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 Boris Godunov (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 26 February 2014 (→User:Boris Godunov reported by User:Jingiby (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:Farhoudk reported by User:Viewfinder (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.)

    Page: Mount Damavand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Farhoudk (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: [7] and several subsequent edits

    Comments:
    Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.

    I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)

    User:Le Grand Bleu reported by User:NeilN (Result:Blocked 31hr )

    Page
    Sami Jauhojärvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Le Grand Bleu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "Go to talk page if you want to explain your vandalism."
    2. 23:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism."
    3. 03:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Still waiting for explanations on talk page. Until then you two are vandals removing sourced info."
    4. 06:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Yet another vandal, removing sourced information without proper discussion."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sami Jauhojärvi. using TW"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ new section"
    Comments:

    Multiple editors reverted NeilN talk to me 06:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked ALL participants to go to talk page and explain WHY they're reverting my perfectly legitimate edit. The edit war instigator was a Finnish administrator Prolog who is in a conflict of interest since the article is about a Finnish Olympic athlete. I've asked him in the edit summary, I asked him on his page to stop the war and go to the talk page. I got no response other than threats of blocking. Same from NeilN - without any explanation he reverted my edit and went to complain here. MAYBE I'm wrong but isn't it more productive (and less time consuming) to go to the article's talk page and have a... talk? When done by an administrator, say, Prolog, it might even set a positive trend. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are reverting three different editors, classifying them as vandals. Clear edit summaries were provided and talk page discussion was opened. --NeilN talk to me 06:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summaries are not for discussing opinions. The talk page discussion was opened barely 20 minutes ago while the edit war started yesterday. People who remove legitimate information or add rubbish are called vandals. Even if there are three of them, they still are just that - vandals. Threats of blocking by an administrator to another user in a situation of conflict of interest is severe abuse of administrator's rights. Are you ready to call off the war and start talking now? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Get consensus for your addition as you don't have it so far. Until then, leave the contentious material out. You might want to cool off a bit more as your edits still echo of this. --NeilN talk to me 06:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's not contentious material. It's sourced information included in another article where it was not contended. It's bare facts, nothing else as explained on the talk page. If you don't like it, that's YOUR problem. So far I haven't seen ONE good reason why it shouldn't be included. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fifth revert on a BLP. --NeilN talk to me 06:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    NeilN chose to continue the war instead of having a proper discussion and listening to the opponent. I'm leaving this up to the admins. I refuse to deal with bullies. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've protected the page due to the edit war, and recommend that all the involved editors discuss the article on the talk page in the intervening 4 days to reach a consensus. I would also like to remind everyone to stay Civil and avoid Personal Attacks, vandalism is by definition a deliberate attempt to undermine Wikipedia, good faith edits (even in an edit war) are generally not vandalism and accusations such as that undermine discussion and make reaching a productive consensus considerably harder. Best, Mifter (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose reverting good faith and sourced edits just because someone doesn't like it doesn't undermine the discussion? Not going to talk to these two. They are hostile, selfish, counter productive and generally detrimental to WP. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One would think Le Grand Bleu is speaking of himself. He has been calling other editors vandals, and he is the one edit-warring (he's been reverted by four other editors), he is the one refusing to discuss (see above), nonetheless he calls for people stop making ad hominem attacks, stop edit-warring, and start discussing, he is hostile, selfish, etc. I welcome anyone that might stray here to check LGB's contributions, especially to this discussions. Black is white, and white is black, it seems. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I checked LGB's alternative account, BadaBoom, and it appears that he is Russian. Considering that he has accused one of the reverting editors, User:Prolog (who is Finnish), for having a conflict of interest (Jauhojärvi is also Finnish), it's no big surprise to note that the silver medalist in the race involving the controversy, and who was also affected by Jauyhojärvi's infraction, is – you guessed it – Russian. Fits the pattern above: LGB accuses others of doing exactly what he does himself. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    LGB's block log on the Russian Wikipedia is quite telling; edit warring, disruptive editing, incivility and personal attacks. Prolog (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that there was a 3-1 consensus that LGB's edits were inappropriate, I think it would have been preferable to just deal with the problem editor. Someone might want to properly expand the article now while cross-country skiing and the Olympics are still in the news, and it's unlikely that anyone will join LGB's cause as the competition in question happened four days ago. Prolog (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you just suggest that a consensus discussion is a plurality vote? DP 12:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I tried to suggest that a rough consensus formed regarding LGB's addition, with first arguments and then even the head count being against it, so the user must have known how bad form his/her last two reverts were. Prolog (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Turdunamaki reported by User:Mohsen1248 (Result: Indeffed)

    Page: AVC Club Volleyball Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Turdunamaki (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. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:

    This user a sockpupput of User:پارسا آملی, I have already reported him here but it's a long process and I don't know when they will consider it. and I'm already in edit war with him. you just can find it by checking the page history, there is no doubt he is the same person as he accepted it in his talk page by his usual personal attacks. Mohsen1248 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result:No violation )

    Page
    Arya (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* As actor */ no source no matter how reliable can verify an event as happening in the future"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC) to 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
      1. 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596803697 by Editor 2050 (talk) WP:BURDEN"
      2. 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* As actor */ replacement of same sources that dont appropriately verify claims WP:BURDEN the subject cannot be the one verifying state of project due to COI"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    He keeps removing well-sourced content about upcoming events, due to his obsession with WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. He also keeps fighting with experienced editors. Evidence of his actions are available on his contributions page. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Luke, how do you explain his wars with users Krimuk90, Editor 2050, Sriram Vikram and all? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're talking about this article, then there is no 3RR violation, or even close. Two of those three editors had no involvement with the article you've linked to. Editor 2050 has tried to add poorly sourced, partially sourced, or completely unsourced information, some of which is OR; neither Meagamann nor Purampokku are confirmed as 2014 films, and WP:COMMONSENSE does not make including guesses a valid thing to do, least of all in a BLP. TRPOD should be commended for their fight against BLP violations (which adding improperly sourced information into a BLP classifies as), not dragged to AN3 for a clearly invalid case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can verify that he has started an edit war on Zombie, calling a serious phobia a "joke."
    Curiouscrab0 | talk | contribs
    23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    Please see [8] for Curiouscrab0's idea of a WP:MEDRS. TRPOD's talk page may be filled with complaints, but the other editors lack clue about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 23:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, forget his article edits. But he has been fighting with many experienced editors such as those I mentioned here for seemingly no reason, especially Krimuk90 — who is an excellent editor, having written many GA's and three FA's in the past few years. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are allowed to disagree with other. If Krimuk90 thinks TRPOD's are disruptive, he knows what avenues to follow. --NeilN talk to me 05:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Atotalstranger reported by User:Cassianto (Result:Page protected )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [9]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [10]
    2. [11]
    3. [12]
    4. [13]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Comments:
    This user is reverting, despite being invited into a discussion on the talk page. He has clearly breached 3rr now and has deleted my warning asking him not to revert any more. Cassianto (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll comment that this user has been blocked for edit warring before (Sept 2013). Those notifications and warnings were also deleted from his talk page at the time. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Massyparcer reported by User:IJBall (Result: )

    Page: Seoul Metropolitan Subway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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


    Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 15:59, 23 February 2014


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Revision as of 22:17, 23 February 2014
    2. Revision as of 22:38, 23 February 2014
    3. Revision as of 23:24, 23 February 2014
    4. Revision as of 23:45, 24 February 2014


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: at 23:42, 23 February 2014


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

    Yes - User:BsBsBs did attempt to resolve this issue at the Talk page of Seoul Metropolitan Subway.

    Note: That I am an interested third-party, not directly involved in this current Edit War.


    Comments:

    The edit at Seoul Metropolitan Subway was reverted a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot. The user is gaming the system, especially considering that, at 03:04, 24 February 2014, three hours after the third revert, the editor had declared his intent to continue the edit war.

    Previous to this edit warring, the account

    Thank you for your attention in this matter. --IJBall (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: I was about to file a report against this user as well based on IJBall's and BsBsBs's evidence (also as an uninvolved editor). Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Epicgenius is an involved editor who has just reverted without giving any edit summaries. User:BsBsBs has not attempted to resolve this issue - He only posted inappropriate content on the talk page which were irrelevant to the issue at hand. Admin User:BrownHairedGirl has already punished BsBsBs and me for edit warring to a 1RR on her talk page, so this is just recycled stuff. Also, I have no interest in portraying anything in any light and simply wish this encyclopedia to reflect the truth. If anything User:BsBsBs could be accused of the same trait if you look at that editor's contributions. Massyparcer (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way in which I was involved is in the sense that I was the text's original writer. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. You are the one who reverted it in the latest revert: [18] Massyparcer (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was reverting to the version beforehand because it had one source. Epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That source merely introduced Korail and had nothing to do with your claim of right-hand, left-hand track. You quoted Wikipedia articles as a source, which you shouldn't be doing as they're considered unreliable. Massyparcer (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how come it was on Korean Wikipedia? Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The Korean Wiki articles you quoted have no sources to begin with. Massyparcer (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, admin User:BrownHairedGirl has already punished BsBsBs and me for edit warring to a 1RR on her talk page, so this is nothing new. Massyparcer (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you were not punished. You were both warned that in future you would both be held to a WP:1RR rule. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a minute. I'm pretty sure you said "From now on you are one a 1-revert rule" - Which means you didn't just warn but already applied both me and BsBsBs to 1RR. Massyparcer (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: And now reverted for a 5th time (diff: [19]).

    Which is outside the 24 hour slot so doesn't even count if you haven't read WP:3RR. Massyparcer (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't have to be 24 hours. Even if the reverts are over a year apart, it's still a revert. Epicgenius (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you know that this is about 3RR violations and not about any old reverts. Massyparcer (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you know that WP:EW certainly can be about old reverts. For example, if someone tries to make the same edit once a month every month, that's long-term edit-warring and can lead to a block. ES&L 12:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Just for your information, the revert he is talking about is about a new one made after the 4th revert. The fourth one was outside the 24 hour slot, although I suppose close enough for people to claim that I'm "gaming" the rules. User:BsBsBs has kindly resolved this issue by removing Epicgenius' unsourced claims, so I consider this settled at this point. Massyparcer (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Srnec reported by User:EeuHP (Result:Stale)

    Pages: Petronilla of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    The user Srnec violated the rule of three reversals. He started an edit war with me when he changed an image that had been there since 2011 in the article Peter III of Aragon. In total, he made five changes. Nobody realized this. So I present this complaint.

    1. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]
    5. [24]

    But this wasn't the first time. In the article Petronilla of Aragon, war started when I disapproved a change made ​​by he a few months ago and Srnec also violated the rule.

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]
    4. [28]

    And I'm not the only person who had a discussion with him for his idea of put only images or things made during the life of the person in the "image" section. [29][30][31].--EeuHP (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    I could not report it before because I was locked one month. But the complaint is true, you can see the links. More of three reversals = violation of the rule. If no one made the complaint (as I asked) is my duty to do it.--EeuHP (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry, we're not talking about me now. And I haven't done anything wrong. I have returned the article to the previous version, before the discussion, and I have opened a space on the Talk Page to discuss and reach consensus. Nothing more. If that's bad, I don't know what is to be useful.--EeuHP (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale This is more stale than the slice of bread I found under the stove - and just as mouldy. User:EeuHP, you need to recognize that when you report someone, your actions also come under the microscope - and you were also failing to follow WP:DR. Please do not waste this board's time by posting month-old issues - this board is intend to stop current incidents of 3RR and EW violations DP 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. He did the same things than I.
    I was punished and he was free.
    Nobody wanted present the complaint when I asked.
    Now, I put the complaint but... is too old.
    Sorry, but I can't accept this arbitrariness.--EeuHP (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This board is here to stop CURRENT edit-wars and 3RR violations, not some old grudge where you're also as bad as the other person. I can block you both if you'd like. DP 01:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Srnec reported by User:EeuHP by violation of the three reversals (Result:Stale, still)

    Pages: Petronilla of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    The user Srnec violated the rule of three reversals. He started an edit war with me when he changed an image that had been there since 2011 in the article Peter III of Aragon. In total, he made five changes. Nobody realized this. So I present this complaint.

    1. [32]
    2. [33]
    3. [34]
    4. [35]
    5. [36]

    But this wasn't the first time. In the article Petronilla of Aragon, war started when I disapproved a change made ​​by he a few months ago and Srnec also violated the rule.

    1. [37]
    2. [38]
    3. [39]
    4. [40]

    And I'm not the only person who had a discussion with him for his idea of put only images or things made during the life of the person in the "image" section. [41][42][43].

    And in the rules don't say that the infractions have date of expire.--EeuHP (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Unbelievable. Two serious violations that cost me me a month and a week lockout ... invalidated by time.
    Do you know? During the Civil War, a Republican lawyer disappeared, two months later, he was found dead. He had been dead since the day he disappeared. After the war, his wife went to ask the widow's pension, but the ministry said no. Why? Because her husband had been expelled from his union because he had not paid the fees. What fees? The fees of the months that had been missing. She said he was dead then, but nothing.
    Your logic is the same. Two clear violations go unpunished again. Applause.--EeuHP (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your logic is ridiculous - probably in part because you believe blocks are PUNISHMENT for transgressions, which they're not. As you've been told more than once, a block is a PREVENTATIVE measure. Your combative beliefs will not last long, I'm afraid, if you keep them up DP 10:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.50.217.198 reported by User:Hooperag (Result: Protected)

    Page: Abbas Babaei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 70.50.217.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [44]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [45]
    2. [46]
    3. [47]
    4. [48]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [49]
    2. [50]

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

    Comments:

    The user; 70.50.217.198 is adding content to the article of Abbas Babaei which is deemed inappropriate for his article. The user is using strong opnion based passages from a book that label Mr. Abbas Babaei as "notorious" and "merciless" the user 70.50.217.198 claims this to be "factual" yet it is extremely objective and opinion based. Mr Abbas Babaei (of whom the article is written about) was killed roughly 25 years ago during the Iran-Iraq war he is considered a hero by many and deeply respected by many. His family is still alive including his wife, sons, and daughter. Such as passage as the one by 70.50.217.198 is not appropriate in the article of someone who has lived in the very recent past.
    Additionally the user 70.50.217.198 has acted very impulsively and in an improper manner for a Wikipedia editor to do so. He has also added comments that reek of racism or annoyance based on my beliefs. This can be seen on ym talk page where at the end of his post to me he say ALLAHU AKBAER, this comment of his has hurt me and reeks of religious intolerance towards me.
    I therefore request the user 70.50.217.198 be blocked from further engaging in Wikipedia or its articles.
    Thank you,
    Hooperag (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) By my lazy counting, Hooperag is at 7RR over a maximum of 48 hours, and the IP is just as bad if not worse. Suggest blocking both and semi-protecting the article for a few weeks, and I will ask the milhist project to opine on the extent to which the book should be used as a source here and/or supports any of the statements made. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a good time for either party to promise to stop warring. In this way they might be able to avoid a block. Hooperag is trying to restore glorious patriotic verbiage to the article, such as "He is considered as a great martyr within Iran for his unending sacrifices and contributions during the Iran-Iraq War." The IP, while removing the inappropriate material, is adding a negative claim about the subject of the article that would require a very good reference ("notorious" and "merciless"). EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have stopped warring, and will not engage in further conflict with the IP address. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2009 and have built up a decent reputation. In fact as of yesterday I stopped warring, and will not do so again in the future. Must I point out though that that IP address was blocked a few days ago for similar behavior and I do caution Wikipedia to watch the IP address and recognize that the IP address is behaving aggressively. I agree with Demiurge1000, the article should be semi protected for a few days until things calm down.
    I apologize for aggressive behavior committed by me, and pledge to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines from now on. Hooperag (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm the IP and I'd like to put Hooperag's sanctimonious contribution in perspective. My addition to the article is by Tom Cooper, one the foremost western (meaning non-biased) experts on the Iran-Iraq air war. The quoted text comes directly from his contribution to the excellent and voluminous Osprey book series: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat by Tom Cooper & Farzad Bishop, 2004, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, p. 23, ISBN 1 84176 787 5. I'd like to add the the reference to Abbas Babaei in his work is the only one I can find in ANY western (read non-biased) source. Finally, please consult earlier versions of the article and compare them to the text on this fanboy memorial site (http://babaei.shahidblog.com/about/#bio) and you will find it reads exactly and is identical. Hooperag PLAGIARIZED the whole poorly written thing. The only reason it reads in remotely well written English is because I corrected the errors. Of course, your mileage may vary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.217.198 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected – One week. Use the talk page to get agreement on the disputed items. If the war resumes after that, blocks are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What... do you expect them to issue an arrest warrant for me? It's one thing if you have a problem with my edits, but what's your problem with me?
    Hooperag (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What about the plagiarism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.217.198 (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have submitted a proposal on the articles talk page to resolve the issue, my proposal can be seen in the following link [[52]], I hope the issue is resolved.
    Hooperag (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    User:94.46.3.195 reported by User:Tiller54 (Result:Blocked 24hr )

    Page: Godfrey Bloom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 94.46.3.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [53]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [54]
    2. [55]
    3. [56]
    4. [57]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58] [59]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

    Comments:

    Tiller54 (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mohit Kumar Tripathi (Magic Mohit) reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Parineeti Chopra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mohit Kumar Tripathi (Magic Mohit) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 06:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 06:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Adding spam links on Parineeti Chopra. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Continuously adds www.parineetichopra.net to the article, even though it is clearly a fan site and not the actress' official site. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    OMICS Creations

    Some group editors doing syndicate editing ande redirecting films and movies page OMICS Creations to Scientific Publishing OMICS Publishing Group. CU is required and/or investigation required about these people who are representing as experts but behaving as culprits. This is a Preposterous activity at WP. I request sock poppet investigation and full protection for this article.Movieking007 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done WP:SPI is for CU's. WP:RFPP is for protection. Forum-shopping rarely works around here - this board has a specific purpose, and the above is not the purpose DP 10:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Movieking007 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

    Page: OMICS Creations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Movieking007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [61]
    2. [62]
    3. [63]
    4. [64]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:OMICS Creations and [66]

    Comments:

    Some group of editors doing syndicate editing and redirecting films and movies page OMICS Creations to Scientific Publishing OMICS Publishing Group. CU is required and/or investigation required about these people who are representing as experts but behaving as culprits. This is a Preposterous activity at WP. I request sock poppet/conflict of interest investigation on these syndicate editors.Movieking007 (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC) [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] Please investigate Movieking007 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ncnative556 reported by User:KnowledgeisGood88 (Result: )

    Page: High Point University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ncnative556 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Essentially the user being reported is repeatedly deleting factual information from a national publication (shown in the links below), and adding substantial promotional and "fawning" (as defined in wiki help pages) material that is not appropriate to a factual article. (The material being added is not so much shown in the links below, but can be seen on the article history in question.) Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [72] on 7 Nov 2013
    2. [73] on 10 Feb 2014
    3. [74] on 10 Feb 2014
    4. [75] on 21 Feb 2014
    5. [76] on 25 Feb 2014

    I adjusted the deletions above with these edits and comments:

    1. [77] on 10 Jan 2014
    2. [78] on 17 Feb 2014
    3. [79] on 21 Feb 2014
    4. [80] on 25 Feb 2014

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

    Comments:

    My concerns as to the posts and deletions of Ncnative556 are as I outlined on his/her talk page: there is a repeated process of adding fawning information and deleting less favorable but factual items which has the effect of making the article promotional and biased in favor of the subject, which is outside the scope of a reasonable wiki-style article. Editor has not responded to any requests to discuss, and continues the pattern of deleting critical material while adding fawning detail.

    KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2001:558:6025:32:8103:2990:EE5A:B96C reported by User:Quenhitran (Result: )

    Page
    Oz the Great and Powerful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2001:558:6025:32:8103:2990:EE5A:B96C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596452943 by Quenhitran (talk)"
    2. 09:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597198989 by Quenhitran (talk)"
    3. 11:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597201431 by Tickle192 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Oz the Great and Powerful. (TW)"
    2. 11:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Monaural to stereo and eventually surround sound */"
    Comments:

    Repeatedly revert to an old revision of the article which is being discussed. The user also made many unconstructive edits in other articles and ignore warnings (see his/her contributions). Quenhitran (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Boris Godunov reported by User:Jingiby (Result: )

    Page: Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Boris Godunov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [82]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [83]
    2. [84]
    3. [85]
    4. [86]
    5. [87]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

    Comments:
    An user, initially under IP:109.245.105.8, then with his real name Boris Godunov entered a huge amount of primary or outdated, predominantly Serbian sources on the talk page of the article Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. They were totally useless or/and biased and this addition was neither logical, nor provoked by action from another user, or helpful to the discussion. I have removed it and advised the User to stop this nonsense, however he began an edit-war and abused me here without reason. Jingiby (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not noncence or "usefull"!!!, this is valid documents which have role to help someone who wants to wright more about this article! So there is no reason to deleted it based on figure that someone which are from Bulgaria is not satisfied on valid international historical documents , which obviously are not "serbian" as this user whant to say. Thank you. His personal problems with obvious historical facts should not be relevant for enyclopedia.--Boris Godunov (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Anyway see his user page! Everyrthing will be obvious by photo there.[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=597224652"