some articles not WP:NEUTRAL and could not resist to change them. But they you people appeared. Bad faithers.--Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well at least it's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour if you're implying that you're in some kind of struggle against us to keep us from "stopping" you. I'm not an admin so I can't stop you anyhow. But I can report disruptive behaviour and let admins decide. CodeCat (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The user is now edit warring on Bosnian language as well. CodeCat (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• No such user is in battlefield with me hahahahhahaha... Hate both of you :P --Lighthouse01 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Link to SPI 93.139.51.224 (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I've blocked Supernepoznat for one week for violating WP:3RR. There's an SPI pending at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperNepoznat. The connection between all the named accounts except SuperNepoznat are obvious to me. Although I haven't reviewed the report, the connection with SuperNepoznat is not as obvious. As an SPI clerk, I will probably endorse the requested CU so the technical relationship can be established.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:Jayaguru-Shishya (Result: )

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

User QuackGuru has already been banned before from alt-med articles[22], as well as warned before for edit warring the alternative medicine articles by administrator EdJohnston[23] and administrator Tiptoety[24]. A short caption from Tiptoety's warning to QuackGuru:

Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine. While it is obvious that you have intentionally not gone over three reverts in one day, please be reminded that the edit warring policy does not specify a specific number of reverts, and simply engaging in a long term pattern of edit warring can result in a block. I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions authorized at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Tiptoety talk 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As administrator Tiptoety's warning makes it really clear, there is not any "specific amount of edits that you can do each day". It does not even matter whether you continue that disruptive behaviour on just one or even more articles. QuackGuru has been specifically warned about edit warring Pseudoscience related articles. As far as I have been involved in developing some other alternative medicine articles, such as traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture, I have noticed the same editing behaviour by QuackGuru even there.

Two days ago, QuackGuru was already warned two times by different editors:

• at 07:13, 14 May[25] (Mallexikon),
• and at 17:38, 14 May[26].

However, it seems that the same editing pattern keeps repeating with QuackGuru:

• at 21:02, 9 May 2014 on the article, Chiropractic, QuackGuru made a revert on {{POV}} tag[27].
• At 19:18, 14 May 2014, he made his second revert on the very same article, on that very same thing[28].

As stated by WP:3RR: ".... The three-revert rule ... is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so..."

However, yesterday QuackGuru also made his 3rd revert, so even the bright line of three reverts applies.

1. Here you can see him inserting the {{MEDRS}} tags: [29][30]
2. Here you can see the tags being removed by another user, DVMt: [31]
3. Finally here, QuackGuru crosses the line and reverts the last edit by DVMt: [32]

WP:3RR is extremly clear on this:

The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

The issue has been tried to be resolved at the Talk page:

1. [34]
2. [35]

Also the edit summaries have been well-established. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

There is a fine line between "edit warring" and "defending the encyclopedia against pernicious nonsense". In this case, it would appear that that people are using defective sources, QuackGuru is tagging the defective sources, and other editors are removing the tags rather than correcting the problems. It isn't happening at a rate that violates 3RR. In this case, my inclination is to warn editors that cite alternative medicine sources that such sources are not to be taken seriously and do not meet WP:MEDRS: removing the tag without correcting the issue is disruptive.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question are not defective and there is currently a discussion about this at WP:MED talk. There is ONE constant in all of these alt-med articles and is QG and his editing practices. A topic ban at this point should be considered seeing how the same issues keep coming up again and again and again. Also, Kww it would be nice to assume good faith in other editors with respect to using reliable sources. We're all here volunteering to make WP better. DVMt (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The other editors at TCM and acupuncture are not only conscientious about quality of sources, they are careful to not over-value particular sources. Quack Guru regularly edits in a disruptive and disrespectful manner. Kww, I invite you to pay closer attention to the edits themselves rather than the kind of sweeping generalizations you made. A sincere consideration of the issues and true consensus building is what we need at those articles, not missionary zeal to push a POV.Herbxue (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A few comments on report:

• Using a 9 May edit to demonstate editor ignoring talk from 14 May - doesn't quite work.
• For 3RR you need more than three reverts, so making three reverts is not a violation of 3RR (but may still be edit warring).
• Consecutive reverts count as one revert for 3RR purposes, so now down to two reverts.
• The first 'revert' doesn't seem like it's reverting to any previous edit, thus it seems to me like a new edit and not a revert -> down to one revert.
• The "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" provided above is a notice of AN/EW discussion. That's not the same. The point of giving a warning is to try to halt behavior to prevent bringing an issue to an administrators' noticeboard. (Though given editor's history, it reasonable to believe that he's familiar with given polices and an edit warring warning may not be necessary.)
• In general, article talk pages should be used to discuss article, not behavior of a user. Both of the talk pages linked have section that are more about this editor than about any content. Some editors may view this as a personal attack.

I'm not saying it's not edit warring, but when you bring an issue to a noticeboard, you'll have a much stronger case if everything is lined up. Kirin13 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Herbxue has been notified of the sanctions.

Herbxue is a WP:SPA currently the subject of discussion at ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Herbxue.

User:DVMt has been notified of the sanctions.

DVMt wrote Rather than individually deal with this individual, it might be better to work in conjunction to help prevent in what I see is sociopathic behaviour which ruins the experience of helping WP achieve its goal of being a reliable and credible source for medically related topics. The part "this individual" is referring to me. The editor DVMt has continued his bad behaviour. The paragraph contains the follwing specific sentence written by DVMt: I've tried in good faith with you here, but your editing behaviour seems to be congruent with this [36].[37] On the chiropractic talk page the link is to the page Profile of the Sociopath. He also accusing me of stalking and being a meatpuppet of Ersnt[38][39][40] and having a COI.

Jayaguru-Shishya has been notified of the sanctions.

User:Jayaguru-Shishya has been indef-blocked previously for disruptive behaviour. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_is_not_moving_on_and_he_is_continuing_his_battleground_behaviour.

Jayaguru-Shishya has a history of disruptive behaviour. See User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_32#Question_about_the_resolution_of_an_editwar_dispute_at_Administrator.27s_noticeboard. Both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Both editors are unable to collaborate. Take a quick look at the comments on the talk page. See Talk:Chiropractic#Removal of the MEDRS tags and failure to collaborate. See Talk:Chiropractic#Tag restored against CON again. WP:BOOMERANG should apply. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cherry picking again, are we? Other editors have had concerns with your radical behaviour [41] concerns regarding neutrality again with QG as the primary culprit [42], more disruptive editing here [43], tendentious and repeated refusals to answer a fundamental question [44] and on and on. Considering how recent QG was warned regarding his editorial behaviour at alt-med pages, this warrants a serious investigation. DVMt (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:DVMt is planning on rewriting the chiropractic article and making significant changes after the dispute at chiropractic was previously resolved. DVMt refuses to moved on. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking through a crystal ball? I've collected 70+ reliable and MEDRS compliant sources and this is my work ground. I'm not proposing anything yet, I'm just organizing references. You seem to have an ownership issues and besides constantly pushing Ernst, you admit to being in contact with him and receiving emails from him [45]. How is that not an act of meat puppetry? You're canvassing offline with a known controversial skeptic and push his research at chiropractic, alternative medicine, acupuncture, etc. DVMt (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can contact Ernst for a copy of a study. I have read numerous WP:MEDRS compliant reviews and have updated the chiropractic article accordingly. You should stop trying to restore past versions of the article that are no longer relevant. You proposal on the talk page was an old version (you claim it is a new proposal) of the article that was previously rejected in mainspace. See [[[#Comments]]. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that contacting a controversial author, editing his personal page and pushing his POV on his behalf is 'normal' behaviour. I'm not doing anything other than using talk to discuss salient issues. Like I mentioned above, I've accrued 70+ new reliable sources in my sandbox and I'm actively discussing the problems at chiropractic elsewhere as well to try and build consensus over SPECIFIC issues pertaining to chiropractic. Your interpretation of the events are off-base. Considering you were warned as recently as April 29/14 regarding your editing behaviour, you just seem to keep popping up at ANI over and over and over again. DVMt (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit warring noticeboard, and as such, other discussion shouldn't be happening here. Therefore, as no edit warring by QG has been demonstrated, perhaps this should now be closed. This is not the place for fringe pushers to try to get their fringe ideas into an article. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This was a bogus 3RR report but we should leave this open for admins to apply WP:BOOMERANG for the continued behavior problems and tactics both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are guilty of. The sandbox DVMt is referring to is a WP:FAKEARTICLE.[46] QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Roxy, you have made allegations, please provide evidence for your claim, or hold your peace. Not a fake article, quack, unless you've now moved onto trying to removing 70+ new MEDRS sources. Why are you creeping out my sandbox anyways? You're kind of proving my stalking allegation. DVMt (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you on about? No diffs have shown edit warring, what other allegations are you on about. Stop wasting our time. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack has been warned about edit warring several times and has been cautioned as recently as April 29/14. He is essentially on probation and continues to act in defiance of the recommendations. Recidivism is in play. DVMt (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Continuing to make false accusations is making you look very silly at this point. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I tagged a source that was over 30 years old. We have newer sources on the topic. Using a 30 year outdated old source to argue against newer sources currently used in the article is inappropriate. Removing the tag without properly addressing the problem is disruptive. The evidence shows User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not contributing constructively and is repeating past mistakes. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring has been demonstrated clearly in the above diffs. The bright line of 3RR applies. Moreover, as I clearly quoted [[WP:3RR] above:

"The three-revert rule ... is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so

This same has been stated by administrator Tiptoety in his warning to QuackGuru[47]:

Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine. While it is obvious that you have intentionally not gone over three reverts in one day, please be reminded that the edit warring policy does not specify a specific number of reverts, and simply engaging in a long term pattern of edit warring can result in a block. I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions authorized at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Tiptoety talk 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru has defended his behaviour by stating that his reverts were right justified. WP:3RR however is extremly clear on this:

...whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".

Taking into opinion QuackGuru's latest warning by administrator Tiptoety, and QuackGuru's continued edit warring, I think the necessary actions should be taken.. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As we're looking into editor's backgrounds, it's worth noting that Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are both editing with a POV which attempts to legitimise alternative medicine such as Chiropractic, Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine, where the bulk of their contributions will be found. Jayaguru-Shishya was blocked last month for edit-warring at Acupuncture and despite his assurances in his unblock request, has now moved on to the same behaviour at Chiropractic. DVMt is a well-known sockmaster who has calls for him to be topic-banned from CAM/pseudoscience topics - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DVMt/Archive for the details. QG is wrong to let himself be drawn into an edit-war with SPAs, but I believe he recognises that and has stepped away. Several other editors have now intervened at Chiropractic to support his removal of a primary source, a survey published in a CAM journal, that has no place in a medical article, particularly a controversial one that requires the highest standards of sourcing. --RexxS (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rexxs! I have learned my lessons and haven't repeated the same mistakes again. I'd like to remind you that I got banned even without making three reverts. This is made clear both in WP:3RR and administrator Tiptoety's warning.

However, this dispute is about QuackGuru who has continued edit warring even despite of being warned by admins as the diffs above clearly show it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

RexxS, you're mischaraterization of the facts are noted. No one is trying to legitimize anything, rather, we are trying to delineate what specific aspects of chiropractic are considered fringe and what one's are considered mainstream. Besides, the source was a sociological study describing factions and making no medical claims. More interestingly, you seem to think that all CAM is pseudoscientific and thus cannot have an evidence-based faction. You don't even know the details of what is occurring, so your opinion, unfortunately, as an uninformed one. Similar to 'true believers' your extremist POV towards chiropractic and acupuncture doesn't really add anything to the mix. Jaygurus behaviour is fine at chiropractic, we're all using talk pages to resolve matters. Since when is is Bio Med Central not a credible source? DVMt (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

When the source is a primary source. With another dispute, it was previously suggested an indefinite block to resolve the situation. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DVMt/Archive. DVMt thinks Secondary sources are not required for non-medical claims. WP:COMPETENCE is required to contribute to Wikipedia. DVMt is repeating past mistakes like restoring a primary source (see WP:SECONDARY) and edit warring against CON[48][49] to restore a tag. DVMt claims the dispute is not resolved but it was.

Kirin13 said I only made one revert but Jayaguru-Shishya falsely accused me of breaking WP:3RR[50]. Jayaguru-Shishya is repeating the same type of nonconstructive behaviour he did in the past that got him &oldid=602791522 blocked. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack, you're simply trying to censor anyone that disagrees with you by suggesting they're radicalists, pure smear campaign. Anyone who actually reads the talk page can see the process develop itself. Suggesting I'm not a competent editor is a bogus accusation and there is no 'resolution' that you're claiming. How about you work with us and share a little. You've done nearly 50% of the edits at chiropractic in 2014 and got reported for previous edit warring over CAM related articles. You want to tell the fringe story, I want to share the mainstream/MSK story. Given that the MSK faction represent 80% of chiropractors, and given that chiropractic management of MSK issues is not controversial, naturally so should the emphasis. That's not to suggest there is no controversy historically or currently, but we can't work from a script that says manipulative medicine is pseudoscientific (see OMM) and try to 'balance' things out. Let's take this back to the talk page or if you're willing to go to ArbCom we can get further guidance. Cheers. DVMt (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on the above evidence I recommend actions be taken against Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt. They are both nonconstructive editors and are repeatedly making unfounded accusations. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [51] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]

Comments:

User is aware of 3RR and of BRD, but chooses to edit war instead, despite attempts to discuss on talk Talk:Joni_Ernst#Blog_Post. Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The comments above are definitely a mis-characterization of the facts. I initiated the article Talk discussion. The edits posted above were made in response to attempts by this and another editor to circumvent the Talk discussion. I encourage whoever reviews this to read the article edit history and Talk discussion.CFredkin (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR is a red line, and you started the discussion after multiple reverts. There is no need to editwar, just follow WP:BRD and you will be fine. Cwobeel (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

With this edit I removed POV commentary posted on the BLP by another editor. You then largely restored the content, and initiated the so-called edit war, instead of starting a discussion in Talk as would be indicated by WP:BRD.CFredkin (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Your fourth revert came in the middle of the discussion on the talk page, there is nothing to "mis-characterise" there. Furthermore, making your fourth revert and claiming that it was "per article Talk" when there was no agreement to make the change is the only instance of any editor trying to "circumvent the discussion". Tiller54 (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tiller. Actually I believe it was you who repeatedly attempted to restore POV content to a BLP without Talk page consensus: 1, 2, 3, 4.CFredkin (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that content is "POV commentary" does not make it so, as you were repeatedly advised on the talk page (not that it's relevant to this noticeboard anyway). Furthermore, you removed content that had been agreed upon by all other editors in a discussion by claiming "per talk page", now you're attempting to claim that when I restored said agreed-upon content it was "without consensus". That's patently untrue as you were the only editor arguing for the removal of all mention of the negative response to Ernst's comments. Tiller54 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I encourage whoever reviews this to examine the edits at this BLP and the Talk page commentary. These editors are essentially waging a sustained POV attack on this BLP and engaging in bullying behavior to steamroll opposition to their POV editing.CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Minutes before accusing others of "steamrolling" on here, you continue edit warring on the page despite being the only editor in favour of removing the content you want removed and adding the content you want added. Once again, claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is engaging in a "sustained POV attack" just because they disagree with you, then ignoring everyone else on the talk page and claiming "per talk page" as you make the edits that only you want made violates so many policies, not least of all WP:AGF and WP:OWN. Tiller54 (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In reality, I was hopeful that we had effectively reached a compromise earlier today, until you re-ignited the edit war with this edit.CFredkin (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What amazes me is that it is always the other side who is "wagging POV attacks". That article is off my watchlist, I have better things to do with my wiki time. Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion ongoing on the talk page and then you decided to circumvent it, claiming "per talk page" even though you were the only one who wanted those edits made. And yet, when I restore said agreed-upon content it's apparently me who "re-ignited the edit war". And now I see you've reverted to the version you want and then asked for full protection. That's really not on. Tiller54 (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Page protected – Five days. Please use the talk page to get an agreement. I don't see any BLP violations here in the sense of defamation. It looks like a series of questions about neutrality and balanced coverage that will need consensus to resolve. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:No such user reported by User:Lighthouse01 (Result: Lighthouse01 blocked)

Page: Bosnian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: No such user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

Comments:
Edit warring with me. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC) CodeCat is possibly sock-puppet of user No such user. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Lighthouse01 for two weeks for edit warring, disruptive editing, and probable socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Rswallis10 reported by User:Davejohnsan (Result:Blocked 36hr )

Page

List of Two and a Half Men episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rswallis10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608788688 by Davejohnsan (talk)"
2. 02:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608757605 by Davejohnsan (talk)"
3. 20:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608736655 by AussieLegend (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC) to 20:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608645999 by AussieLegend (talk)"
   2. 20:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608601920 by Davejohnsan (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 20:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) to 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"
   2. 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[60]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page

[61][62][63]

Comments:

Despite multiple attempts by various editors to ask this user to explain his /her edits, he/she has continued edit-warring and remains unresponsive. Davejohnsan (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They have also been edit warring over at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes with the same style of edits and not communicating at all. Diffs can be provided if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• This editor has been problematic at several articles, but mainly at the two already mentioned. Nineteen of this editor's last 25 edits have been reversions, mostly unexplained. After making 3 unexplained reverts in 6 hours I left a 3RR warning on his talk page, clarifying it with a lengthy explanation of why we don't make the edits that he is making.[64] However, it has clearly been ignored.[65] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours for strange edit-warring across multiple articles the panda ₯’ 10:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mmddyy28 reported by User:DVdm (Result: 36hr block)

Page: Once Upon a Time (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mmddyy28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70] after 3RR warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, through summaries by 4 different users.

Comments:

• User is consistently disregarding the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystalball, and is also continuing to be disruptive to other editor's on Wikipedia. Full diffs:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]
5. [76]
6. [77] livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There could've been a talk page discussion just for show, but yeah, he needs to back off and actually discuss things. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

But this user is clearly only interested in now vandalising and hiding themselves from Wikipedia, to promote their own personal gain. Action must be taken. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What evidence is there of a conflict of interest? He's in the wrong, and failing to get the point, but he doesn't appear to be acting in bad faith. Disruptive behavior isn't always vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I never stated there was a conflict of interest; my use of "their own personal gain" is meant as a way of saying they're doing this to prove their point, and constantly removing this discussion. And it is vandalism if it's continually done, even after being warned. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:Disruptive editing is not vandalism. Read WP:NOTVAND. He's being WP:tendentious, especially in trying to hide this report, but his behavior still stems from him trying to put what he thinks (however mistakenly) is the truth on this site despite not knowing how things work around here. As bad an edit as it may be, and as disruptively as he's doing it, it's technically in good faith and not vandalism.

Has anyone sent him a written message (not a template) explaining what he's doing wrong, and explaining why we have those rules? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

None have been sent from today's edit war, but his constant readdition of the episode table from a few days ago was removed by him and no actually answered in anyway, instead he started moaning at me for monitoring pages on my watchlist.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I had a problem with him doing similar things, once another user stepped in he began to remove warnings on his page and despite more warnings to stop and to not personally attack other users(1). If he doesn't get his way he begins to delete messages of other peoples as well as his own talk page, ignores warnings and just generally just tries to annoy the people who are reverting his edits per any wikipedia policy. I also took the opportunity to include my warnings to him, including a link to the edit on his talk page as evidence.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:UP#CMT allows users to remove warnings from their pages. He is being WP:Tendentious, but he's still acting in (a totally ignorant and disruptive) good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If he is acting in good faith then why won't he relay a valid source like the edit summaries have asked?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Since when are good faith and competence the same thing? I've already said that his behavior is disruptive, heck, I'll risk someone fussing about WP:NPA at me for saying he's been a downright idiot so far, but his actions (from his perspective) are meant to improve the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Why report someone who was acting in good faith, trying to make Wikipedia more accurate? I was simply trying make an edit that I thought was correct, after reading something in the internet, that the show's creators confirmed. "Deleting my own talk page?" That was an accident. I didn't purposely delete that to stop receiving warnings. I tried to get my talk page back, but failed, until ditto51 kindly stepped in and got it back for me. I joined Wikipedia two months ago, and I don't yet understand or know all the rules. Possibly someone could message them to me so I can better understand and follow them in the future. I would also like to thank those who kindly re-reviewed rules, and stuck up for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmddyy28 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Because you're being disruptive and otherwise doing everything wrong. That's why you were reported here instead of WP:AIV. And while I'm trying to argue that you are ignorant of the rules, you're making a really dumb mistake in continuing to remain ignorant of those rules and refusing to listening when other people when they try to explain them. I'm working on a message for you right now that I strongly advise you listen to. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You were reported for violating several Wikipedia policies, one including the edit-warring policy, which was delivered to you at least once or twice, which is more than enough. It has zero to do with how long you've been on the website. Yes, you edits were in good faith, but consistently ignoring notes and talk page discussions, it does not reflect well on your behalf. So instead of edit-warring multiple times, and denying you were doing so, you should've asked about things. We consistently told you your edits were violating the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystalball, etc. and you continued to ignore them. And continually removing the report shows badly and poorly on your part. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

[78] further evidence against him, I think that may be the second or third time he deleted this discussion--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours the panda ₯’ 11:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:67.174.173.239 reported by Geraldo Perez (talk) (Result: )

Page: Jessie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.174.173.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 00:44 04 April 2014
2. 01:47, 12 April 2014
3. 01:42, 25 April 2014
4. 14:58, 27 April 2014
5. 01:32, 16 May 2014‎

• Attempts to communicate:

1. here
2. here

Slow motion edit warring adding inappropriate-to-this page and false info to a disambiguation page. This looks now to be deliberately disruptive. —Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones reported by User:2601:B:BB80:E0:39E8:8E4C:FD09:D212 (Result: )

Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

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

Comments: Smallbones seems to think he has CheckUser and Sockpuppet Investigation powers that enable him to tell if a new user is a banned user or not. He shows an utter disregard for the 3RR convention.

2601:B:BB80:E0:39E8:8E4C:FD09:D212 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK and WP:TROLL aside, you too were edit-warring to include inappropriate comments on someone's talkpage ... there's no beneficial purpose for those comments anywhere on the project, but yet you persisted past breaking the same rule you're filing against someone else? the panda ₯’ 10:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's right, 2601:B:BB80:E0:39E8:8E4C:FD09:D212 is a ban-evading sock. Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MyWikiBiz#16_May_2014. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014 (same troll/sock, slightly diff IP range). Coretheapple (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Mar4d (Result: 24hr)

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

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [86]
2. [87]
3. [88]
4. [89]
5. [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bangladeshi_diaspora#Bengalis_in_Pakistan

Comments: User is editing on an agenda here. He's made up to five reverts on the Bangladeshi diaspora article within the space of 3 hours over a content dispute, and has not given a satisfactory justification for his repeated removal of sourced content. There's a discussion on the talk page but the user would rather prefer to be trigger-happy with Twinkle and keep up the edit war instead of making adequate use of the talk page and validate their rationale. I am reporting the user as 3RR has been violated. Mar4d (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, this was a revert to an IP vandal who has been making disruptive edits to several pages by adding unsourced content and making factual errors. I don't know how this counts as a revert as it succeeded my own edit. Secondly, I'm being reported by an user who has previously been accused of pushing his nationalist POV numerous times and whenever he involves in a dispute he accuses others with the same liner that he used here "User is editing on an agenda". He is adding contents with WP:SYNTHESIS, I've quite clearly raised the concerns over those sources in the talk page and tried to reach a consensus but he kept on adding them.--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, I'm being reported by an user who has previously been accused of pushing his nationalist POV numerous times and whenever he involves in a dispute he accuses others with the same liner - quote evidence if you want to be taken seriously. Putting personal accusations will not get you anywhere. And you have still not explained what is WP:SYNTHESIS about the figures in the article. Mar4d (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your block log explains it pretty well, also this one. Anyway, don't want to dig into your editing analysis. I've clearly expressed my concerns in the talk page and you are yet to address them.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with my block log? This report was filed with regard to a perceived violation of 3RR on your behalf. If you have clear evidence of POV-pushing from my behalf on this issue, present it. You haven't, instead choosing to get personal and digging into arbitrations or block logs that are over two years old. Your conduct as an editor is open for analysis too. And I will repeat, your concerns on the talk page have not adequately explained where the WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR is. The sources I've given as a matter of fact are not exhaustive. I have more. Mar4d (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring across multiple articles. The exceptions to WP:EW do not include any of the reasons that led to this block, and accusations related to ancient situations are more of a personal attack or battleground behaviour ... or as a minimum, a red-herring the panda ₯’ 19:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Biglobster reported by User:Fredtham59 (Result: )

Page: People's Democratic Reform Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Biglobster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

People's Democratic Reform Committee:

1. 16:36, 16 May 2014
2. 16:27, 16 May 2014
3. 12:28, 16 May 2014
4. 12:05, 16 May 2014
5. 12:09, 16 May 2014

2013-14 Thai political crisis:

1. 15:07, 27 April 2014
2. 16:39, 27 April 2014
3. 17:32, 27 April 2014
4. 05:08, 28 April 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:29, 17 April 2014
2. 05:51, 17 April 2014
3. 05:49, 28 April 2014
4. 14:55, 28 April 2014

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

Comments:

•  Comment: Lobster appears to have made about 6 consecutive edits to the PDRC article - and as they're consecutive with no interruption, they're considered to be a single edit. The other appears to be a series of edits from over a week ago, an ddo not appear to have been edit-warring - a block would therefore not be protecting anything at this moment the panda ₯’ 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kumioko/Archive

This page was boldly blanked by AGK, on 2 April. On 8 May, coming across the unusual blanking I reverted and opened a discussion on the talk page. AGK re-reverted out of process, before engaging in discussion. In the course of the discussion he suggested that procedure to overturn his re-revert required the agreement of other Checkusers (plural, but did not state how many), or indeed how many the "larger group of editors" would be.

There I left the matter until the 16 May, when the importance and currency of the page had increased. I checked, as far as I could, that AGK's reasoning was spurious, restored the page once more, and left a message at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, stating that I had restored the page, for other Checkusers, Clerks, and the SPI community to comment. No comment has been received to date.

On the same day Beyond My Ken blanked the page. He did not engage either the discussion on the talk page, nor on the message I had left at SPI. AS I had mistakenly understood that he had disengaged from Kumioko, I asked at his talk page. After first refusing to answer he clarified that he had merely disengaged from the extreme personal attacks he had been making, but not in such a way as to encourage further dialogue. Nonetheless his ironic use of part of my sig, indicates he had read the talk page where AGK takes issue with it.

I am reluctant to restore the page, despite BRD, and despite the unwillingness of the other editors to engage constructively. I will note that of almost 11,000 SPI archive pages I have checked this is the only one blanked in this way. Also that archiving is done manually ("handled by clerks or willing admins" according to comments on SPI talk), so AGK's claim that scripts can remove his blanking, add the archived material and re-blank seems dubious at least.

Obviously we are all way under 3RR, but it does seem that discussion is stymied. If this noticeboard can provide a low-drama way forward, that will, I think, be a good thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

 Comment: Improperly-filed, and an improper place to hold a discussion. As an aside, blanking is not deletion - so no biggie, and making a Federal case out of it makes zero sense. If you want to discuss, take it to a discussion board the panda ₯’ 00:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating reported by User:Steel1943 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 20:56, 17 May 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:24, 17 May 2014
2. 19:57, 17 May 2014
3. 13:43, 17 May 2014
4. 12:50, 17 May 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:53, 17 May 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:12, 17 May 2014

Comments:
Even though that it now seems that the editor in this report is now attempting to take steps in participating in a discussion to create consensus for their edits, I feel as though this still needs to be reported. Unscintillating has been reverting undos of a bold edit that they performed on Wikipedia:Drafts that essentially stated that pages in the draft namespace should have a requirement, in one way or another, that states that a discussion should happen on the talk page of the draft to form consensus to take a draft to WP:MFD; I disagreed with that since those instructions seemingly have no consensus to be supported. After trying to explain my reasons behind reverting these bold edits with edit notices on my reverts, and the continuous reverts of my reverted reverts to their reverts, I realized that since edit notices seemed to not assist in providing understanding to this editor to the purpose of my reverts, I started the above-referenced RFC (attempted to resolve the issue on the article talk page). The editor then seemingly ignores the RFC, and created a new section, question my reverts (thus, why I stated that it seems that the editor is now attempting to take steps to resolve the dispute). At this point, an attempt has been made to start conversation to resolve the dispute, so I'm assuming that the editor is doing this in good faith, but I believe that this report is still necessary for "the books". Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)