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 70.76.85.36 (talk) at 05:39, 2 September 2013. 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:Cybordog reported by User:Owain.davies (Result: 72 hours)

    Pages: Caduceus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Caduceus as a symbol of medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cybordog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    User talk page (most discussion here)
    Article page

    Talk:Caduceus_as_a_symbol_of_medicine

    Comments:

    This is a thread about edit warring betweeen myself and Cybordog, rather than 3RR, because of the length of time between reversions.

    This user has been on on Wikipedia since May 2012, and only edits two articles (Caduceus and Caduceus as a symbol of medicine) in order to insert their view that "its use remains and is well accepted as an appropriate symbol to signify a healthcare entity" as well as some other assertions around a biblical origin (although he has not done the latter since last year). The article is well cited with academic references which point to the exact opposite, and we have not been able to find a single credible reference to support that position. I have repeatedly asked Cybordog to provide references, and he has provided some esoteric websites, and will not accept that these are not reliable.

    I (and some others) have made changes to try and reflect some of the edits whilst not giving WP:UNDUE to what amounts to a fringe theory. This is not the first time the same discussion has been had about this topic, and some people feel quite strongly that this symbol is appropriate, normally because that is what they use. However, there are more than a dozen reliable sources which disagree with them, and none that agree.

    Cybordog won't engage properly (and has not responded at all to my recent approaches, including not adding edit summaries) and this was an occasional annoyance, but recently he has been appearing every few days to revert to his preferred, uncited wording.

    I would be grateful if you could look at appropriate action, such as page protection, which would resolve this, as I have no desire to continue an edit war. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked - 72 hours for long-term edit warring. This editor's sole purpose for being on Wikipedia is to change our caduceus-related articles to reflect his own unsourced opinions. Past discussions with him have had no effect. Read User talk:Cybordog if you were hoping that any other verdict is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paul 012 reported by User:WPPilot (Result: )

    • Pages:
    Bangkok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
    Si Lom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    I have already posted a request for admin help, this is frustrating. I at this moment am standing in Silom Thailand and I have come here to do photos of the area to update the photos of the local areas. I am a professional and have not really had this happen in the past at all yet I now seem to have a user that does not agree that I am in Silom Thailand and claims that my photos of Silom Thailand are not photos of the area that I am in, right now. I for 30 years have been a professional photographer and have been published in hundreds of publications, yet this user seems to OWN the Wiki on the area and summarily removes my photos. Si Lom shows the Silom area, as well as some other areas of Bangkok yet this user seems to know more about the area then my personal location can demonstrate. He continues to remove my photo, taken last night in Silom and he claims that my photo is not what I KNOW it is, Si Lom Thailand. I have really tried to reach out to him and he has become more aggressive in removing my photos of the local area to replace them with photos of cars on streets. The photo he demands is used to show this area could be anywhere in Thailand really yet it would seem that this has I regret turned into a edit war, regardless of reality or my current location. The user seems to think he controls any page related to Bangkok, and has already tried to replace my professional photos with photos of the sky and cars on a road, insisting that my photo is not what I know it is as I am standing here right now. Common sense does not seem to matter, and he simply reverts my contrib's with poor quality photos. Can I please get some assistance with this matter? I have posted a request on the Admin help page and another admin also agrees that professional photographs, as he seems to think he owns the pages that I have contributed to HELP. --WPPilot 15:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

    I don't think anyone has breached 3RR here, though I find WPPilot's notion that an I alone am waging an edit war against him and everyone else rather perplexing. Please feel free to peruse the discussion at Talk:Bangkok#Bangkok City Scape, Talk:Si Lom#August 2013 as well as the histories of both pages. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After contributing thousands of dollars over years to obtain professional quality photos I have NEVER had a user attack my contribs like this. Please take a look at the photos that he is trying to claim add value to these Wikis, and after 11 years of staying here in Silom Thailand I can attest to the simple fact that my photos are photos of what I represent them to be. Please take a look at the revision history of these pages, and he pictures that Paul 012 seems to think add value to this story.--WPPilot 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Part of my frustration is that I have spent thousands of dollars to come here and do photos, exclusive ones for Wikipedia, as I have for years. To have another user simply shut off my efforts and not make any effort to communicate in a manner that other admins feel is professional is really causing no good what so ever. I am here to do photos, and I get the feeling that this user does not want me to.--WPPilot 16:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Comment: This 3RR report was not filed in the proper form, but I've created a header that tries to reflect the issue. At present it looks like no admin action is needed, since nobody has broken 3RR. WPPilot's previous request for assistance appears to be this thread at the WP:Help desk. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to both of you. If either of you continues to revert, action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again user Paul 012 has reverted my contribution on the Silom page. His new claim is that the Sky train is a few hundred yards past the location it was in my photo, and the map he offers shows that the other photo IS a photo of Silom. This is his third reversion, (3rr) and now qualifies him for consideration of action. WPPilot (talk)--WPPilot 13:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope WPPilot isn't accusing Takeaway of being a sockpuppet of mine, in addition to ignoring the clearly presented facts and insisting on attacking my supposed motives. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the incorrectly named image from the Silom article because, as Paul 012 has mentioned already, it doesn't show Silom road at all but instead the beginning of Rachadamri road, across the intersection with Rama 4 road. - Takeaway (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Facts are not in any way clear, the address that was used is NOT the location on the photo I took, but a block down the street. This is a waste of my time, and I really would rather get paid for my efforts then donate them to a page that someone thinks he owns. Fact is that the map Paul 012 posted CLEARLY shows that the one photo is of Silom. I have better things to do then deal with this petty childish stuff. The sky train was departing the Saladang station, on Silom road, the map shows a green arrow a block further down the road, so it is misleading yet it shows that the skyline photo IS Silom, so his photo of cars (that could be anywhere) that he was so determined to use taken by a cel phone, to me shows that the intent is not objective. --WPPilot 16:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    I am sorry that you feel that way but both Paul 012 and I recognise the subject of your photo as being the beginning of Rachadamri road. Looking at the photo, I think that it is probably made from the balcony of one of the rooms of the Dusit Thani Hotel. The expanse of grass alongside the road can only be the corner of Lumpini Park as the other three corners of this one intersection are either buildings, shrubs alongside buildings, or the parking lot of the Dusit Thani Hotel. This can only mean that the image shows Rachadamri road. Please have a look at Google Maps/Google Earth to verify this. - Takeaway (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thargor Orlando reported by User:Groupuscule (Result: )

    Page: Riki Ott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Beagel's version from 9 July 2013 (diff)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff
    6. diff
    7. additional edit

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 2 3

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above, plus: diff

    Comments:

    Part of the problem seems to be that Thargor Orlando is very determined to delete links from the sources Truthout and Op Ed News, despite having reached no consensus on the quality of these sources. At Riki Ott, Thargor insisted that Truthout was not reliable, despite prior agreement from two editors (groupuscule & Petrarchan47 who had already been working on the article) that it was contextually appropriate. Thargor was so insistent that they deleted the citation of Truthout seven times.

    A similar conflict is now shaping up at COINTELPRO, where Thargor Orlando has now three times deleted virtually all of the external links: 1 2 3

    Thargor Orlando has also disregarded suggestions that they refrain from this mass targeting of sources: 1 2.

    From their talk page, it can be seen that they are inappropriately tagging pages for procedural deletion: 1 2

    They are making it clear on their talk page that they refuse to discuss the overall issue: 1 2

    In conclusion, I would really appreciate some recognition from the community—and some help conveying to Thargor Orlando—that these deletions of links, citations, and whole pages are not appropriate. The repetitive deletions, enacted against consensus of editors who have already been collaborating on the article, is particularly egregious. But the whole pattern needs to be questioned; as I told Thargor Orlando on their talk page, no one should have to be responsible for stalking an individual editors' contributions in order to (ineffectively) reverse their systematic deletions. Please forgive any errors I have made in this format—it's my first time submitting a report of this type. Thanks everybody for reading. groupuscule (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    First, this really doesn't belong here. Second, I have maybe two reverts over the last 24 hours at one article he complains about, and none in the last 4 days at the other, with both actually improving remaining links. groupuscule can complain all he wants about my improving sources in the articles, but it generally hasn't been an issue with anyone, with a handful of exceptions that I have yet to pursue further. Third, I don't need consensus to remove links and improve links: as part of the cycle of editing, we discuss it at talk if there's a continuing issue. We have policies and guidelines for external links, and groupuscule, as I have told him numerous times, is free to discuss any issues he has with them at the talk page. Conversation is ongoing at both pages, as it should be. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2.102.186.231 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: No action)

    Page: Talk:Chelsea Manning (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2.102.186.231 (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. [16]
    2. [17]
    3. [18]
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

    Comments:
    I believe this is an IP hopper as i have seen a similar IP a few days earlier. Also note it violates WP:CANVASS which state that "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title" Pass a Method talk 21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No need to give me a warning. You also made three reverts, though I feel no need to defend myself. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This dispute doesn't even show up in the last 200 edits of the talk page, so it's rapidly disappearing into the rear view mirror. Nonetheless User:Pass a Method's removal of text from a talk post by User:Obiwankenobi on the grounds of WP:CANVASS violation appears to have weak justification. The IP was reverting Pass a Method's edit to restore the original text that Obiwankenobi had posted. I suggest this be closed with no action. If 3RR had been broken (even on a talk page) I'd still recommend a block, but we only see three reverts reported. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:149.254.181.198 reported by User:Thelmadatter (Result:no violation )

    Page: Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 149.254.181.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 81.100.242.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [20]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [21]
    2. [22]
    3. [23]
    4. [24]
    5. [25]
    6. [26]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:81.100.242.0

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

    Comments:
    Thelmadatter (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gjtitjg reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Indef)

    Page
    Mohonk Mountain House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Gjtitjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570900349 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
    2. 04:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570901145 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
    3. 04:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Block this trolling vandal"
    4. 04:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Another stupid trolling vandal"
    5. 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "A stupid bot, third stupid trolling vandal"
    6. 04:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Please block all 3 vandals"
    7. 04:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "PLEASE stop ALL 3 asshoIe vandals."
    8. 04:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "PLEASE BLOCK ALL 3 vandals, it is VERY ANNOYING!"
    9. 04:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "PLEASE block all 3 n!ggar annoying vandals."
    10. 05:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Im going to have to warn the last vandal."
    11. 05:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Stop it you n!ggar."
    12. 05:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570903765 by Loriendrew (talk)"
    13. 05:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570903982 by Loriendrew (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Long term pattern of vandalism on Mohonk Mountain House. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User evading blocks (Fruugirt, Casason), persistent vandalism despite warning, using inappropriate language. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 05:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest to postpone a discussion because I just gave him to read a page on the 3-revert-rule.--Mishae (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Czixhc reported by User:Tobus2 (Result:no violation )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [27]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [28]
    2. [29]
    3. [30]

    Also (same change to other pages):

    1. [31]
    2. [32]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

    Comments:
    User:Czixhc has been arguing for acceptance of a map he added to Human skin colour for about 6 weeks and is now starting to add it to other pages despite it's verifiability still being under discussion. The map was removed on 20th July and he reverted 4 removals by 2 different editors (not myself) [35], [36], [37] and [38] and was warned for 3RR on 24th July[39]. Removal was again reverted 3 days later by User:Undress_006 (friend?/sock?) [40] and by IP's (142.166.x.x) over the next 2 weeks [41], [42], [43], [44].

    Discussion on the talk page started immediately after the first reverts and has been continuing (for better or worse) ever since. About a week ago Czixhc reverted twice again [45], [46] and then started talking about using the map on other pages[47]. Two days ago, in between posts to the talk page, he added the map to International migration[48] and has reverted it's removal three times [49], [50] and [51] in just under 7 hours. This afternoon it looks like he got frustrated that I didn't reply to his post within 2 hours[52] and added the map to two further pages, Immigration to Argentina[53] and French Uruguayan[54]. He has yet to break 3RR but I am concerned this is escalating into a multipage edit war and is better stopped sooner than later. Tobus2 (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies, I thought this was the place to report edit warring as well as 3RR violations. Can you please point me to the place this should be reported. Tobus2 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the right place to report both edit warring and breaches of WP:3RR. Another way of looking at Katie's comment is that you are as guilty of edit warring as the editor you reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits were restoring the status quo which I thought was in line with WP:Revert, but ultimately I agree, it's not OK to be reverting the same content on several pages several times a day which is why I'm seeking some sort of intervention here. Tobus2 (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that i was found innocent in this, but there are some things that i'd like to clarify: 1-I've brought evidence that backs the map up (and that eveidence comes from the Oxford Brookes University, a very serious institution) while tobus hasn't brought any during all this time, according to the burden of proof: "The burden of proof is the obligation resting on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position. He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the Presumption of innocence, passing the burden of proof off to another party." This is why i'm adding it. because Tobus hasn't brought any evidence (on the 6 weeks that this discussion have lasted) that supports his point of the map being unreliable, in fact the only reason for which he keeps removing it is because he haven't textually admited it as reliable. I also must remark that Tobus intentionally reported me at a hour he knows that i'm not on wikipedia. Czixhc (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone interested can see the discussion on action and my sources here: [55]. Czixhc (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The map has a single self-published source which fails to meet Wikipedia:Verification#Self-published_sources.
    Czixhc has again reverted this morning[56] and [57]. My understanding is that when new material is being contested the page should stay at the status quo (ie without the contested material) until consensus is reached - from [WP:Reverting]: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.". If this is correct then I will again revert his changes and expect it to stay that way, if I've interpreted the policy wrongly I'll leave the pages as is until the matter is decided. Can somebody please clarify whether Czixhc's changes should stay up or down while we are resolving the issue? Tobus2 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lakdfhia reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Patton Oswalt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lakdfhia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    2. 05:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ reworded statement on racism, please no whitewashing of bigotry"
    3. 06:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "not generalization. is statement of fact. is not say he is racist, only has engaged in public racism. clear distinction."
    4. 06:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570908353 by NeilN (talk) is more source now"
    5. 06:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ is two source, vulgar whitewashers"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 06:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Patton Oswalt. using TW"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 05:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Racism charge */ new section"
    2. 06:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Racism charge */"
    3. 06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Racism charge */"
    Comments:

    User:Studiomusica reported by User:Kww (Result: 48h)

    Page: Wake Up (Youngblood Hawke album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Studiomusica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: 29 aug 2013 om 23:17

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 29 aug 2013 om 23:17
    2. 30 aug 2013 05:08‎
    3. 30 aug 2013 16:52
    4. 31 aug 2013 14:10
    5. 31 aug 2013 20:55

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

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

    Comments:
    I had previously blocked this editor as a sock of 3jz01bcs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but unblocked him when checkuser evidence didn't corroborate. I still think that's probably the case, but at this point I am too WP:INVOLVED to take further action.—Kww(talk) 21:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for 48 hours. Yes, the linkage between the two users does produce large amounts of quacking, but presumably the checkuser disparity means it's a meatpuppetry issue instead (or a technical way round CU). Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prestigiouzman reported by User:Dougweller (Result: )

    Page
    Irish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Prestigiouzman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 10:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid Obvious Censorship Attempt, Valid, Referenced, sound input"
    2. 13:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Go to anyone of the links on both the Righdamhna and Tanistry Pages,Second Censorship attempt undone"
    3. 14:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Repeated Censorship attempt of Valid,referenced input, Request pagelock"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Edit warring notice given to subject at 14:26 (UTC) by Snowded, response was to revert again. Edit warring across several articles reverted by at least 3 editors Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well in fact I've turned Righdamhna into redirect to Tanistry as it was just a dictionary definition, plus they went and duplicated List of High Kings of Ireland into it to bulk it up. Plus I noticed they've been sticking in distantly related links into a whole lot of see also's, they just shouldn't be included as at the level of relatedness a huge number of links would be included. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Atelerix reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 hours)

    Page
    Gilgit–Baltistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Atelerix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571090771 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
    2. 15:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571021294 by Qwyrxian (talk)"
    3. 01:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571010433 by Qwyrxian (talk)"
    4. 21:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC) ""
    5. [60]
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gilgit–Baltistan. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */ new section"
    Comments:

    User is continually changing the article from a sourced version to a very POV one which has no sources in it. He appears to be copy and pasting from an older version. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User has reverted again after this report, diff added. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jack Styler reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: )

    Page
    WikiLeaks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Jack Styler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Added information"
    2. 15:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Added information"
    4. 15:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Added current information to the end of the article"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on WikiLeaks. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Edit warring / vandalism on the WikiLeaks page after message and warning. Rhododendrites (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note. He's a new editor, and it doesn't look like vandalism to me, more likely incompetence. You haven't even tried to talk to him, just left warnings. Nor has Andy other than shouting at him in edit summaries. Also, the first diff in your list is not a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Andy did also leave him a message, brief as it may have been, before my warning. What would best practices be for such a situation, when someone (new or not) doesn't seem to check the usertalk or edit summaries but nonetheless keeps on adding the same thing in the span of a short time? (Assuming a certain level of damage of the edits) rpp instead? --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There really wasn't any damage as the article is under pending changes, so he couldn't consummate his edits. And being new makes a difference. If an experienced user is making absurd changes, it's less important to talk to them. If it's a content dispute, there should always be discussion. RFPP is intended for vandalism, and this isn't vandalism, and all RFPP could do would be to alter the article to semi-protection, which seems a waste of energy and not really warranted. You're right about Andy. He did leave a message (I mistook it for a warning). And Jack tried again to add the material after that message. I've left a second message on Jack's talk page. If he doesn't respond and continues to attempt to edit disruptively, you can update this report or contact me on my talk page if I'm on-wiki. I put the article on my watchlist, but I'm not checking in as much as I normally do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point. I had forgotten the changes were pending, which makes a difference. Where I wasn't clear is with the case of repeatedly inserted direct edits -- which, while not really vandalism, are nonetheless problematic -- without reading summaries/talk pages. Seems after several back and forth a noticeboard is the only other way lest risking 3RR oneself. Regardless, it's true in this case it wasn't necessary. Thanks for checking into it. --Rhododendrites (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:178.109.150.75 reported by User:EuroCarGT (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Talk:Myanmar (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    178.109.150.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    2. 21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    3. 21:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    4. 21:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    5. 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    6. 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    7. 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    8. 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    9. 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    10. 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    11. 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    12. 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    13. 21:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    14. 21:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    15. 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    16. 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    17. 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    18. 21:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    19. 21:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    20. 20:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    21. 20:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    22. 20:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    23. 20:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    24. 20:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    25. 20:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    26. 20:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    27. 20:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    28. 20:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
    29. 20:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC) ""
    30. 20:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571128834 by Smsarmad (talk)"
    31. 20:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 20:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 178.109.150.75 (talk) to last revision by Lugia2453 (HG)"
    Comments:

    Vandalism, reverting many edits multiple times, using bad words, disruptive editing and lots more. ///EuroCarGT 21:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - User blocked for vandalism. ///EuroCarGT 21:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crème3.14159 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )

    Page
    Partition of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Crème3.14159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Aftermath */"
    2. 05:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not allow self-published sources. So, please refrain from adding them."
    3. 23:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC) ""
    4. 21:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "70.76.85.36 and Fowler&Fowler, please build consensus on the talk page and don't start a revert war. Thanks."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    24 Aug, 1 Sept, 2 Sept
    The warning was served by TitoDutta after I undid his two reverts on the Asaram Bapu page; it is not related to the page in question here. He has been trying hard to sanitize the page, redacting criminal allegations as much as he can and it was him who started reverts without any satisfactory explanation. There is a discussion with Jimmy Wales on the BLP Noticeboard regarding this.--70.76.85.36 (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Edit warring after multiple warnings and doing the last revert 30 minutes outside the 24 hours bracket. --SMS Talk 03:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @2nd diff: Merely following what somebody MrOllie did here: [61] --Crème3.14159 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not do more than three reverts within 24 hours since one of the edits reported above was simply deleting a lulu.com link that a user has been repeatedly adding. MrOllie had done the exact same thing there before.[62] So, I assumed it was okay to remove a lulu.com link. --70.76.85.36 (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=571180613"