Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Belchfire (talk | contribs) at 06:00, 18 February 2013 (→‎User:Belchfire reported by - MrX (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Eaglestorm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: How I Met Your Mother (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Reversions:

    Diffs of edit warring warnings: [1][2]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

    Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [4][5][6]

    Comments:
    Back on 22 January, an IP made a minor, and reasonable, change to an episode summary at How I Met Your Mother (season 8), replacing vague information with a specific point about the episode plot.[7] This was later reverted by another IP, who claimed it was a spoiler.[8] As removal was contrary to WP:SPOILER, it was reverted.[9] On 2 February, Eaglestorm reverted the change without explanation.[10] That edit was reverted, with the editor stating quite correctly in his edit summary, "Summaries are supposed to summarize, not tease". Eaglestorm's next visit was 9 February,[11] and since then has been edit-warring over the content. Multiple attempts have been made on his talk page to engage him in discussion,[12][13][14] but these have proven fruitless. I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page,[15] and invited Eaglestorm to the discussion,[16] to no avail. After I initiated the talk page discussion, an IP posted to my talk page, explaining that Eaglestorm will not engage in discussion.[17] This claim seems well supported by Eaglestorm's talk page history. There are numerous cases where editors have attempted to engage him,[18][19] but he refuses, instead simply deleting requests with inappropriate edit summaries,[20][21][22][23] calling editors trolls, socks and SPAs. Even my attempts to engage him were deleted as "nothing more than prodding at the behest of some SPA editor",[24] and the edit-warring warning was reverted as "unjustified warning at the behest of SPA".[25] Eaglestorm has now posted at my talk page,[26] but still has not engaged in any discussion over his contentious edits, and his 5th revert above clearly indicates that he intends to continue his edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just noting that after Eaglestorm's peculiar (dare I say "paranoid") post on my talk page,[27], his next edit was to delete the notification of this discussion on his talk page as "harrassment".[28] EdJohnston has since posted on Eaglestorm's talk page requesting response to this complaint.[29] However, Eaglestorm has not edited at all in the 32 hours since he last deleted content from his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nikpapag reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Warned)

    Page: Nook Simple Touch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nikpapag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [31]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts at discussion have been made at Talk:Nook Simple Touch and User talk:Nikpapag#Concerning your edits at Nook Simple Touch

    Comments:
    Not a 3RR report, but a general edit warring report. There are issues with the edit that I've explained in edit summaries and on the talk page, but Nikpapag has demonstrated that he has no intention of discussing it, but chooses to edit war without explanation, not even bothering to use an edit summary in the last two diff, and there's no indication that the edit warring will cease. - SudoGhost 02:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not taking any action on this because I'm about to go off-wiki, so I'll leave it for another admin. I will note, though, that Nikpapag does not talk. Hasn't talked on an article talk page since 2010 and then only a few times. Doesn't do user talk, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: Warned. If the editor continues to revert with no discussion, they may be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR violation on Jigai (Result: Semi)

    An IP editor openly using different accounts has reverted me three times in the last few hours.[36][37][38][39][40][41] Can I get some help in dealing with this user? (They are also under investigation for sockpuppetry/block-evasion.) elvenscout742 (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Semiprotected ten days. It does not look good to have an edit war on an article where an AfD is pending, especially when one side of the dispute is an IP-hopper and is not participating in the AfD. The entire article could be a factual error, and perhaps there is no special female way to commit suicide in the Japanese tradition. See the IP's participation at Talk:Jigai#Dubious. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kontoreg reported by User:ZarlanTheGreen (Result: No action)

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


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

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


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKendo&diff=538379523&oldid=534786532 Also, on his user page (and this somewhat pre-dates the above attempts): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKontoreg&diff=538200582&oldid=535784166

    Comments:

    This is the first time I have reported an edit war, so I am not sure if I've done this right. The bits about reverts, are rather confusing, as this isn't a case of 3RR, as far as I know. Please excuse me, for any clumsiness or errors, due to ignorance.

    There was some content added by Kontoreg, on Kendo, which was removed/modified by Ffbond. Kontoreg then re-added it straight away. Ffbond then reverted this for it giving undue weight to an unnotable issue. (admittedly, Ffbond has some blame here too. Also, please not that these are not all exact reverts. There is some slight modifications here and there)
    All the while Kontoreg also added some information on katas, which was modified to be a bit more coherent.
    ...all of which was then instantly re-added by Kontoreg.

    Having seen all this, I felt I needed to say something. Thus I pointed out to Kontoreg, that such behaviour is wrong, and why it is so. I have myself been involved in a few editing disputes, and even a Dispute resolution noticeboard (which ended up quite well, I must say). All of that, with some blame being on my own behaviour, until I've learned the policies and guidelines (the wisdom of which, I generally instantly understood and accepted, once I understood the policy/guideline), so I didn't wish to be too harsh, but I felt Kontoreg needed to be informed of how things are supposed to be done, and why the things that he/she was doing was wrong.
    I pointed out that these things have to be discussed, not just reverted back and forth. This was swiftly followed by Ffbond making a reply there, saying he/she would discuss the matter in the talk page, which Ffbond started straight away, as promised. This discussion was, once Kontoreg entered them, mostly derailed into a discussion of pointless and confused semantics (and I'm not saying that semantics are pointless).

    Sadly Kontoreg made an edit, concerning an issue being discussed, during the discussion, which I instantly reverted, pointing out that it was inappropriate.
    This incident aside, we were quickly able to form consensus. Kontoreg didn't agree, but then consensus doesn't require all to agree. Ffbond was good enough to clean up the article, in accordance with the consensus.

    Sadly this was then reverted by Kontoreg, in complete disregard of the consensus. I reverted this, pointing out that Kontoreg's edits were going against wikipedia policy and guidelines, but Kontoreg simply re-reverted it. Following this, I pointed out, in the talk page (and also in Kontoreg's user talk page, just to be sure), that the issues have been discussed and consensus formed, and that these edits were against policy and guidelines. I informed Kontoreg that he/she needed to undo the edits, or I would report this as edit warring.

    Kontoreg made some more additions to the talk page, and later proceeded to make a few edits on the main article. Edits that, in no way, were an undo of anything. This I took as a sign of refusing, but realising that not much time had gone by, I decided to give him/her some more time. Still, I tried to convince Kontoreg, appealing to the values of Kendo (which seemed appropriate, given Kontoreg's apparent passion for the subject) ...and pointing out that I had written a edit warring report ready to post.

    Kontoreg did not respond in the manner I hoped, but rather said that he had made a Dispute resolution noticeboard request. Dispute resolution noticeboard are, as far as I've understood, about better being able to establish consensus and then apply that. However, discussion has already occurred and finished, with consensus having been formed. You need to be able to respect the decisions reached by it. Kontoreg has clearly shown utter disregard for such things. Kontoreg does not seem to be able to accept the consensus, not because of any lack of discussion, but rather simply due to the fact that the consensus wasn't to his/her liking. (and I say this despite trying to assume good faith)
    This I pointed out in the talk page, as well as pointing out that the DRN request had been done quite badly (as well as the informing of other editors). I also pointed out the fact that, for all the assumption of good faith, and keeping Hanlon's Razor firmly in mind, I could not really consider this an honest attempt to reach consensus, but rather an attempt to try to get through Kontoreg's own opinion. I am reminded of a child asking for something from it's parent, and when told no, rather than accepting that their request has been denied, tries asking the other parent, to see if he/she will say yes.
    Thus I saw the DRN request as nothing more than a further disruptive act. Whether it was intentionally so, is irrelevant. Essentially, whether intentional or not, I see it as, in effect, gaming the system.

    The DRN request was closed, as it was badly done, the involved editors weren't properly informed (or even mentioned in the request) ...and quite importantly, Kontoreg pointed out in the DRN request, that he/she was going on vacation the day after making the request (until the 26:th), meaning that no real discussion could happen for quite a while.
    This would also mean forcing Kontoreg's version of the article (which goes against consensus) to stay on, for quite some more time, meaning even more disruption, intentional or not.

    I do not see this as something to be dealt with in a DRN, or where a DRN would help. I do, however, see it as a clear case of edit warring. Thus I make this report.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not entirely sure how I am supposed to inform Kontoreg. I have done so here (and also on the Kendo talk page). Please do tell me if it's wrong, and how it should be done, if that is so. On the bright side, there's apparently no great hurry to get it right, given that Kontoreg is apparently on holiday.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: No action. If Kontoreg is on vacation until Feb. 26, then the edit war is over for the moment. If this starts up again, make a new report and link to this one. Note that you did not provide the four diffs that are normally required for a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reason.upholder reported by Freemesm (talk) (Result: Declined)

    Page: 2013 Shahbag Protest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Reason.upholder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 14:04, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Added details and organization, corrected for neutrality")
    2. 14:41, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538050137 by 103.9.114.246 (talk) you people are giving pro-government slant to the article destrying its neutrality.... come to the talk page... lets discuss")
    3. 14:53, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538051762 by 103.9.114.246 (talk) theres no point made by shouting vandalism.... provide some non-blog/authentic references... come to talk page lets discuss")
    4. 15:02, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538052402 by Arctic Kangaroo (talk) until otherwise established in the talk page let it have a neutral slant")
    5. 15:35, 13 February 2013 (edit summary: "No claim outside references. Check them. I am discussing the matter in the talk page.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Freemesm (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43] [44]

    Comments:
    This guy was edit warring on 2013 Shahbag Protest and made it protected. He removed a large number of sourced content and add some something from copying this blog. He don't have any basic idea of editing on wikipedia, thats why he vandalize that article's talk page. I am afraid after removal of protection from that article, he will start edit war again. Moreover I am in doubt that User:Sonofbengal who was reported earlier his sock. I am not quite sure as my experience in reporting sockpuppet is negligible, but both of them start the edit war in similar way. So I am requesting to take action on this guy. Thank you.--Freemesm (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:84.100.58.203 reported by Funandtrvl (talk) (Result: Declined)

    Page: List of fast food restaurant chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 84.100.58.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

    Previous version reverted to: [45]

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

    1. 21:13, 14 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538252657 by Funandtrvl (talk)")
    2. 21:17, 14 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* France */")
    3. 21:18, 14 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* France */")
    4. 14:40, 15 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538311224 by Funandtrvl (talk)")
    5. 19:58, 15 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538424923 by Funandtrvl (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

    —Funandtrvl (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined. The first three diffs you list above constitute one revert as they are consecutive. Therefore, the IP has not violated 3RR, although there is edit-warring, but by both of you. You also failed to notify them of this report, which you are required to do. I'm not going to bother because I'm declining the report. I suggest you make sure that the IP knows that you want to discuss their edits. You started a topic on the article talk page, which is to your credit, but the IP may not be aware of it. So, leave a note on their talk page about the topic and invite them to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mautby and User:FF-UK reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: )

    Page: AC power plugs and socket-outlets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mautby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: FF-UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [47]

    • revert: [48] by Mautby - reverting intial reversion.
    • revert: [49] by FF-UK
    • revert: [50] - my reversion on the basis of BRD, in that the initial state of the article should remain until discussion has completed
    • revert: [51] - Mautby reverte me again claiming that it was not reversion, but "wholsale culling"
    • revert: [52] - I reverted again, stating the previous BRD argument, and inviting discussion to continue on the talk page prior to changes being implemented.
    • revert: [53] - final (as of report being filed) reversion to include controversial naming.


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54] - initial invitation to follow BRD convention
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55] - additional reminder of BRD, and warning of intent to file ANE report if necessary.
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

    Comments:

    This has been brewing for a while - there are several knowledgeable editors on the page who strive to include technical terms in most instances. Editor Mautby renamed the page to include the term "outlets" and then straight after edited to include the term throughout the article. The move is being contested, as are the inclusion of the terms. I'll abide by the outcome, but believe that until that outcome is decided it should remain "sockets" not "oulet-sockets" as has been contested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note. This isn't the forum to resolve a content dispute. There's been no breach of 3RR by any editor. The edit-warring seems to be shared. The reported editors were not notified (saying something on the article talk page is insufficient); I've notified them.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not requesting any kind of resolution (or even input) to the obvious content dispute. I'm contesting the behaviour regarding the state of the page whilst the dispute is ongoing on the talk page. And I'm aware that nobody has transgressed 3RR, but - as you point out - edit warring can take place with less edits. My actions in each case have been to revert back to the original state while discussion takes place.
    I've also taken the liberty of informing (officially) Wtshymanski, as they are also involved in the brouhaha. I accept any comment that all informed should have been notified individually as I thought the talk page - which is heavily monitored - would be sufficient. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My point about the edit-warring being shared included you, the two reported editors, and Wtshymanski. It may seem to you that it's okay for you to revert back to the "original state", but it's not. I'm aware of WP:BRD, but just because an editor doesn't follow it doesn't trigger an edit-warring exemption. My inclination is to lock the article until the four of you can work it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than reverting to the "initial state of the article" (sic) as he falsly claims, Chaheel Riens apparently used a text editor to simply eliminate all of the references to "socket-outlets". In doing so he damaged all references to standards which (with the exception of NEMA standards) use the correct term "socket-outlets" in their title. That is unacceptable behaviour, he has admitted that this is his technique and has caused damage elsewhere ("I checked this, and it happened because I imported the entire page into a text editor to run a search&replace on liter -> litre" User talk:Chaheel Riens). This is not editing, it is butchery. It ill-behoves such an editor to make complaints about others, especially when the term he is objecting to is the correct term as evidenced by many national and international standards and professional bodies. Chaheel Riens has demonstrated no knowledge or understanding of the subject, either in this instance, or his previous attempts to mangle BS 1363. I see that, in his complaint, he cannot even spell or put the words in the right order "oulet-sockets"! Mautby (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for the wholsale error. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nomoskedasticity reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: )

    Page: Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 07:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 05:09, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 70.44.58.168 (talk) to last version by Bbb23")
    2. 05:31, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 538669028 by Nomoskedasticity: pls get consensus for these changes, particularly in light of earlier discussions. (TW)")
    3. 06:56, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538671586 by Yworo (talk) BLP violation -- see WP:BLPN")
    4. 07:05, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "WP:BLP violation")
    Note: the claim by Nomoskedasticity that his reverts are exempt under WP:BLP are false, as it is he who is inserting false information.

    —Yworo (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad-faith report, failing to mention the fact that I started a discussion at WP:BLPN and have explicitly invoked a BLP exemption to 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing "false" insofar as it is rooted in Vargas's statement "I am an American". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an independent, third party reliable source. We err on the side of caution by omitting controversial or disputed claims, not by including them. "When in doubt, leave it out". Please provide a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject's own article published in the NYTimes Magazine is an excellent source for the subject's own self-identification regarding ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again "American" is not an ethnicity, it's a nationality, and people don't get to choose their nationality. Therefore a third-party reliable sources is required to establish it, not a claim by the subject, who doesn't have that power. Yworo (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Filipino-American", however, is an ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And by insisting on that, you prove yourself not to be following WP:OPENPARA. His specific ethnicity is not important to his notability. It's his citizenship of one county while residing in another. If he were an ethnic Chinese (or Italian, or Jewish) Philippine citizen in the US without resident status, he'd be just as notable. He was born in the Philippines, he's a Philippine national. It's his natal nation. Yworo (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The core issue here, the basis for claiming a BLP exemption to 3RR, was given at BLPN: "Again, usually the edit in question comes from a particular POV, designed to discredit Vargas's claim to be an American and to reinforce his status as an "alien". As such, the edit is a BLP violation." It is therefore disturbing that Yworo subsequently repeated his own edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no interest in discrediting anyone. I am simply trying be accurate, in a clear and concise way that does not mislead our readers and does not include a claim which has no supporting citations, namely the implication of American citizenship or legal resident status. The wording that states his nationality and separately states his country of residence is simply the most accurate. Yworo (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record (fwiw), I have no intention of reverting again. Nomo's already hit four reverts, and I'm not the only editor he has reverted. (added) He has stated that he intends on continuing to revert on (imo false) BLP grounds. That's why I reported him, because of his stated intent to continue reverting. Yworo (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The article needs long-term semi-protection. Beyond that: what appears to have happened today is that Yworo (whom I have had disagreements with before) has my talk-page on his watchlist and saw that an IP editor had posted there today about Vargas; he then repeated the IP's edit, knowing that I would get to the limit of 3RR before he did. Yworo has not edited the Vargas article before today; I see no other way to account for his interest in it -- so there is also a bit of WP:HOUND here. In any event, the claim of a BLP exemption was made in perfectly good faith. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been wrong about ethnicity issues before. That's why it caught my attention. There's no "hounding" involved in good faith efforts to correct WP:BLP issues. Cheers, it's my bedtime. Hope you come up with some better arguments. Yworo (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been stable for a long time with the opening "Jose Antonio Vargas (born February 3, 1981) is a Filipino American journalist..." If it is to be changed, it should happen via discussion and consensus, not via Yworo jumping on the back of an IP edit, repeating it 3 times including once after I opened a BLPN discussion indicating the nature of the BLP violation involved. Yworo's post immediately above confirms my notion of how he got here; even the timing (3rr report filed a mere 2 minutes after my last article edit -- surely begun before that last edit) suggests a path motivated by a desire to stir things up. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pass456 reported by User:MRSC (Result: Semi-protected; warned)

    Page: Middlesex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pass456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

    Comments:
    Edits are made from several IPs. Edit histories and summaries are clearly the same person.

    Page protected.
    Warned. I've semi-protected the article for one week. I've warned the named account. I've reverted the article to the version before the edit-war and the abuse of multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just read the above information through, I draw your attention to the following edit made on User:MRSC subsequent to the actions described above to resolve the issue (if I have my time-diffs worked out): here. I have temporarily blocked the anon user for 1 day and I am happy for this to be reverted if any subsequent action to determine whether an attempt to evade the warning given to User:Pass456 has occurred.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Martinvl reported by User:212.183.140.33 (Result: Reporter (IP) blocked; article semi-protected)

    Page: International System of Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [64]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

    Comments:


    Egregious and aggravated edit warring

    The 4th edit is outside of the 24h period, but is clearly deliberate and a transparent attempt to game the system for the following reasons:

    • Martinvl had first to organise semi-protection for this page and for Metric system to try to ensure that his POV could not be altered - see these requsts: [71]
    • Martinvl has been warring in this and the Metric system article for some days now, see this warning from an administrator: [72] and the diffs below.
    Diffs for the Metric system article which he also got semi-protected first:
    • 1st revert: [73]
    • 2nd revert: [74]
    • 3rd revert: [75] (note the edit summary)
    • 4th revert: [76] (note the edit summary)
    • Martinvl has recently had gaming charges related to these articles brought against him on WP:ANI at: [77]
    • Martinvl freely issues edit-warring warnings himself, so is well aware that such practices are not acceptable in a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia.

    The aggrevating circumstances, and the fact that he clearly engineered semi-protection for these articles to assist his mission demonstrate, beyond doubt, that these are clearly pre-meditated and egregious attempts to force a POV by relentless edit-warring and bad-faith accusation-throwing and failure to engage in civilised discussion. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me be blunt about it, I believe that the complainant is a sockpuppet of the banned User:DeFacto who has recently change ISP so that he hops IP address every time that he logs on and that he is out to cause trouble. At the moment [an SPI for another] of his alleged sockpuppers [[User:Bill le Conquérant] is awaiting closure. In this edit he wrote "Also, do you have a source showing what the socio-economic mix of Asda customers is, and how that compares with the UK population in general? (this is my first contribution to this debate)" (My emphasis). Why would he write something like this? If one looks at this sequence of threads:
    one will see that an enormous amount was written about Asda. I think that the complainant knows more about Asda than he lets on, I think that his statement "this is my first contribution to this debate" is proof that he was a major contributor to the Asda argument and that he is DeFacto. That being the case, I was reverting work done by a sockpuppet of a banned user, something which is permissable. Furthermore, I got the locks on the articles in question as a means of getting him off my back and off Wikipedia's back. Martinvl (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion is clearly a response to your reply to this contribution from another editor, in which a BBC article is cited, an article which refers to the Asda survey and which you commented upon yourself in that thread! To claim that there was some other rationale, seated in some historical dispute is clearly a crazy notion. You are disrupting Wikipedia and will clearly stop at nothing to defend your own, transparently POV-motivated actions. Did you revert the two articles mentioned here, contrary to the edit-war prevention conventions and for your own purposes? You clearly did. Throwing around unsubstantiated accusations, with no regard for the harm they might do to other, innocent editors, is not a dignified way to try to defend yourself, now please stop it. And looking back at the rest of that thread, his "" remark was clearly to distinguish himself from the other 212.183 editor involved in the same thread. Martinvl, please avoid starting your own conspiracy theories. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BB. That tag was put there on 1 June 2010‎. The chances of this IP being Taggart is pretty slim. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DS, very hard to sort out. The IP is supposedly static (I don't know how accurate Geolocate's labels of static and dynamic are). Also, this particular IP was not listed in the latest DeFacto SPI. If they are static, then I have to go with the confirmed SPI from 2010. If they are actually dymamic, then I would be inclined to believe they are a sock of DeFacto. Either way, they should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it is not static as it is different every time he logs in :o) I use the same ISP, am I a sock of Defacto as well? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want me to block you, I can. :-) I've raised the technical issues at the DeFacto SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Belchfire reported by - MrX (Result: )

    Page: The Bible and homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 05:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 04:27, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? */ Non-encyclopedic section removed per Talk discussion.")
    2. 05:20, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Leviticus 18 and 20 */ (edited with ProveIt) Ch to NIV, in conformity with the rest of the article. Added cites for verses, slightly better formatting for readability.")
    3. 05:22, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538669890 by MrX (talk) Fails verification, reverted per WP:V. What version is this from? Figure that out and provide links before reverting.")
    4. 18:23, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* Other Epistles */ The Greek words are useful to connect the quotes to the surrounding prose, but we can't simply omit partions of a direct quote and substitute foreign words in their place.")
    5. 22:13, 17 February 2013 (edit summary: "/* References to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible */ This word is in the source and is necessary, as omitting it changes the meaning of the sentence.")
    6. 04:03, 18 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 538790914 by MrX (talk) Rm off-topic content. Paul's credibility is not relevant here and sourcing doesn't change that. Perhaps this should be added to Paul of Tarsus.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Many editors, including myself, have tried to reason with this editor to convince him to work collaboratively to build articles instead of edit warring. He routinely accuses others of edit warring and POV pushing, but then exhibits those very same behaviors himself. Belchfire's talk page is a testament to not playing well with others in the sandbox. After four blocks, most recently about five weeks ago, he still doesn't seem to accept that he needs to take a measured, collegial approach to his editing. He was also warned about edit warring a week ago by User:Mark Arsten. Obviously this warning had no enduring impact.

    I'm not sure what the solution is. Timeouts aren't having the desired effect. Recidivism is evident within days of him returning to editing after each time he has been blocked. Nevertheless, I am requesting for an admin to review Belchfire's history, and the recent tendentious editing, and take some sort of action that will have a lasting effect for the sake of the project.

    This is really getting old.

    Thank you. - MrX 05:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It might also help the project if civil POV-pushers like MrX would stop trying to game the system as a tool to silence perceived opposition. This report is, in a word, bogus. There are, in fact, just two reverts to be found on MrX's artificially trumped-up list (#3 and #6). The rest are, quite obviously, additions and improvements to the article. Diff #1 was a removal made pursuant to this Talk discussion, wherein a consensus of editors agreed that the section was prolematic. (Important to note: Roscelese's objection was posted after the edit.) #4 and #5 are additions, not reverts. There is nothing "tendentious" here, other than the EW report itself. ► Belchfire-TALK 05:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=538834250"