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
Scytsari (talk | contribs)
103 edits
Scytsari (talk | contribs)
103 edits
Line 702: Line 702:


refuses to discuss on talk page.
refuses to discuss on talk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pahlavan_Qahremani

Revision as of 17:07, 18 May 2015

    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:Truthman633 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: user warned)

    Page
    Jason Aldean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Truthman633 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC) "I worked with Jason early in his career and was the family friend that suggested the name change. I helped put Jason's first album together. Plus some..."
    2. 01:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Musical career */"
    3. 00:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662233648 by Caldorwards4 (talk)"
    4. 00:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Attempts have been made asking them to go to the talkpage, but instead they continue to make reversions, claiming themselves as a source, despite being told they need reliable sources Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is when he was actually notified about the edit warring. The welcome message does not say a thing about edit warring or 3RR. Since I gave them the actual warning about edit warring he has not reverted again. -- GB fan 11:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:96.229.32.26 reported by User:Frietjes (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: Template:NOW music albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 96.229.32.26 (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. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template_talk:NOW_music_albums with link to Talk:Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!#Split_to_country_specific_pages.3F

    Comments:

    User:Herbie_keys reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Declined)

    Page: Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Herbie_keys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [7]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8] -- while logged out, meets WP:DUCK (some identical phrasing on the unsourced material, IP locates to country admitted at User:Herbie_keys)
    2. [9]
    3. [10]
    4. [11]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

    Comments:
    User seems to have trouble understanding that we stick to the sources, and do not create artificial balance for WP:FRINGE positions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. In part because the report is now stal but I see that Herbie keys is using the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SleepCovo reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Protected)

    The D in WP:BRD should take place at the talk page of the article in question. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page: List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SleepCovo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    I am not sure whether this meets 3RR, but it is blatant edit-warring, which has continued despite repeated requests to WP:BRD.

    Basis point: [14] List expanded by BrownHairedGirl, 10:30, 15 May 2015‎


    Edit history, interspersed with my attempts to resolve discuss:

    1. 3 consecutive edits by SleepCovo 14:18–14:25, 15 May 2015‎
      reverted by BrownHairedGirl 15:03, 15 May 2015‎, with request to discuss at linked, pre-created Talk:List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom#3_edits_reverted.
      Talk page discussion section created with holding comment BrownHairedGirl 15:02, 15 May 2015‎
      Substantive comment on talk page 15:15, 15 May 2015‎ BrownHairedGirl
    2. 15:14, 15 May 2015‎ SleepCovo reverts the revert, reinstates contested content, without replying on talk
      BHG reverts with further request to discuss 15:17, 15 May 2015
      First comment on talk page by SleepCovo 15:18, 15 May 2015‎ SleepCovo
      15:26, 15 May 2015 BrownHairedGirl reply on talk page, further request leave the page at the status quo ante pending discussion
    3. 2 edits 15:20– 15:22, 15 May 2015 by Sleep Covo, reinstating substantially the same content as the first edits
      15:24, 15 May 2015‎ BrownHairedGirl reverts, with edit summary "Per WP:BRD, please stop edit-warring. DISCUSS on talk page, not in edit summaries. Revert to staus quo ante pending discussion"
      Talk page 15:26, 15 May 2015 BrownHairedGirl further request to restore SQA and discuss
    4. 3 edits 1525–15:30, 15 May 2015‎ SleepCovo, reinstating most of the disputed changes
      Talk page 15:32, 15 May 2015 BrownHairedGirl further substantive reply
      Talk page 15:42, 15 May 2015 SleepCovo substantive reply, still no acknowledgement of request to WP:BRD
      Talk page 15:59, 15 May 2015 BrownHairedGirl reply ... and final request to restore the status quo ante
      Talk page 17:02, 15 May 2015 SleepCovo reply, still no acknowledgement of request to restore status quo ante

    At 15:38 I life a request[15] on SleepCovo's talk page to "stop edit warring and restore the page to the status quo ante while we discuss your concerns on the article's talk page".

    SleepCovo replied[16] at 15:40, 15 May 2015, still with no acknowldgement of the request to revert while we discuss.

    Note that this is related to Talk:List of elected female political office-holders in the United Kingdom#Protection, where SleepCovo had repeatedly reverted to a version several weeks old, before sections had been split out and massively updated elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already pointed out that some of your edits were incorrect, such as Kate Osamor being put as a Conservative when she is in fact Labour and since you wanted to do it alphabetically via surname I changed where she was placed as O does not come in-between J and L but after. Also earlier in the article Dawn Butler and Joan Ryan have already been mentioned when they were previously elected in 2005 and 1997 respectively, so I put 2015 next to their names, as every politician in that article who has ever lost and been re-elected has had that format so I was unsure as to why you were trying to change that by adding their names in a new column as though they were a new MP. Also due to three MP's crossing the floor, because of the way BrownHairedGirl had changed the layout in this article it meant that they had their names mentioned twice rather than having it showing their defection. Even though my edits had been correct the editor BrownHairedGirl seems to be quite aggressive in her approach towards me which I am quite shocked by! SleepCovo (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SleepCovo, the issue here is not the perceived "correctness" or otherwise of the edits. This is not the place to discuss that.
    The issue at stake is your insistence on edit-warring rather than discussing the issue on the article talk page. How many times do you need to be asked to read and follow WP:BRD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The only person who is edit-warring is you since you continuously tried to revert my edits even though I had sorted out quite a lot of the issues that you had caused. SleepCovo (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You really haven't read WP:BRD, have you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected. Both of you seem to be edit warring. So I've reverted to before it began and protected the page for a week while you both sort this out. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pity, CambridgeBayWeather.
    As you can see from the links above, I have been trying unsuccessfully to engage SleepCovo in discussion about the disputed issues, but SC's response has been to partially reply and then keep on editing. I followed the recommended procedure of reverting a bold edit, and starting a discussion ... but there is not much that can be done when the other simply reinstates without seeking to resolve the disputed issues :(
    Unfortunately the reversion you have made has removed all the updates of new MPs elected in 2015, which are uncontroversial between us diff of updates.
    Please can you restore the version dated 10:30, 15 May 2015, which provides the startring point for the discussions which were underway? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with CambridgeBayWeather, as it 'Takes two to tango' so if I was edit warring then surely you must realise that you were also doing the same! You keep saying that you wanted to start a discussion but when you went about making all the changes in the first place, you did not engage in any discussion. The only person who seems to dispute me putting 2015 next to the previous Joan Ryan and Dawn Butler is you, yet if you look at the article every single MP who has lost and then been re-elected has that very same layout so why do you want to change that? SleepCovo (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise that a discussion was started on the talk page but you were both reverting back and forth. Blocking either one of you means a complete halt to the discussion. That's something I don't like doing when it appears that both editors are acting in good faith. If you can get User:SleepCovo to agree to that version then I will restore it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CambridgeBayWeather, if BrownHairedGirl lets me use the same format that has been used on many different articles for when a politician has lost and then been re-elected, as I want to do with Joan Ryan and Dawn Butler in this article then there won't be any problem as until now no one has ever complained about that method yet she does! SleepCovo (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the wrong page for a discussion on the page layout. Is that a yes or no to the proposal by BHG, here? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes SleepCovo (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I shall point out that there are now mistakes in the article which I had rectified! SleepCovo (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BrownHairedGirl requested a third opinion. On the one hand, this wasn't exactly a proper case for third opinion, because there were already three editors involved, since User:NeilN already agreed with BHG. However, my fourth opinion is to agree with BHG and NN. If there are errors in the split list, User:SleepCovo can identify them at the talk page while the article is locked, and an uninvolved administrator can make the edits if there is agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise this is about a different article right? If the split is to go ahead on the other article then so be it but I am concerned about things that have gone on in this article. So your 'fourth opinion' doesn't involve this article! SleepCovo (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @SleepCovo and BrownHairedGirl: Can we just agree the split is fine and now fix any factual inaccuracies? --NeilN talk to me 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @NeilN:, this discussion here is not about the split. It is about the content of one of the pages which was created as a result of the split: List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
    As I set out above, with diffs, SleepCovo made a series of changes List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, which I contested. So per WP:BRD I reverted and launched a discussion.
    All I ask is that SleepCovo discusses the contested points to reach a consensus, as I have repeatedly asked. Instead, SleepCovo simply comments and then reinstates the contested changes, before a consensus has been reached.
    Please can someone else try to explain to User:SleepCovo how the WP:BRD cycle works? I am having no success in doing so, which is why we have ended up here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl you need to stop repeating yourself by going on about WP:BRD, the edits I made were because that is the layout for all the other politicians who had lost and then been re-elected! So I do not understand why you think that it should change when both Dawn Butler and Joan Ryan have been mentioned earlier in the article! Also Kate Osamor is Labour not Conservative!! SleepCovo (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment is exactly the reason why we are here. You believe that your edits were justified, and I disagree. That's what WP:BRD is all about: disagreements like this are common, and when such a disagreement occurs, the edit is reverted and discussed.
    All I ask is that when an edit is contested, you discuss it on the talk page of the article concerned. Instead, you are trying to make the substantive argument here ... and the points you make here are largely unrelated to the edits which I reverted.
    Instead of allowing the discussion to run its course, you have been piling contested change on top of contested change. That's why I will continue to cite WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD until you actually read that page and follow it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Ramiericson reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: No violation)

    Page
    List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ramiericson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:17, 15 mei 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Also pages Khuzaima Qutbuddin and Mufaddal Saifuddin. User has been warned before about edit warring and has previously been blocked for sockpuppetry. It seems the user has taken up their old stance in the 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra), without presenting any evidence in the form of reliable sources that one side or the other has won the relevant lawsuit. Ping EdJohnston, DGG. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation. One edit on List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra and Mufaddal Saifuddin plus tw consecutive edits on Khuzaima Qutbuddin are not evidence of an edit war. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.60.194.10 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Semi-protected)

    Page: Gabapentin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.60.194.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

    Comments:
    IP is adding spinning gifs to drug article. WikiProject Pharmacology has said "no" to these, see this discussion. IP isn't talking, just edit warring. I left the spinning gif to avoid edit warring myself. Please block and consider semi-protecting the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected for one week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact same reversion has started following the protection by Skullballoons (talk · contribs), [[17]]. This is the first edit by this account since 2012. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the edit war has continued, an SPI case has been raised. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skullballoons). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xenoworker91 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Nick Xenophon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Xenoworker91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Removed factually incorrect and irrelevant material"
    2. 22:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "/* 2013 election campaign */"
    3. 22:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "/* 2013 election campaign */"
    4. 10:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
    2. 22:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Nick Xenophon. (TW)"
    3. 22:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Nick Xenophon. (TW)"
    4. 23:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 23:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Nick Xenophon. (TW)"
    6. 23:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nick Xenophon. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 23:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Content removal */ new section"
    Comments:

    Removing sourced content, claiming it's incorrect, despite being supported by sources. tried to start a talkpage discussion, but they're ignoring it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale. No edits in almost 15 hours. I have semi-protected the page for three days. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Csquadforever reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Jackie (Ciara album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Csquadforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 03:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. Consecutive edits made from 01:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC) to 01:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
      1. 01:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 01:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 22:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    6. 18:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Fixed Typo"
    7. 14:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    8. Consecutive edits made from 12:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC) to 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      1. 12:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Jackie (Ciara album). (TW)"
    2. 02:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jackie (Ciara album). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User continues to ignore their warnings for mass-changing of genres and their warning on edit-warring; it's clear they are acting from a fan point of view only and are likely not here to contribute in a non-disruptive manner. livelikemusic my talk page! 13:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:77.66.189.70 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: no admin action)

    Page
    Scarlet Gruber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    77.66.189.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
    2. 15:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Scarlet Gruber */ new section"
    3. 15:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
    4. 15:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Scarlet Gruber */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The ip ignore messages that I have left. And continues to add information without reference to the article of Scarlet Gruber, in fact in the same article there is a hidden text which also ignores. Philip J Fry • (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aquapess reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: 48 hours)

    Page
    Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Aquapess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Deliberate attempt to prevent use of peer reviewed references"
    2. 16:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Deleting peer reviewed references and reporting of news events is stifling of freedom of speech"
    3. 15:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Referencing peer reviewed articles are not POV. Reporting of news events regarding prominent naturalists are facts"
    4. 11:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Updating with latest opinions and discussions of topic from conferences of the last 2 years"
    5. 21:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Deleted the header change, but retained the journal article references. Publication in palaoanthropology journals means that it is being discussed in the scientific community"
    6. 21:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Bringing the topic up to date with references from within the last decade"
    7. 20:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC) "Link to wikipaedia's page of infant swimming added, so that people who are interested in this special feature of humans could read more about it"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Clear edit warring with battleground mentality- see the aggressive edits summaries, and their posts on User talk:NeilN Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HappyWaldo reported by User:Gts-tg (Result: Protected)

    Page
    George Miller (director) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    HappyWaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662524295&oldid=662498583 this isn't done for aus-born and raised directors of west/north European ancestry. go further south and suddenly it's notable?
    2. George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662552722&oldid=662552147 'MOS:BLPLEAD "Ethnicity ... should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.'
    3. George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662553899&oldid=662553077 nothing to discuss. you are violating wiki guidelines
    Diffs of edit warring
    1. George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662554848&oldid=662553899 unsourced
    2. George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662627657&oldid=662624479 Greek-Australian" isn't a nationality. you are confused about the distinction between nationality and ethnicity.the former belongs in the lead, the latter in miller's case doesn't
    3. George_Miller_(director)&diff=662629571&oldid=662628066 you have made contentious edits. i reverted them and explained why per WP:BRD. you haven't backed your edits with any policy or guideline, just a belief that greek parentage is special. an admin needs to resolve this
    3RR warning

    User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=662632757&oldid=661711395 Warning on edit warring

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. Talk:George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662552942&oldid=661621765
    2. Talk:George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662554319&oldid=662554096
    3. Talk:George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662627582&oldid=662626645
    Comments:

    User:HappyWaldo insists on reverting and edit warring without discussing first, in one of his reverts he even mentioned that there is nothing to discuss. Furthermore, he removed some extra content(that was not part of previous edit warring) citing it as being unsourced, I added sources and a few more info backed by extra sources as well, and he removed this too saying that it is not allowed by policy(the same part of content that he previously removed as being unsourced). I have asked him repeatedly to discuss in good faith in the talk page, but apparently he prefers to be discussing via edits and reverts, his latest edit/removal of contents is simply mimicking what I told him which was that I will have no option but to report him if he continues to remove content and sources Gts-tg (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the article is essentially locked as if I try to add info such as birth name and ethnicity which are backed by sources, he is going to remove them again. The rationale for my edits is fully explained in the talk page of the article and does not correspond to what the user claims in the summary of his last edit warring edit. Gts-tg (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Finally, the user's talk page shows that he has a long history of similar behavior(e.g. this one and this one and this one among others Gts-tg (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was agreeing, not "simply mimicking", that an admin needs to intervene. In most cases I've come across, if contentious content is added to an article, it is reverted and then discussed; it doesn't stay up while the discussion is ongoing. My case for reverting is based entirely on Wikipedia guidelines. There's nowhere else to go. Perhaps I was too dismissive, but I thought it was poor form to keep adding back the material when no consensus had been reached. As for the "long history" of similar incidents: the first example involves an inexperienced user (evidenced by not signing name) who overcrowded the Ned Kelly article with images; second example is a case where all other users were in agreement with me; third example was an entirely friendly exchange, read the user's talk page. - HappyWaldo (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There were at least 3 warnings from me that you have to stop reverting before discussing otherwise this will need to be moderated, I don't see any 'agreeing' in your last edit summary but just making it look as if you are the one requesting an admin. As for 'most cases you've come across' and 'contentious content', sorry you don't get to remove something and then sit on top of it for ever, the content was already there. You mention reaching consensus but how is consensus going to be reached when you keep removing and reverting? As for your long history, the links are there for anybody to read whether there were issues created by enforcing your viewpoint through removing of content and sources, against 'friendly' or not, 'inexperienced' or experienced users, same as the article in question here Gts-tg (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected – 5 days. The alternative was to block both parties for edit warring. See WP:DR for how to get more opinions on this. At first sight, HappyWaldo's comments about mentioning ethnicity in the lead appear more in accord with the usual Wikipedia practice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chab-khaled reported by User:Stéphanie Renaud (Result: Stale)

    Page: Khaled (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Chab-khaled (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. [18]
    2. [19]
    3. [20]
    4. [21]
    5. [22]
    6. [23]
    7. [24]

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

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

    Comments:
    User:Chab-khaled continues edit warring (7 RR and counting) despite multiple warnings. Stéphanie Renaud (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Most of these reverts were yesterday, but there's no question that this user has been problematic (this many reverts is rarely acceptable, and certainly not adding in this kind of commentary). They're also a SPA. For fairness, I should note that Stéphanie Renaud is also a brand new account with a surprisingly strong grasp of Wikipedia policy, but I see no issue with any of their three edits on this page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.182.109.178 reported by User:Haminoon (Result: Block, Semi)

    Page
    Flipora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    72.182.109.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Reversing vandalism of page. This user is promoting his own page where he is trying to distribute his own virus exe file which does damage to a computer, and is promoting it as a computer cleaner tool. Please block him or lock this page from edits."
    2. 23:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662672022 by Winner 42 (talk)"
    3. 23:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Repeated vandalism - promoting his own dangerous software that claims to be a computer cleaner. Would any of the edits dare to install the exe he is promoting on his page?"
    4. 23:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "This revision has two problems (1) it references a low quality source (2) it references a page in position #1, whose main purpose is to get the user to install and exe. Both these make the reference bad for wikipedia. Sorry for unclear reason earlier."
    5. 23:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662674485 by Winner 42 (talk)"
    6. 23:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662676273 by Wtmitchell (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Flipora. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Protection request (May 16, 2015) */"
    Comments:

    Haminoon: I am merely reversing their edits they are adding without explanation. You were part of the talk and delete page discussion and were pushing for a high bar for noteworthiness of references.

    Haminoon: What about the other guys making edits to the page and clearly not passing the bar for references established in the talk and delete pages.

    Please look at the other two users also who seem related and seem hell bent on distributing this reference link.

    The link contains the following text at the bottom and pushes you to install an exe. http://www.virusresearch.org/spyhunter-installation-instructions/ Why was this above link removed? That was precisely the link promoted from the reference page. If this is too unsafe for this page, it safe to say it's unsafe to promote it from a wikipedia page as well?

    If this link is too unsafe to keep here, please block the other two users from making disruptive edits or protect the page. If this link is safe, click on it by all means.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.109.178 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.185.164.97 reported by User:TheTMOBGaming2 (Result: Semi)

    Page: Monstercat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 72.185.164.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [26]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [27], User is providing a link to a tweet, claiming a new artist has joined the roster, but the account is not verified by Twitter as an official account.
    2. [28], same
    3. [29], User fails to comply with WP:USERGENERATED, which explicitly states that tweets are not acceptable.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Unable to do so

    Comments:
    Clear violation of WP:USERGENERATED; adding an unsourced artist not listed on the main website or verified through a verified Twitter account. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deadwords reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Faith No More (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Deadwords (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:

    0 [31] 22:04, May 15, 2015. Added primary source interview saying the band considers their new album "post-punk". Not a revert.
    1. [32] 22:43, May 15, 2015. Added "post-punk" and "rock" genres. Removed "funk metal" genre, saying the band "opposes this label."
    2. [33] 23:11, May 15, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
    3. [34] 07:03, May 16, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
    4. [35] 23:14, May 16, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
    5. [36] 02:31, May 17, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
    6. [37] 03:10, May 17, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
    7. [38] 03:15, May 17, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39] 03:05, May 17, 2015

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

    Comments:
    Deadwords is effectively a single-purpose account focused almost exclusively on the band Faith No More. Deadwords has very often taken a battleground attitude at the article, reverting other editors such as Mlpearc[41] in 2013 and I call the big one bitey [42] in 2014. Arguing with Mad Hatter in 2013, Deadwords warred to insert primary-sourced text.[43] The current argument stems from an overreliance on primary sources, and too much consideration given to the band's own statements rather than WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    Response by Deadwords:

    I am truly dumbfounded. All of my contributions have been properly cited. I have complained about vandalism to the Faith No More page multiple times since many of my recent edits were deleted. I have provided sources to support all contributions. More recently, I attempted to clarify the band's genre. My claim is that Faith No More is absolutely a rock band. It is in their printed bio, & they are also referred to a rock band by the Billboard Magazine link I provided. I submitted TWO separate sources supporting the perspective that FNM is also considered post-punk: 1 from the actual artist (primary), the other from a well published music critic/author (WP:SECONDARY). Why would this information be consistently deleted by anonymous users &, more recently, Binksternet? Binksternet ignored the recent secondary source supporting the post-punk clarification. Battleground approach is nonsense. I've always attempted to provided clarifying, & meaningful, content with solid sources. This is a case of sour apples. Furthermore, I have warned others recently that they are engaging in an edit war/vandalism. There is no reason for the information I've added recently to be consistently deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadwords (talk • contribs) 06:32, May 17, 2015

    Other editors who have a good faith interest in improving the article are not "vandals" even when they disagree with you and remove your work. I'm sure you will agree that the band is difficult to categorize. You should give other editors some slack as they attempt to summarize published opinion about the band.
    Of course FNM is a rock band, because the very large rock genre is an umbrella for many subgenres; heavy metal is rock, alt metal is rock, hard rock is rock, funk metal is rock, experimental rock is rock, etc. The problem was that your Rolling Stone source did not say that the band's genre is rock, instead, it says they are "rock's most contrarian band" which doesn't distinguish them by musical genre. The headline continues by describing them as "alt-metal superheroes".[44]
    Another problem comes from when the band's songs or albums are described as this or that genre. A band's own genre may be independent of the genres of the songs and albums. For instance, a widely popular singer who has recently contributed to a children's album is not suddenly a children's artist. In that vein, your second source (which appears to be a copyright violation of some magazine page) quotes a band member saying that the latest album is post-punk. If a band's 7th album is post-punk that does not mean the band is suddenly post-punk. Wikipedia requires its facts to be verifiable, so a band's genre must come from descriptions of the band, not descriptions of the songs or albums. Furthermore, a band member is never the definitive arbiter of the band's genre; we need WP:SECONDARY sources describing the band's genre. If your second source could be cited (if it's not a copyright violation) then the reporter describes the band as having an "innovative mix of heavy rock with rap, electronica, jazz and more... alt-rock scene." So this source would support a genre of "alternative rock".
    A final problem comes from using one or two outlier sources to misrepresent the wide array of published opinion. We should instead select published sources that are representative, such that the genres which are used most often by reviewers are represented most strongly in the article. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    Response by Deadwords:

    >>"Other editors who have a good faith interest in improving the article are not "vandals" even when they disagree with you and remove your work... You should give other editors some slack as they attempt to summarize published opinion about the band."

    - This philosophy could also be applied to my attempts to add to the page.

    >> "Of course FNM is a rock band, because the very large rock genre is an umbrella for many subgenres;"

    This is the exact same language I used to support my original edit, which was cited. They were refered to as a rock band in the Rolling Stones article. You want to argue semantics. Very petty. There are several lists published which rank FNM music along with other rock songs. Here are a few examples: 1. http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/02/faith-no-more-announce-sol-invictus-the-seminal-rock-bands-first-album-in-18-years/ 2. http://ultimateclassicrock.com/faith-no-more-songs/ 3. http://www.itunescharts.net/us/charts/albums/rock/ (FNM on "Top 40 US Rock Albums" iTunes chart)

    >> A band's own genre may be independent of the genres of the songs and albums

    Independent, fine. But it should be recognized and validated.

    >>"we need WP:SECONDARY sources describing the band's genre."

    I provided a proper secondary source, & mentioned this above. "BEST SELLING AUTHOR JOEL MCIVER TALKS FAITH NO MORE... 'Bill Gould was an instant hero because of the effortless way he inserted funk riffs into bass-lines which I thought owed much more to post-punk...' " Here is the link once again: http://www.faithnomoreblog.com/2014/10/best-selling-author-joel-mciver-talks.html

    Regarding the Funk/Funk Metal label: If the label is to remain in the sidebar, it should be noted that it is controversial. The band refutes and avoids this label. This should be properly documented in the band's wiki. http://www.faithnomoreblog.com/2012/08/its-itwhat-is-it-focus-on-song.html Quote from articke: Roddy (1992): “This whole funk metal thing is really disgusting! The last thing I want to be in is a funk metal band – we’re gonna try and be anything but that!”

    Lastly, Binksternet recently made additional edits to a separate section of the band's wiki, removing a valid quote from the band which was properly cited: "In a 2010 interview with Bizarre Magazine, Mike Patton spoke about the conflict, stating: 'It’s not worth talking about. I’ve no idea what it was about then and I don’t know now. But I bet we’d have a warm embrace if we saw each other now.' " Source: http://www.laweekly.com/music/do-faith-no-more-and-the-red-hot-chili-peppers-still-hate-each-other-5508133 - Why attempt to reach so far by deleting meaningful quotes, which I recently added, during this time? Is this a case of bullying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadwords (talk • contribs)

    Joel McIver's opinion about post-punk "bass-lines" does not define the band. First, he's talking about some songs from the album The Real Thing, not the band as a whole. Second, Joel McIver says in that same interview that he understood the funk metal label "to an extent, perhaps because I’m a bass player and the funk in FNM came largely from Bill’s bass." Lastly, you've selected an outlier which does not represent the mass of published opinion.
    Again, you are giving the band's opinion too much credence. We can tell the reader about the band's own assessment, putting such information in the article body, but their opinion is not definitive. Wikipedia prefers third party opinions over the artist's own opinions. The band's opinion does not belong in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Serendipodous reported by User:JasonAQuest (Result: Full protection)

    Page: Planets beyond Neptune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Serendipodous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [45]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [46]
    2. [47]
    3. [48]
    4. [49]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

    Comments:


    I do not understand. We have moved the discussion to the talk page, as I repeatedly asked. Why are you doing this now? As long as neither of us make any edits until consensus is reached, there is no edit war. Is your POV so important to you that you would prefer to get your opponents blocked then to deal with them civilly? Serendipodous 13:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As a totally uninvolved party, I likewise do not understand. This is a content dispute, and IMHO this dispute was provoked by this edit on a Featured Article with no edit summary by User:JasonAQuest. Jason has a bad habit of occasionally not using edit summaries, and this case, it caught up with him. User:Serendipodous, the major contributor to the FA, quite naturally reverted per BRD, edit summary pointing out no reason was given for the change. Instead of creating a talk page discussion, JasonAQuest started an edit summary discussion, IMHO a poor place to discuss complex subject matter. What followed was a revert war in live pagespace (a very poor choice for both users) and the discussion in edit summary. Talk page discussion was not begun until both users were well into 3RR territory, and after Serendipodous had implored JasonAQuest (in edit summary) to commence such discussion. In Jason's first edit to the talk page discussion itself, he uses dismissive language ("I realize that the IAU ruling looms large in astronomy geeks' minds") to defend his position and in personal talk page discussion accused Serendipodous of page ownership. Both users are at fault for not immediately commencing a discussion on talk, but Jason, by making a substantial edit to the lede of a FA with zero edit summary, certainly provoked the dispute and then made poor choices in not assuming good faith. I'm not an admin, but if I were I'd dismiss this report and admonish both editors for poor choices. If anyone deserves a negative consequence, it's the reporter here (for repeatedly failing to use edit summaries), but seeing as how both sides (generally very worthy contributors) are discussing this on talk, I don't think there's any reason for administrative action. Perhaps JasonAQuest would consider withdrawing this complaint. BusterD (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected. You both appear to be edit warring so I either block both or protect the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scytsari reported by User:CompliantDrone (Result: Semi)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Diff #1
    2. Diff #2
    3. Diff #3
    4. Diff #4

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning Removed within two minutes and resulting in a Drive-by comment on my talk page: Nobody is edit warring, I'm fixing what needs be fixed, why do you care so much?

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Failed attempts at consensus on the Talk page

    Comments: This entry has been plagued recently by nationalist editors who unilaterally edit and will not discuss the subject (primarily concerning sexuality in the Pashtun belt of Afghanistan and India) or contribute other than deleting material they subjectively disagree with and leaving snide commentary in the edit summary. The page has received temporary semi-protection a few times as a result, and myself and other editors are beginning to suspect sock puppetry based on patterns of behavior.

    CompliantDrone (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a sock puppet, I'm a newcomer to wikipedia hence the 'driveby' but you sir are very uneducated and misinformed. Get a life and leave such matters to people who know a thing or two, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's interesting to see how often edit-warriors accuse those who revert them of having a POV agenda. Is it a Freudian slip? HandsomeFella (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotected for one year by Callanecc. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: )

    Page: Gotham (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Previous version

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]; the user being reported removed the notice one minute later: [57]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58], [59]

    Comments:

    When I noticed the user making the change, I reverted the change, noting that, as per BRD, the user should use the talk page to seek consensus for the drastic alteration to the article. ([60]). The user simply reverted. I put the article back again, noting that the user has misapprehended the policy they were using as defense and stressing the need to use the discussion page and not an edit summary to seek consensus. At that point, i initiated a talk page section about the matter. While I was doing so, the user reverted yet again; their 3rd revert. I took the time to send them a comment to their talk page, advising them to use discussion and stop reverting. The user removed the post less than a minute later. I undid the revert for the third (and my last) time, noting that if they continued to edit-war and avoid discussion, I wasn't going to have any choice but to file an edit-war report.
    They reverted less than three minutes later. The user is convinced he is correct and discussion isn't worth his time.
    I've done everything I can. I'd ask for one of two resolutions:

    1. that the article be reverted back to the previous version and be protected for a week, until AlexTheWhovian understands that edit summaries aren't going to magically create consensus where dissent clearly exists.
    2. In the alternative, perhaps a block of AlexTheWhovian is required, to protect the article. The user was warned more than once; they know the potential penalty for continuing to edit-war. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff of user notification: [61] - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment #4 (listed above as #4, actually first one chronologically) wasn't actually a revert. There's no overlap in the text that Alex and the IP edited. ― Padenton|✉   04:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ALSHEIKHULSHEIKH reported by User:Apparition11 (Result: )

    Page
    Sargodha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    ALSHEIKHULSHEIKH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662820439 by Huon (talk)"
    2. 10:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 662914591 by Noq (talk)"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 11:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC) to 11:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      1. 11:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "sourced material"
      2. 11:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. Consecutive edits made from 13:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC) to 13:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      1. 13:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Sourced material"
      2. 13:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 13:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Apparation11 is removing sourced material"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 12:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sargodha. using TW"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 12:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Population */ new section"
    2. 13:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Population */ again"
    Comments:

    ALSHEIKHULSHEIKH is continually changing population figures without providing sources that actually backs up the content. While this is taking place on numerous articles, Sargodha is the one that they have warred the most on. They apparently have no desire to engage in discussion. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 13:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.156.202.134 reported by User:Resolute (Result: )

    Page: Calgary Comic and Entertainment Expo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 75.156.202.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [62]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [63]
    2. [64]
    3. [65]
    4. [66]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

    Comments:
    An IP editwarring to add undue coverage of a minor incident using unreliable sources. Of note, this is a GamerGate-related incident, so remedies from the applicable ArbCom case could also apply. Page protection might also be warranted since I'm sure other gamergaters will come by to try and back this one up, but since I've been discussing and reverting his additions this morning, best that I don't take administrative actions myself. Resolute 14:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I've observed, the IP has been ignoring WP:BRD. IP should be getting consensus on talkpage, before implimenting its edit. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This can be handled with a regular block for edit warring, for instance one week. Though this is a Gamergate issue, the IP has no edits prior to 17 May and seems unlikely to stay around as a regular contributor, at least under this identity. Handing out the usual Gamergate notice might not make much difference. I'd be inclined to semiprotect the article as well for whatever time it is likely that the article might be targeted by editors without a track record who may be interested in Gamergate. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    It seems to me the initial edit to include the 2015 incident was made in good faith an an attempt to report what happened. Reading the talk page, it seems as if the IP did, in fact, attempt to build consensus, however got somewhat incensed when the material was outright removed, in apparent violation of WP:BRD. The policy implies that material should be discussed prior to being removed if there is a way to improve it.

    Of note: The user removing the material also resides in Calgary, which is the location of the Calgary Expo, and it is not inconceivable that they have some form of connection to the Calgary Expo themselves. Scbritton (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pahlavan Qahremani

    Constant edit warrior 3R on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

    refuses to discuss on talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pahlavan_Qahremani

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=662959662"