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 Jeromesandilanico (talk | contribs) at 16:03, 23 December 2013 (→‎User:Jeromesandilanico reported by User:Useddenim (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:65.95.122.31 reported by User:Bill william compton (Result: stale)

    Page
    India–United Kingdom relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    65.95.122.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    I would have discussed the matter on the talk page but this IP seems to have already made up their mind that "[E]nglish people do not want to accept their responsibilities [during the British Raj]". Their edits clearly violate neutral point of view policy. — Bill william comptonTalk 16:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note. I agree the edits are disruptive but speculation about the outcome of a discussion is no reason not to attempt it. Also, with your experience at Wikipedia, you would think that you would notice that your report here is malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not looking for any kind of action to be taken against the IP, but rather an involvement of other user who could help them understand. Maybe, I haven't chosen the right platform. — Bill william comptonTalk 05:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Desildorf reported by User:212.186.170.67 (Result: No violation)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    212.186.170.67 (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    Note - f.w.i.w. I have inserted a section header for this obviously malformed entry. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been reported for persistently removing the following reference

    "The American Temperament Test Society conducts tests every year on thousands of dogs to determine the soundness of their temperament. These tests measure various aspects of temperament such as aggressiveness, friendliness, stability, as well as the dog’s protectiveness toward its owner. ATTS breed statistics show that American Staffordshire Terriers consistently score above average for all breeds tested."

    From the ATTS description of there test " Aggression here is checked against the breed standard and the dog’s training. A schutzhund trained dog lunging at the stranger is allowed, but if an untrained Siberian husky does the same, it may fail."[1].

    As I'm sure you can see comparing between breeds is absolutely misleading as each breed is held to a different standard. The current article has gone through inconclusive dispute resolution that has not addressed this issue.

    Thank you.

    User:New.era.player reported by User:Airborne84 (Result: blocked for 36 hours)

    Page: United States Army Rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: New.era.player (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [2]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [3]
    2. [4]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

    Comments:
    The article version before a significant POV article change by New.era.player was the result of long discussions and consensus (see lengthy discussions on article talk page). User New.Era.Player made Bold changes, which I reverted to the consensus version and invited discussion on the talk page IAW WP:BRD. Response was to revert back to non-consensus version. I reverted again and warned the user, and the response was simply to re-revert. I decided to not get into an edit war and report here at that point. Another user NiteShift is trying to make a non-related edit which is not related to the consensus material. Thanks for your attention. Airborne84 (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Added note: there is a FAQ on the talk page [7] which more concisely illustrates the existing consensus. I don't think New.era.player has visited the talk page or the FAQ, but it may be useful for an admin. Airborne84 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 36 hours - normally I would not block with so few reverts; but their comments attached to the reverts, as well as their comments on subsequent formatting cleanups, makes clear that they have no interest in discussion and were displaying ownership and edit warring behavior. Hopefully the block will get their attention so that they will choose to discuss their concerns with the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ripanm reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Penn State child sex abuse scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ripanm (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. [8]
    2. [9]
    3. [10]
    4. [11]

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

    Comments:This editor is edit-warring across multiple articles to change references to the "Penn State child abuse sex scandal" to the "Jerry Sandusky child abuse sex scandal." Several editors have reverted his or her edits and placed warnings on his or her talk page to no avail. This issue has been discussed extensively in the Talk page of the main article; he or she is welcome to raise the issue again or contribute new information but edit warring against consensus to force the issue is unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified Ripanm that their conduct is being discussed here. Acroterion (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I overlooked that (although I'm puzzled that we still require this with the new notification system). I apologize, Ripanm. ElKevbo (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User did not notify me of this report. I received one warning after this report from an outside source. I will let name change go, but ElKevbo is removing information I have added that is pertinent to the article. Ripanm (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You were warned before your most recent edit by me [13], and you were warned as an IP [14] about your edits at Graham Spanier, which have continued with this account. Acroterion (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't see the warning from the IP -- I've been signed in since then. My most recent edit had information from hours' worth of work added into it. If you want me to change the name back, fine, but the information belongs there. Ripanm (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read WP:EDITWAR: you don't get to edit-war against consensus just because you think you're right, Several editors have expressed concern about your edits. You need to be willing to convince other editors that you're right, not to try to force your preferred version. This noticeboard is for discussion of editor conduct, not for content debate: please use the article talkpage to make your case for content. Acroterion (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The complaints are about changing the name & that is the only concern. Case in point -- the only edits I made on Graham Spanier that were reverted back is the name "Penn State child sex abuse scandal". Ripanm (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BigGameFish reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

    Page: The Upper Footage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BigGameFish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [16]
    2. [17]
    3. [18]
    4. [19]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]


    Comments:
    Long story short, yesterday I saw a review for an interesting film and decided to write an article about it. Shortly after it was created, User:BigGameFish created their account and began making a series of selective edits, all of which were to change the tone of the article to be more positive. His edits were reverted by several editors. Right now what he's doing is trying to add the official movie synopsis to the article, which I've tried to explain to him is copyvio from IMDb. I've asked him to re-write it or fill out a full synopsis. I did ask him if he had a COI, as his edits seemed promotional in nature, which he has denied. The reason I mention that is because BigGameFish has accused me of editing with bad intent here and on the article's edit summary. He's also accused me of being part of a group that is apparently bashing the film. Needless to say, I am not. I'm reporting him because BigGameFish does not seem to have any intent on workign with anyone. He's accused me of skewing the reception, as there are apparently more positive reviews than negative. I've asked him to supply these reviews and explained that not all reviews are usable per our WP:RS policy. He hasn't done that and his behaviors seem to be escalating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    As stated before the film in question has gotten overwhelmingly positive reviews, 8 out of 10 critics gave it positive reviews on IMDB, 2 our of 3 on Rotten Tomatoes, and 13 out of 16 overall. Tokyogirl admits to not seeing the film and has filled the page with inaccurate information that she has shown a very clear intent of keeping inaccurate. The post is skewed to make the film's reception look much worse than it is, there is nothing mixed about 13 positive to 3 negative reviews. 92% fan response on Rotten Tomatoes. She put in marketing and plot details that are not true. I her section on film reception she picks 2 out of the 3 negative reviews to showcase while pulling an out of context statement from the worst positive review. I have been a supporter of the project for years and have seen people as herself try to discredit the film as it has angered a lot of media outlets because the production fooled them into thinking the film was real. It is clear as day as to what she is doing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGameFish (talk • contribs) 08:26, 20 December 2013‎

    • I'm reporting on the sources we can count as usable per WP:RS. The problem with the sources (I left a bigger explanation on the talk page) is that many of them are things such as the user ratings on IMDb and non-critic ratings on RT. We can't use those. Some of the sources added were blogs and the one source that might be usable (HorrorMovies.ca) is somewhat dodgy because we can't verify that it was a random review added or one by a staff member or at least edited and vetted by a staff member. If you can show proof for that, please do so. I also would like to add that accusing the negative reviews of being negative because they were duped is original research (WP:OR). We can't assume that they were negative because of that. Unless you have proof of that, you can't automatically say that they were because of that. We can't even say definitely that they were duped, as many outlets just report things verbatim as they receive them. A reporter reporting on something doesn't mean that the reporter believes something or shares a sentiment. That also falls into original research territory. The problem with stuff like that is because someone from one of those websites could turn around and sue the bejeebers out of us or at least make our life pretty miserable. I've seen it happen. Like I said on the talk page, if we were to have something along the lines of Jason Cole saying that the negative reviews were a result of them being unhappy over being fooled then we can use that as a response and include that. Otherwise it's OR and we can't use it. And again, I am not affiliated with any of the websites in any way, shape, or form. I have no reason to have edited the article to be positive or negative. Also, at no point does the article say that the reception is negative. I said that it was mixed and it is mixed. Even the more positive reviews still have a lot of criticisms about the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tokyo2001 reported by User:Nug (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    Page: Toivo Suursoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Tokyo2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 11:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 12:14, 18 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586620591 by H2ppyme (talk)")
    2. 12:28, 18 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586629934 by Sander Säde (talk)")
    3. 08:06, 19 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586744664 by Lipik (talk)")
    4. 14:08, 19 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586761866 by Jaan (talk)")
    5. 15:07, 19 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586790313 by Lipik (talk)")

    Page: Nikita Andreev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    1. 12:14, 18 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586620568 by H2ppyme (talk)")
    2. 12:28, 18 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586629891 by Sander Säde (talk)")
    3. 08:07, 19 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586744663 by Lipik (talk)")
    4. 14:10, 19 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586765062 by Lipik (talk)")
    5. 15:06, 19 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586790319 by Lipik (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Comments:

    Tokyo2001 has already been blocked twice for 72 hours for edit warring these same articles, in fact looking at his history he appears to be an SPA. --Nug (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saltlakecityjazz reported by User:Gagnon88 (Result: declined)

    Page
    Significant Other (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Saltlakecityjazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Significant Other. (TW)"
    2. 15:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Nookie (song). (TW)"
    3. 16:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC) "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Significant Other. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user account seems to exist for the sole purpose of introducing genre changes to heavy metal articles, especially Limp Bizkit related articles. I have given at least 2 warnings to the user on his talk page, and he was warned by another editor. I understand that the three revert rule has not been violated yet, but he has already introduced genre changes twice to several articles without taking the issue to talk (for instance Limp Bizkit, Significant Other and Nookie (song) ) and ignored every warning. Gagnon88 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor seems to have stopped for the moment, I will let it go for a while. Gagnon88 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:189.30.251.78 reported by Josh3580talk/hist (Result: Protected)

    Page: Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 189.30.251.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 17:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 17:07, 20 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586973753 by DrKiernan (talk)")
    2. 17:08, 20 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586972732 by DrKiernan (talk)")
    3. 17:33, 20 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586979838 by DrKiernan (talk)")
    4. 17:35, 20 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586980279 by DrKiernan (talk)")
    5. 17:38, 20 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586980539 by DrKiernan (talk)")
    6. 17:48, 20 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586981130 by DrKiernan (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Josh3580talk/hist 17:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Phailin1 reported by User:Ryūkotsusei (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Template:Metal Gear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Phailin1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to by others

    Template:Metal Gear: [21] [22]

    Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game): [23]


    Comments:

    Refusal to read guidelines[24] Multiple warnings given.[25] which only results in this behavior[26]. Along with pointy edits.[27], [28] « Ryūkotsusei » 19:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikidwarf123 reported by User:69.183.117.173 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Keith Neubert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wikidwarf123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: Rickyarconti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: 70.41.77.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Many

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [29]
    2. [30]
    3. [31]
    4. [32]
    5. [33]
    6. [34]
    7. [35]
    8. [36]
    9. [37]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: [39]

    Comments:

    User:Markedwalla reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: Semi-protected)

    Page: The Upper Footage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Markedwalla (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. [40]
    2. [41]
    3. [42]
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

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

    Comments:
    I'm reporting this along with a SPI here, as I believe that this is a sockpuppet of a user (User:BigGameFish) that was blocked yesterday for edit warring. Long story short, yesterday BigGameFish came onto the page to make selective edits to the page to re-add copyvio and to change the review section to make the reviews almost entirely positive. I explained the issue with sourcing from blogs and whatnot. Today two new users have come on and edited the page in a similar fashion, trying to change to a more positive review section. One user in particular (User:Markedwalla) is currently doing the edit warring, although User:BuckeyeSteve22 is editing in a similar fashion. The edit summary shows similar personal attacks against me. Part of the issue is that they want to quote one review from AICN as entirely positive when it wasn't, and they claimed that the words I used weren't in the review and they were. I tried to compromise by changing the review comment somewhat, but they're still edit warring.

    User:Sajjad Altaf reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No violation)

    Page
    Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Sajjad Altaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC) ""
    3. 16:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:76.69.116.46 reported by BlueMoonset (talk) (Result: Blocked)

    Page: A Katy or a Gaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 76.69.116.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 18:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 14:50, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 586076157 by BlueMoonset (talk)")
    2. 17:03, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587111181 by Discospinster (talk)")
    3. 18:09, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587115477 by BlueMoonset (talk)")
    4. 18:11, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587115477 by BlueMoonset (talk)")
    5. 19:25, 21 December 2013 (no edit summary given)
    • Diff of warning: here

    Comments:

    • This user, under this and several other IPs, has been attempting to add this Care Bears info—along with incorrect director and writer names—to this article and others, since early November. (November 9: 174.91.129.253; November 15 and 18: 174.95.201.175; December 7: 184.148.91.202; and now December 21: 76.69.116.46).

    —BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ajh1492 reported by User:Estlandia (Result: Blocked)

    Page: United Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ajh1492 (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]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned today for OR violations [49]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50] (explanation why the user's edits are OR and unacceptable); warning the user concerned for OR violations [51] (to no avail)

    Comments:


    Whilst not formally violating the 3 RR yet, endlessly edit warring on an article to introduce his original research/synthesis that this is somehow a 'progressive conservative party. I've explained numerous times that he would need RS for such a description, as the scarce Western sources available describe the party as hardcore conservative, even far-right. The very user who is now engaging in blatant OR POV pushing, removed such sources from the article a couple of days ago by edit warring [52], [53].
    This is a patent case of edit warring to push a particular POV into an article with ZERO sources supporting that view. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Another, related issue I resent is that just a day after I first had a dispute with that user, he/she started to follow my edits and revert me [54]. This constitutes stalking and harassment. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Estlandia reported by User:Ajh1492 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: United Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Estlandia (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. [55]
    2. [56]
    3. [57]

    Prior actions on the same article:

    1. [58]
    2. [59]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

    Prior attempt at resolving the dispute in the article talk page: [62]

    Comments:

    User:Estlandia has been conducting an edit war on the United Poland article twice over the last 4-5 days. Myself and a number of other editors have been attempting to resolve the issues, but Estlandia keeps pushing a POV opinion using unreliable opinion page sources. Uncivil and snide edit comments are given on his edits. Looking for Admin intervention please. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    See the section on the very user concerned above [63]. Whilst performing 3 reverts today, they were all removals of OR/SYNTH and as such lamentable but justified, given that the user concerned did not respond to warnings concerning posting OR into articles. See my explanation above. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not OR when one is merely linking to another EN:WP article (and a source) that describes the rest of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph was originally written by another editor. Estlandia has been conducting an ongoing edit war on this article even while two other uninvolved editors were helping to try and engage with Estlandia. The above referenced ANI[64] is merely a nuisance brought up by Estlandia to cover for his own edit warring. Estlandia is also leaving non-constructive edit comments such as:

    1. @ Ajh1492 - removing sourced stuff and replacing it with unsourced propaganda? Very constructive indeed!)
    2. Stop adding unsourced agitprop!
    3. General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on United Poland.
    4. Rv absurd edit. a 2000 (!!!) source for a party founded in 2012? .
    5. would like to see a source for that, though credible. some of the items like ban on pornography gave me good laugh to be honest :D
    6. please stop unjustified removals. taking an english course instead of wasting your time on edit warring might be an idea to consider, too

    They're a bit over the top. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as edit summaries are concerned, well, if you don't like to be opposed for OR pushing, then do not insert OR ad nauseam into articles. And adding a 2000 'source' when prompted to end a OR crusade for a party created in 2012 (!!!) is a way over the top, too, wouldn't you agree?Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Estlandia is also conducting another low-level edit war on BLP article Anna Sobecka. An ANI:BLP has been raised here [65]. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The two other editors attempting to resolve the discussion on United Poland are Lvivske and Volunteer Marek. Talk page discussion is available here [66]. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Barney the barney barney (Result: Warned)

    Page: Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Article is under 1RR sanction. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 1
    2. diff 2


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: at talk:Rupert Sheldrake#A modest proposal re: facts. There is a persistent attempt by various editors on the talk page to subvert WP:FRINGE on this article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw this was under 1RR protection after my second revert, but even so BLP explicitly allows such reverting in this sort of case. The statement in question is being supported by a book by Sheldrake where he does not say this and a book that makes no mention of Sheldrake. Per BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." Such removals are explicitly exempt from the policies on edit-warring. When an editor on the talk page noted the sources did not support this statement I noted this as the basis for removal and called on the editor to provide sources. Barney reverted with a completely meaningless edit summary that did not address the lack of sourced support for the statement and my second revert reiterated the lack of sourcing for the statement.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk · contribs) has explained why. I agree we need to use language carefully. What you suggest isn't particularly careful. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Josh's explanation is a classic case of interpreting a primary source in a manner that constitutes original research. Josh is personally saying that these things are facts and thus Sheldrake questioning them means it can be said that Sheldrake is questioning facts, even if this is not said in the source itself. The source, mind you, is Sheldrake's own book so this is reinterpreting Sheldrake's words the way Josh wants and then using that reinterpretation against Sheldrake.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's plain daft. Sheldrake doesn't say "I think others should question the law of conservation of energy", he says "I question the law of conservation of energy". Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is disputing that he questions or advocates questioning it and that part of the material was kept as anyone can plainly see. The issue is describing these things as "facts" as a way of saying "he is questioning the facts" and that is not supported by the source. When saying someone is "questioning facts" you are essentially accusing that person of denying reality. Using his own book, where he does not say this, to make this accusation is contrary to BLP.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well some people say some remarkably stupid things. The fact that he said this remarkably stupid thing doesn't mean we all have to pretend that he didn't say it because we don't like WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue, again, is not the article saying he questions conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices. He clearly does question those things in the book. Where we have a problem is inserting that he is "questioning facts" by doing this, because he does not characterize himself as questioning facts nor is a source provided that does say he is questioning facts. Sheldrake clearly describes himself as someone who is questioning long-standing scientific principles, but that is not the same thing. In fact, that seems like a decent middle-ground description.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this seems difficult for you to grasp, but just because Sheldrake doesn't call it a fact, doesn't mean it's not a fact. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue is that it is not up for editors to interpret what he said based on their own ideas, but should be based on what reliable sources say about his views. No reliable source was provided that made this claim.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaint

    Doesn't belong on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    So, where to begin... I wrote this article Art of Murder: Hunt for the Puppeteer on February 5, 2012 and decided to come back to it today just to discover that all my subsections were removed without explanation. I asked him on his talkpage to explain me the reason behind it with his reply was Standard. So, I went back and reinstated it but I brought him two arguments (which were legit) [67], [68], and on that he responded with complete removal of the plot (which constitutes vandalism) and wrote this: [69] Currently I reinstated it with an under construction tag as my copy editor is on a break. As that wasn't enough, he did the same with Art of Murder: Cards of Destiny But I afraid that he might remove the plot line again before anyone will copy edit it. I request a solution to the problem!--Mishae (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you explain what you mean by "my copy editor?" Are you associated with the game in any way? JodyB talk 20:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with removing almost all of the "plot" section. It's ridiculously long and goes into a totally inappropriate level of detail. Your preferred version of Art of Murder: Hunt for the Puppeteer has a plot summary section of 3000 words (!) - for comparison, the "plot" sections of Citizen Kane, To Kill a Mockingbird and Hamlet run to 560, 580 and 1300 words respectively. Mogism (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't. User Ironholds, a member of this project, have agreed to help me with copy editing but is on a break right now. Sorry for any confusion. As far as long plot, why anyone should remove it if it summarizes the article? If is too long, do some copy editing. I don't know how to do it, but removing the entire plot is, in fact, vandalism. Its as if I will remove the plot from say any of the James Bond films and put plot expansion tag instead!--Mishae (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuck me Bb, learn to use a comma mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No need for a comma, DS; they're overused, especially at Wikipedia. I'm surprised you didn't use a comma before Bb and another comma after comma. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bbb23: I guess because the OP is accusing the rest of Wikipedia of edit-warring with him to enforce WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. Sure, it's the wrong venue for a debate on the merits of extended plot descriptions, but it seems to me this is a situation where it's easier to explain why "someone keeps reverting my edits" isn't a synonym for "edit warring", than to direct him to have the exact same discussion somewhere else. (If "User Ironholds, a member of this project" gives any advice other than to quit making spurious accusations of edit-warring when people tell you how to write correctly, I'll be shocked.) Mogism (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I could post it on vandalism section then if its nothing to do with edit wars, considering the vandalic actions from his side.--Mishae (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, too late, you already posted at AIV. You were told to take it to WP:ANI (contrary to your response there, that's not this board). I haven't looked at the merits of any of this, but my guess is you won't do well at any administrative noticeboard. After over 50,000 edits at Wikipedia, how can you possibly think that what you're reporting is vandalism? Don't you even glance at the noticeboard instructions before launching into a report? I'm shutting this down here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (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:76.64.17.49 and User:62.200.73.61 reported by Armbrust The Homunculus (Result: both blocked 24 hours)

    Page: World number 1 male tennis player rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Users being reported: 76.64.17.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 62.200.73.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 22:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

    Edits by 76.64.17.49
    1. 21:03, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587141737 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    2. 21:05, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587142091 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    3. 21:07, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587142335 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    4. 21:10, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587142657 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    5. 21:14, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143130 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    6. 21:16, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143433 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    7. 21:18, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143657 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    8. 21:22, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143904 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    9. 21:24, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144134 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    10. 21:26, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144340 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    11. 21:27, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144589 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    12. 21:29, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144805 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    13. 21:34, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145072 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    14. 21:35, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145522 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    15. 21:38, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145784 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    16. 21:41, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145981 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    17. 21:43, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146433 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    18. 21:45, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146691 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    19. 21:50, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146993 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    20. 22:08, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "/* 1913–present */")
    21. 22:12, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "/* 1913–present */")
    22. 22:14, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587149774 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
    Edits by 62.200.73.61
    1. 21:05, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587141859 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    2. 21:07, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587142173 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    3. 21:09, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587142394 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    4. 21:13, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "")
    5. 21:16, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143252 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    6. 21:18, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143480 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    7. 21:20, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143705 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    8. 21:22, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144080 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    9. 21:24, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144302 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    10. 21:26, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144496 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    11. 21:28, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144673 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    12. 21:30, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144945 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    13. 21:35, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145411 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    14. 21:37, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145586 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    15. 21:39, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145892 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    16. 21:42, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146241 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    17. 21:45, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146498 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    18. 21:47, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146753 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    19. 21:53, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587147275 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    20. 22:12, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "")
    21. 22:16, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587149885 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
    22. 22:18, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587150174 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)")
    23. 22:19, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587150443 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)")
    24. 22:21, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 587150616 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)")

    —Armbrust The Homunculus 22:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.135.109.84 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)

    Page
    GIMP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    71.135.109.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 01:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC) to 01:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
      1. 01:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC) ""
      2. 01:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC) ""
    2. 05:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC) ""
    3. 08:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "It is incorrect (and very confusing) to refer to the GNU operating system by the name of one of its kernels. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Calling it GNU/Linux is already a compromise."
    4. 21:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Regardless of "consensus," it is inappropriate to refer to the operating system as "Linux", especially the GIMP, of all programs. GIMP is named after the GNU operating system, not after the kernel."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 06:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on GIMP. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Please see talk page for resolution initiatives Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thargor Orlando reported by CartoonDiablo (talk) (Result: Protected)

    Page: Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 15:14, 19 December 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 586600980 by VictorD7 (talk): Discussion is available at talk for those interested in defending their inclusion. (TW)")
    2. 13:35, 20 December 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 586797891 by Thargor Orlando: Restoring consensus version of article that has stood for nearly a year, removing ELs yet again due to policy and talk. (TW)")
    3. 19:51, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 586947691 by Thargor Orlando (talk): Rv. No consensus for any of these additions. Take it to talk, WP:BRD, etc. (TW)")
    4. 23:18, 21 December 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 587133627 by Thargor Orlando: Go to talk and explain why these need to be added. And stop with the tables, you haven't had consensus for almost a year for that. (TW)")


    —CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

    Comments:
    Large wanton removal of content despite objections from me and other editors. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not wanton removal at all. It's the WP:BRD process not being respected. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why are multiple editors telling you that it is your removal that is violating BRD? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean reverting my initial removal is. Regardless, I'm not having a content discussion here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:62.200.73.61 reported by User:Dreth (Result: blocked per report above)

    Page
    World number 1 male tennis player rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    62.200.73.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587151121 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)"
    2. 22:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587150838 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)"
    3. 22:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587150616 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)"
    4. 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587150443 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)"
    5. 22:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587150174 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)"
    6. 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587149885 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    7. 21:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587147275 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    8. 21:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587146753 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    9. 21:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587146498 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    10. 21:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587146241 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    11. 21:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587145892 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    12. 21:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587145586 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    13. 21:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587145411 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    14. 21:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587144945 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    15. 21:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587144673 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    16. 21:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587144496 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    17. 21:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587144302 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    18. 21:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587144080 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    19. 21:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587143705 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    20. 21:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587143480 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    21. 21:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587143252 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    22. 21:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587142394 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    23. 21:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587142173 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    24. 21:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587141859 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:Silver Wolf Voki reported by User:Surfer43 (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Gun (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Silver Wolf Voki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587011360 by 108.82.5.224 (talk)"
    2. 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587014602 by 108.82.5.224 (talk)"
    3. 22:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587015359 by 108.82.5.224 (talk)"
    4. 00:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587018581 by 108.82.5.224 (talk)"
    5. 01:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587162364 by DemocraticLuntz (talk)"
    6. 04:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Fuck you"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Gun (video game). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    He has moved on to vandalism and insults, see WP:AIV. Bluefist talk 04:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BullRangifer reported by User:Mallexikon (Result: no violation )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [71]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 1
    2. 2
    3. 3
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

    Comments:

    Incivility by Brangifer (profanity; accusations of vandalism): [74]

    --Mallexikon (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been no crossing of the 3RR bright line, and no profanity here. This is the second complaint needing WP:Boomerang treatment in the last few days from this user. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dougweller, hold on. Since when is "You've got to be f****g kidding!" no profanity? Since when is accusation of vandalism regarding a good faith edit acceptable? Why is Brangifers pattern of trying to intimidate other editors (like User:Herbxue at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine quite recently [75]) acceptable?
    And why is Roxy, who is usually applauding Brangifer (like here), the first to comment on this 3RR report, just as he was the first to comment on my recent AN/I report? And why was he so successful in preventing any feedback on that AN/I report? --Mallexikon (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the first to comment because of good fortune, and as regards preventing any feedback on that AN/I report, I'm not so vain as to think that I had anything to do with it at all. The reason was probably something to do with the unjustified complaint in the first place, much like this one. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This board only deals with editwarring, and your report should not have been made as the editor had only made 3 reverts before you warned him and then stopped. Note that it isn't warn and report, it's warn, if the editor makes another editor then report, even if the warning was after 4 or more reverts unless of course the editor clearly knows about 3RR. As for the rest of your complaints, ANI is as you should know the venue for them, although you won't get an editor blocked for simple profanity. Roxy has no power to prevent feedback, and you had feedback after Roxy posted from 2 other editors.[76] Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Why am I not surprised? I have to leave home for a few hours and come back to find this bogus report. Sheesh! There's some serious deception going on here. Mallexikon stated on the article talk page that they were going to delete a whole list of properly sourced content (even their edit summary noted that when they did it!). I noticed that comment about 8 minutes later and wrote a response, which took a few minutes. In the mean time, only one minute after they made the statement, they actually did it! That takes gall. We know that making any potentially controversial edit, especially deleting large amounts of properly sourced and very old content, should be discussed very thoroughly first.

    I immediately reverted them with a BRD warning. They didn't heed the warning and continued to delete. (That's edit warring.) I then restored the status quo version with another warning and also warned them on their talk page. To clearly label the section, I did use the words Edit warring/vandalism in my heading to catch Mallexikon's attention. They asked me: "Are you accusing me of vandalism?" I replied that I was not (yet they then lie above, knowing my answer): "Only if you continue. Then it would be vandalism and edit warring. Anyone who saw such an edit would be justified in thinking it was vandalism, but I know your thinking and had seen your comment, so I knew your intention was not to vandalize, even if the effect was the same. It's also a question of motive , which is why I AGF (see my first comment above)."

    We have a clear case of deception, lack of competence, and fringe POV pushing. The lack of competence in this case is fourfold:

    1. failure to understand when to report edit warring;
    2. gaming the system by doing it;
    3. failure to follow BRD after being warned;
    4. misuse and failure to understand MEDRS by seeking to apply MEDRS to content which is not covered by MEDRS at Acupuncture, and failing to apply it properly to content that is covered at German acupuncture trials. This is a fringe POV pusher's very selective misuse of MEDRS to seek to delete mainstream, skeptical, opposing POV from Acupuncture, and to include primary scientific research (a violation of MEDRS) which seems to weakly support acupuncture (a fringe POV) in the German acupuncture trials article.

    Boomerang does apply here, and with consequences. Mallexikon is no longer new here and knows better. They are obviously here to push a fringe POV, delete or water down properly sourced mainstream POV, and do it deceptively. This editor needs to be sanctioned and topic banned from all alternative medicine topics. They are WP:NOTHERE. This has been going on for far too long. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    BR I think you go way too far here. Mallexikon is a responsible editor.Herbxue (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And this new discussion belongs elsewhere, maybe ANI or AN. Having it here really won't have any effect. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Morganmissen reported by User:Reddogsix (Result: )

    Page
    Neetzan Zimmerman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Morganmissen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    See talk page.

    Comments:

    The editor has added inappropriate maintenance tags in violation of WP:WAR. The editor has been warned in this article and another concerning warring and appears to understand the concept and limitations set by 3R.(See [83]) The maintenance tags are inappropriate and that has been pointed out to the editor; however, she fails to grasp the concept of secondary support. Her continued actions are making it increasingly difficult to WP:AGF. I would encourage the reviewing admin to review the editor's other edits for some insight into this editor's actions. reddogsix (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note. Reddogsix, this looks like almost a private feud between you and Morganmissen. Although Morgan has edit-warred, they have not violated WP:3RR. The first edit was an addition. That was followed by four reverts, but the last revert was well outside of the 24-hour window. This spat between the two of you has spilled over into the Jessica Grose article and its AfD. I don't see how any of this is helping the project. Perhaps you should just seek a consensus about the tags. I realize that two editors favor removal of the tags, and only Morgan wants the tags, but one of the two authors is the creator of the article and might be a smidgen biased.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there. Apologies in advance for this poor use of resources. I'm not sure what Reddogsix means by "inappropriate." I cited and quoted multiple Wikipedia guidelines explaining the maintenance tags on the Talk page before Reddogsix reverted them without coherent clarification. I asked Reddogsix nicely not to revert the tags and mentioned warring several times, but this editor reverted them twice with an explanation contradictory to guidelines. I submitted an edit war warning to Reddoxsix. I received notification of this report in return. This seems to be personal for Reddogsix, as these reverts are in direct contradiction to exact maintenance tags Reddogsix put on an article I created a few days ago. Here is a very specific example:
    Search article Jessica Grose's history for the word "primary" to see where Reddogsix repeatedly adds maintenance tags insisting "There are multiple primary sources in the article" (referring to media interviews), then, despite improvements, nominates the article for deletion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Grose&action=history

    Now, see in article Neetzan Zimmerman's history where Reddogsix insists that this subject's media interviews (and subject's own LinkedIn profile!) are acceptable secondary sources, and the article should not have any maintenance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neetzan_Zimmerman&action=history

    I used the tags in the precise way--to the letter, including the in-line comments--that this editor did in the Jessica Grose article. As an aside, I'm new to Wikipedia and Reddogsix has made the past week a living nightmare. I feel extremely uncomfortable here, especially because I use my name to edit, and this editor makes reference to my gender (this editor may have an issue with female subjects and editors, here's another example from today on Kathy_Clark_(American_author): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reddogsix#you_could_go_a_little_easier_on_her ) While I appreciate Reddogsix's contribution to Wikipedia, I feel that this experience is closer to harassment than collaboration. Morganmissen (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying that I have not violated WP:3RR. Like I said, I am new to Wikipedia and this is very confusing, especially because I did not receive a warning, and was not the one to revert edits. I'd really just like Reddogsix to leave me alone. Morganmissen (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Morganmissen, first, you should take a look at WP:TLDR. Your posts here and in other places are verbose. Second, I agree with User:Milowent that you "seem well versed in wikipedia lingo despite your very few edits". Here you plead that you are "new" but at the AfD you said, "Wikipedia guidelines are easy to understand, easy to find, and easy to follow!" I, a relatively experienced user, would never say such a thing except in jest. Yet, you toss around policies and guidelines as if you've been editing here for years. Third, you've provided no evidence of gender bias above. The links you provide are WP:COATRACKy. Don't accuse other editors of things like that unless you have solid evidence to back it up. Finally, Reddogsix may indeed leave you alone, but that's not what this is about. You're just as persistent, if not more so, than he is, and you have reverted far more times than he has. You have also failed to follow WP:BRD. You added the tags. Once an editor objected, you should not have reinserted them absent a consensus. None of this so far is blockable, but I think you should pull back a little.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologized above for this waste administrators' time, and I apologize again. Not sure what to make of being accused of being an expert Wikipedia user, but feel free to search my history and IP address if there is any doubt that I'm not new. I'm just trying to be a good editor. I didn't know about WP:BRD or I'd have surely followed it here. Regarding verbosity, I completely agree with you. I've just had be to extremely specific and cite Wikipedia guidelines in every interaction with Reddogsix for reasons like this; as even in doing so, this editor reported me without warning when no violation had occurred. I'd imagine anyone in my position would do the same. Morganmissen (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gsfelipe94 reported by User:The C of E (Result: Warned)

    Page: 2013 FIFA Club World Cup Final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [84]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [85]
    2. [86]
    3. [87]
    4. [88]
    5. [89]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

    Comments:
    Gsfelipe94 has been continuously reverting the number of substitutes on 2013 FIFA Club World Cup Final. I did point out to him that he was breaking the 3RR rule though he appeared to be unaware of it. I wasn't going to report him because of his inexperience but the fact he later reverted again which led to me filing this report. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I shared my opinion on the talk page and there were people that agreed at first. I reverted 2 edits before, yes. I wasn't aware of that rule and then I followed the procedure used for international tournaments, without reverting the edit. I added new info and then uploaded like that, while we were still discussing. I don't see an edit war here as it is still a discussion. I believe this report was something 100% rushed. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is considered a revert even if you dont hit revert-button but keeps inserting the same material and doing this after a warning should result in a block. QED237 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion has some interest behind it. I'm sure it would please you to see me blocked. Therefore, I see that we were still discussing the subject and I was following standard procedures. When I didn't do that in other situations, this guy over here complained like the world was ending and know he does the opposite of what I was doing. It's interesting. Well, I believe that we should keep it as a learning experience and I'm sure every part - and that includes everyone that gets involved later - will try to discuss it completely before moving the page from updates to updates. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned. Gsfelipe94, you violated WP:3RR. It was pointed out to you before you did it. Your discussion here and on the article talk page is not optimal. Nonetheless, I'm letting you off with a warning because you haven't restored your version of the article, a fair amount of time has elapsed, and you profess not to understand the policy. I suggest you read the policy carefully. If you edit-war again, even if you don't breach WP:3RR, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    23.241.10.115 reported by User:Zero0000 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Judea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and others)
    User being reported: 23.241.10.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [92]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [93] 06:08, 22 December 2013
    2. [94]
    3. [95]
    4. [96] 11:02, 22 December 2013‎

    I.e., four identical reverts within 5 hours

    In addition, I wish to highlight this editors offensive tone:

    1. "Reversing censorship by Islamic supremacist idiot"
    2. "Reverted vandalism and defamation by Islamic supremacist idiot"
    3. "rv Islamic supremacist disruption and censorship of facts due to Islamic anti-Semitic bigotry"
    4. "typical idiotic Wikipedia dumbass with Aspergers reverting as vandalism something he does not understand"
    5. "fuck off"

    The last was its response to a polite request to stop attacking editors.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

    Comments:
    This editor seems to have no redeeming features at all. Suggest indef. Zerotalk 14:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of one month. IPs should almost never be indeffed; some believe there are no circumstances in which an IP should be indeffed. This IP is editing from a confirmed proxy server, but not apparently from an open proxy. They have been editing since the beginning of this month, which is why I chose a month as the duration. I agree that the edits are completely disruptive. A longer block would be warranted if they return and edit in the same vein.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Batmansexy reported by User:XXN (Result:Blocked for 24 hours )

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    At least 7-8 reverts, by mine and other users, to Batmansexy's vandalism acts. He also reverted our actions.

    I notificated few times Batmansexy to stop doing this, but he continue to do "his job". This is a cross-wiki vandalism. On ro.wiki he was blocked 2 times (for 1 day, and for 1 week). I reported user at metawiki, but they haven't undertook any action, no response. XXN (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cryx88 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Template:Religion in South Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Cryx88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Mormons are not Christians"
    3. 12:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Mormons could not be characterised as Christians , mormons can't be named under no circumstances as a Christian denomination, its a mistake to call Mormons as Christians"
    4. 14:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Mormons are not Christians"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [98] and 3 months ago at User talk:Cryx88#Template:World Reformed Fellowship Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    Template talk:Religion in South Africa#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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

    Page
    UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Uhseere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587241084 by Richard BB (talk) "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is ""
    2. 15:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587235312 by Richard BB (talk)"
    3. 14:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587207388 by Emeraude (talk) READ THE REFERENCE; IT SAYS CENTRE-RIGHT."
    4. 07:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 587167059 by Bondegezou (talk) no reason given."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    [99]


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:Pk041 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 72 hours)

    User being reported: Pk041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Page: Rana (title) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:15, December 22, 2013
    2. 18:25, December 22, 2013
    3. 18:42, December 22, 2013

    Page: List of Rajputs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:30, December 22, 2013

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:13, December 22, 2013‎
    2. 14:29, December 22, 2013

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:11, December 22, 2013‎ (revert by IP 39.55.x.x)
    2. 14:28, December 22, 2013
    3. 14:33, December 22, 2013

    Diff of edit warring warning: 14:42, December 22, 2013


    Comments:

    Edit warring at multiple articles even after being warned. Pk041 was previously blocked for disruptive edits at caste/social group related articles. This time also he/she is edit warring in the same topic area. This is an edit warring report and I know about 3RR. -- SMS Talk 19:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Estlandia (Result: )

    Page: Christian Democratic Party (Chile) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Party for Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [100]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [101]
    2. [102]
    3. [103]
    4. [104]

    And here:

    1. [105]
    2. [106]
    3. [107]
    4. [108]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] (warned for blanking: [109])

    Endless edit warring against a number of users to include ORish stuff into political party infoboxes and to remove information already sourced (e.g. 3 RR violated also here: [110], [111], [112], [113]). Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114][reply]

    Comments:

    @Estlandia: His case against me doesn't make much sense... For instance, he wrote "If you really think party programmes are to be preferred to third party sources, you have no idea what WP:NPOV should look like.-".. But clearly, if you look at these examples; this (the Socialist Party) and this (the Party for Democracy) they clearly use official sources.. The former infobox on the Party for Democracy page did not make sense, for instance, how can a party be both social democratic, libertarian and liberalist? A reader who just wants to see which party is a member of the new coalition government of Chile (who won the election), will have no clue what kind of party Party for Democracy is. Secondly, its a member of Socialist International and Progressive Alliance, social democratic internationals.. So to simply it, I removed the rest and let Social democracy stand there alone. Another example, the Socialist Party officially opposes capitalism (and seeks to create a socialist society), but is clearly a social democratic party, so I made two sections;
    Claimed:
    Social democracy
    Official:
    Democratic socialism, Marxism and anti-capitalism (because the party principles and statutes says this).
    --TIAYN (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are very disruptive because you keep removing sources just based on your gut feeling like here [115] (I haven't edited the page). Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits at the Social Democratic Radical Party is again a simplification, but (I'l admit, I did not add sources).. But a party which proclaims adherence to socialism in its party constitution cannot by definition by centrist, and again, a party is either centre-left or centre-right unless a party explicitly states in the centre of national politics. This party is explicitly socialist, is a member of the centre-left Socialist International and espouses a centre-left ideology, social democracy... But again, the ideologies in the infobox are again directly taken from the party constitution, because the party explicitly states it supports humanism and radicalism , so this is a simplification measure, since its main ideology is Social Democracy and this is why the party has social democratic in its name and supports officially a vision of socialism... This is called common sense. --TIAYN (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that even AFTER having been reported here, the user continues edit warring, as evident from this revert [116]. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This will be my last argument (on the Party for Democracy page), what do you think readers most easily understand, version A) or version B)?
    A)
    Progressivism, left-libertarianism, social liberalism, libertarianism and reformism
    B)
    Social democracy
    • Having only social democracy is best (or Progressivism) for that matter. Libertarianism doesn't make sense, first since you can't be a social democrat, social liberal (who support certain state-ownership in the economy) and libertarianism who wants to abolish the state.. The party constitution clearly states that the party is only libertarian in the sense that it supports and defends democratic rights, but not libertarian in any other sense of the word. Therefore having libertarian there complicates matters more than it simplifies, and since the article doesn't have an ideology section, the article is unable to explain the readers how and why the party views itself as such. Therefore, for simplicity, calling it social democratic is first of all true, its a member of the Socialist International and Progressive Alliance, but also easy enough to understand. The infobox should pertain basic information, and not be too complex. Having five different ideologies complicate things (secondly, not all readers know what all or any of these ideologies mean).. Making it easier for the readers is my key goal. --TIAYN (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jeromesandilanico reported by User:Useddenim (Result: )

    User being reported: Jeromesandilanico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Page: Template:Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


    Previous version reverted to: [117]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [118] 03:03, 23 December 2013
    2. [119] 03:18, 23 December 2013
    3. [120] 03:55, 23 December 2013
    4. [121] 13:39, 23 December 2013

    Page: Template:Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Previous version reverted to: [122]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [123] 03:53, 23 December 2013
    2. [124] 13:38, 23 December 2013

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126]

    Comments:
    Jeromesandilanico seems to want to impose his own standards onto the Manilla MRT templates instead of following the WP:RDT conventions.

    Useddenim (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Useddenim failing to seek consensus first via the talk page before proceeding with his edit and instead insisted on his edits and edit warred. He even exhibited an arrogant behavior which should be avoided at all times.
    1. ^ American Temperament Test Society. "Description of the Temperament Test". Retrieved 20 December 2013.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=587388602"