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 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 14:38, 28 February 2014 (→User:Housefullofcards reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: 5 days): Closing). 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: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: [8]

    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: [10] 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: [11]).

    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: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: [12]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [13]
    2. [14]
    3. [15]
    4. [16]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [17]
    2. [18]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

    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 [[20]], I hope the issue is resolved.
    Hooperag (talk) 03:49, 26 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. [21]
    2. [22]
    3. [23]
    4. [24]

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

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:OMICS Creations and [26]

    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) [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Please investigate Movieking007 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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. [32] on 7 Nov 2013
    2. [33] on 10 Feb 2014
    3. [34] on 10 Feb 2014
    4. [35] on 21 Feb 2014
    5. [36] on 25 Feb 2014

    I adjusted the deletions above with these edits and comments:

    1. [37] on 10 Jan 2014
    2. [38] on 17 Feb 2014
    3. [39] on 21 Feb 2014
    4. [40] on 25 Feb 2014

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

    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: Blocked for 3 days)

    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: [42]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [43]
    2. [44]
    3. [45]
    4. [46]
    5. [47]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

    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]


    User:210.195.81.131 reported by User:AngusWOOF (Result: )

    Page: List of A Town Where You Live chapters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 210.195.81.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_A_Town_Where_You_Live_chapters&diff=597280415&oldid=594511875

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [50]
    2. [51]
    3. [52]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

    Comments:
    The user at IP:210.195.81.131 has posted release date for volume 27 without a URL. When I reverted the information multiple times, and replaced it with a proper source, he called me "retarded, dumb or just plain ignorant" and "stubborn" [54] and reverted the information again. This abuse has go to stop. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Wagon Train episodes (Result: Warned)

    Recently I created the List of Wagon Train episodes page. Afterwards I placed a peer review request on the talk page. One editor, Eclecticology added a guest star column to season one only. I do not think the article should have this. I prefer to have the list similar to such Featured lists as M*A*S*H, Smallville , Grey's Anatomy, and The X-Files. Eclecticology sent the following message too me:

    I disagree with your POV that key actors should not be included in episode lists. What has been done in the other articles that you cite is irrelevant to what happens on the Wagon Train. Adding this information is clearly useful since people watching these episodes will certainly be curious about where they have seen a particular actor before. Many of the TV productions from the time period of Wagon Train employed actors that were well known for other roles. Indeed, only one of those that I added had a red link. As for the role of IMDb, your opinion that it is unreliable does not translate broadly into making its information unusable in all circumstances. Some kinds of information on that site, particularly lists of credited cast taken from the presentations themselves, are generally reliable. I expect that you will stop making these "undue" changes to my edits. You do not own the article.

    No, I do not own the article; neither does Eclecticology. Wagon Train did indeed have high-profile guest stars but we are talking about a series that ran for eight seasons and aired a total of 285 episodes. I feel that adding this extra column will add too much to an article that is already quite long. Also I feel that guest stars should be added to future articles that would be devoted to one season each (i.e. Wagon Train (season one), Wagon Train (season two), etc.). However, each time I undue Eclecticology's changes he (or she) changes it back and adamantly states that his (or her) changes are right and rather brusquely berates me for being rude.

    I think a third party needs to step in at this point. Can anyone help? Jimknut (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    One can always have someone point out just what is and just what is not WP policy but let us look at the fundamental issue.

    Let us look at the fundamental justification of the reason for exclusion statement about an already existing article being too long. There has been a practice with WP that some articles that are perceived as too long should be broken into sections that better convey information for a particular point or effect. This is most evident with entertainment industry articles. There have been works of literature, songs, etc. that have been adapted into theatricals, then subsequently adapted into plays or movies. Do they all stay within the same article in WP? Of course not. Is information in an article about a particular entertainment production relegated to inclusion in WP within that originating article? Of, course not. Articles grow, split and divide into additional articles that they themselves grow, split and divide. There is a book from which an adaptation is made of a play or movie. If there is so much information about those subjects then it most probably gets divvied into that article which most appropriately should concern that aspect. Some entertainment industry articles are series because that is for what the information of that subject calls. A background actor certainly would be expected to be the subject of an entire article if their work was not sufficient for that purpose. Leave what information you have to a sentence in an article of that production. A noted actor certainly should have their life and career the subject of another article rather than leaving it to the production article. But if you never include information in an article merely because it is perceived as too long, then just where is it that the information will be included so that others are aware that maybe additional work needs to be done with that information? Some subjects in the entertainment industry field have an article on a series, articles on actors and crew, articles on particular projects that emerge through the creative process of a series. Is it a good idea to be put forth that information should be excluded because there is just too much? You say that you are not the owner of the article but do you recognize that by advocating the exclusion of information from the article very well controls what makes it into the article and WP? I am not saying that you are doing this surreptitiously but that is what is happening. WP does not encourage primary research yet it seems that a significant amount of information that we know about the films of the silent era come from those sources compiled by the entertainment industry in order for information to be known about their productions. Where else would besides primary records would this information be known? Only a fraction of that films were produced during the silent era exists and what published information from those sources deemed credible by WP is significantly smaller than what is available for the sound era. Wagon Train is a much different animal than the series' cited as an example of article content/style. I would venture to say that 99.99% of those people involved in the production of the Wagon Train are dead. The likelihood of publications by and about these people are very fleeting if people are not made aware of just who they are and what they have done.

    Well, I guess there is always the possibility of developing the article on the Wagon Train totally devoid of any mention of there being a totally different article about the guest actors on the Wagon Train if Eclecticology decides to do so if left out in the cold? But is that treatment beneficial to WP? No one is compelling you to start the compilation of the actors on the Wagon Train whether the actor had lines or not. In fact, the Wagon Train would not be the Wagon Train without it's actors. And for that particular time period in the television industry who was a lead actor or a guest actor, or who was not selected as a lead actor or despite being a popular actor never guest acted on the series very well may show a subtlety about just what behind-the-scenes or personal influences there may or may not have been in that production. Considering the role that the entertainment industry has had on society, many people do not recognize just how nuanced their lives have been shaped. How many people when five years old recognized that the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon was their level of participation in the Cold War? Personally, it was all lost on me every time we as kids were subjected to Borsch for dinner but at least it was countered by those many times when my friend Gary in elementary school would hand over his Baklava as if it were a peanut butter and jelly sandwich--Oh my mom makes it all the time.76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If your concern is more over how the message was worded then give me a shout and I'll direct you to some of the edit summaries that I have seen that are absolutely horrendous and inappropriate in a community that is voluntary. A quick look at the tables, just for the first season, would certainly show that if any where it would be there that those guest actors should be included. Linda Darnell, McDonald Carey, Dan Blocker etc. these are people on their own are remarkable people within the entertainment industry. Ask any person over the age of 50 who watched soap operas just who is MacDonald Carey and I would drop dead if they did not say that he was the head of the Horton Clan and considered such an icon of that industry that they still use his voice to introduce the show. His character children, character grandchildren and his character great-grandchildren have come and gone and his voice still lives on! If you are upset that the guy added the column only to the first year episode table, what does it take but a few minutes of cut and paste to finish it off. If there is a wiki policy to discourage guest star columns then maybe that policy should be reconsidered so that for those older shows (i.e. pre-1965ish) might have a different significance warranting a policy other than that of other television episodic guest acting appearances and thus dictate a different approach be considered. Hey, buddy. Cut your losses.A1Houseboy 20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Houseboy (talk • contribs)

    • Warned. Jimknut and Eclecticology, you both reverted three times, although the war is somewhat stale now. You are both warned that further disruption of the article may result in a block. Jimknut, next time read and follow the instructions on this page on how to file a report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gandon64 reported by User:Pol098 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: FRG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gandon64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597112965

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FRG&diff=597119997&oldid=597112965
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FRG&diff=597141351&oldid=597124001
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FRG&diff=597161856&oldid=597143181
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597268430

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gandon64&oldid=597304823 section "FRG again". (The Gandon64 Talk page was since edited, replacing my addition with a warning about me removing others' changes.)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FRG (the only section). Edit summaries have clearly explained reason and quoted detail from WP:DABABBREV.

    Comments:

    The substance of this issue is very simple: Gandon64 keeps adding the line below to the FRG article; the initialism "FRG" is not used in any article. This line has been inserted several times in the past, and others have deleted it, sometimes saying that they consider it spam.

    User:Etolpygo reported by User:Vzaak (Result: blocked 48 h)

    Page: Rosen Method Bodywork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Etolpygo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [55]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [56]
    2. [57]
    3. [58]
    4. [59]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60][61] (Previously exceeded 3RR, let it slide.)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

    Comments:

    • The reported editor is attempting dispute resolution, but has continued to revert since doing so. I'm the current DRN coordinator and have made an initial evaluation of the filing there and it will likely move forward if the other participants in the dispute choose to join in. I'm neither recommending nor implying any recommendation for any course of action here, just providing an update on the circumstances. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reported editor took this issue to dispute resolution without ever making an effort to discuss on the talk page. Furthermore there are at least four other active editors who have tried to engage with this editor previously without much success. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GadgetsGuy reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

    Page
    Samsung Galaxy S5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    GadgetsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GalaxyOptimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "logo fix, image removal due to questionable license"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Using multiple accounts on Samsung Galaxy S5. (TW)"
    2. 03:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Samsung Galaxy S5. (TW)"


    Comments:

    Only two reverts are listed, as the third is done under the username GalaxyOptimus (talk · contribs) (which he had, according to his talk page, changed from for violating the username policy). He constantly removes the image from the article, arguing that we can't use it under fair use because the source listed allegedly did not have rights to the image.

    He is also randomly tagging and removing other images from a Samsung Belgium Flickr profile which he thinks is flickrwashing based off a undisclosed "review", and literally removed an obviously user-created image for another Samsung article (as in, I don't think Samsung tablets ship with CyanogenMod by default) and requested OTRS. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some of Samsung Belgium's deleted images [64], [65], and [66]. So basically its Vipersnake that is causing an edit war. Plus removal of the cyanogen mod on the screen must be done as this should have a seperate license just as the touchwiz and stock ui does. Plus i am not using multiple accounts as I have renamed my account, there seems to be a problem though with integration into the new one. GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    CyanogenMod is stock Android, and its open source. But still, in the case of the S5 page, that's a fair use image either way. It does not matter whether the source listed had "authorization". ViperSnake151  Talk  04:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But according to OTRS rules, a user must prove that the image if licensed to himself must be proven by submitting the requirements. Plus what is your grudge against OTRS ticketing? If the image is his in the first place and the OTRS reviewer has proven it, then it would be restored. Like what I have said, i just nominated it and not deleted it as i am not an admin so the admin that deleted it may have deemed my observation right, Right? GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But the problem is that clearly its not a legitimate free-use. Basically your are just arguing that it is of free use just because it was unnoticed for a long time. There have been uploads before that has been licensed the same way as these images originally from samsung are and they are alll deleted as they are not allowed under the fair use license. It is even stated that "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" but there could be one in which a user could capture for himself the device (screen-off) and license it for free use or grab an author captured image on a article regarding the wiki article as long as it is licensed for free use by the original uploader on the source page. So to solve such, an review could deem it proper or not. GadgetsGuy (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This phone isn't even out yet and has only been presented at an event open to accredited press. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @John I am instead will be putting the s5 image on the Non free content review.GadgetsGuy (talk)
    I understand. For what it is worth I do not believe the image qualifies under fair use because a free image can easily be obtained. Nevertheless, there is nothing here that so clearly resembles vandalism to allow for an exemption of 3RR. Therefor, it is incumbent on both editors to resolve this matter through alternative means of dispute resolution. The best recourse will prevail in the end.—John Cline (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a link to the discussion GadgetsGuy mentioned above. It shows that both users are proceeding in good faith to resolve this matter as colleagues; in the manner that best serves Wikipedia interests. The mini edit war was not a deliberate act of disruption by either user, the disruption was of no consequence and minimal in duration, and they were both amenable to wp:dr suggestions as soon as they were offered. In this light, I believe this thread can be closed without action. I hope a neutral administrator will demonstrate concurrence by closing this matter as resolved.—John Cline (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rushton2010 reported by User:ERIDU-DREAMING (Result: )


    I made some minor changes on the 15th October 2013‎ to the Breadsall Priory article, which were reverted by Rushton2010 on the 16th October 2013‎, on the grounds that my changes had "seriously distorted the information to the point of making it incorrect."

    He nowhere pointed out what information was seriously distorted, and has used the same excuse to revert each and every one of the changes I have made, no less that 10 times now. Indeed as day follows night you can be sure that if I make a change he will revert it.

    I told myself that if Rushton2010 reverted my changes more than 10 times I would (reluctantly) draw the attention of this noticeboard to his activities. My impression is that he has "ownership issues", and on those grounds reverts each and every change by me. At no point did he feel the need to correct any mistakes (if indeed there are any mistakes) he just reverts the whole text, each and every time I have made any changes, and this has gone on now for a period of several months.

    Comments:

    In summary Rushodon2010 reverted my changes on the 26th February 2014, the 24th February 2014‎, the 12th February 2014‎, the 8th February 2014, the 5th February 2014, the 4th February 2014, the 3rd February 2014, the 29th January 2014, the 5th January 2014, and the 16th October 2013.

    This not only violates the three reverts rule, it seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
    I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here, but as the page is one of little interest probably only local interest given it averages only 10-20 hits a day; of which some/most will be us anyway and the user involved as shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism and they have shown no signs of wanting to discuss -having on 10 occasions now reverted- rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization.
    The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
    Some are more issues of wikipedia procedure - for example the removal of 8 categories:

    • Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
    • Monasteries in Derbyshire
    • History of Derbyshire
    • Marriott International
    • Augustinian monasteries in England
    • 13th-century establishments in England
    • Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
    • 1536 disestablishments in England

    -all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries. There is also the repeated removal of "Citation Needed" tags, and the "Ref Improve" Hatnote - all without the issues they highlighted having being rectified.
    Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice -ditto why I thought he was removing the tags before they were rectified). It's Breadsall Priory.... Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both.
    Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more.

    I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved.
    --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    "The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu."

    Give a single example in the current text where that is true. If you can find a single example change it. You know full well that you have simply engaged in wholesale reversion. You know that you are being disingenuous. I am happy to make the article as accurate as possible.

    "I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here"

    Again you are being disingenuous. The reason why you did not come here is because you know that you have engaged in wholesale reversion, each and every time, for many months. Not something to be proud of, and not something to which you wanted to draw any attention.

    "the user involved has shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism"

    Again, you know that to be completely untrue, as anybody who looks at the article can see for themselves. If there was a specific issue you should have addressed it, but you didn't, you just engaged in wholesale reversion. Again you are being very disingenuous.

    "rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization."

    Ah a little bit of truth mixed in with the lies about "vandalism".

    "for example the removal of 8 categories"

    • Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
    • Monasteries in Derbyshire
    • History of Derbyshire
    • Marriott International
    • Augustinian monasteries in England
    • 13th-century establishments in England
    • Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
    • 1536 disestablishments in England

    -all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries."

    I did not remove those categories. Why would I remove those categories? It makes no sense. If they were removed it was obviously accidental, and easily remedied by the editor. He simply demonstrates my point for me.

    UPDATE I see that the last version did accidentally omit the last list, but that does not apply to any of the other versions which were changed back by Rushton 2010, which he knows full well, so (yet again) Rushton2010 is being "economical" with the truth.

    "Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead, something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice"

    Again more deceit. I changed it to miles because that is how it is understood locally. I added Long Eaton because that is a much better known local centre. Long Eaton is much larger than Breadsall. He must surely know that, and so he should be careful about throwing the word "bizarre" around.

    "Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both."

    Again a little bit of truth, yes it is better with both, that is the point. No mention of the kilometers issue I see. I wonder why?

    "Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more."

    At last the nub of the issue. All that other stuff (to be brutally frank) he is just making up. This is the only substantive point. He disliked that I changed this sentence. Let us examine the issue. He calls it a gross error. Let us put aside the hyperbole and look at the difference between the formulations. He wants to say that "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon" which is a clumsy sentence. I replaced it with a sentence which reads better. Why the protest? The complete reversions? The refusal to modify that sentence? Because he thought it was important that although Augustinian friars could not own land (which was why it was incorrect to identify them as such) he thought it was important to draw attention to the irrelevant fact that this did not apply to any land upon which the monastery was sited. Now anybody can see that this is irrelevant to the point being made (i.e. which sort of friars were they) but he was not going to discuss the issue, he was a going to revert every single change I ever made, no matter how minor, simply because I changed this sentence in a way that took out this irrelevant point, which he found so important.

    "I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved."

    Your behaviour has been clear all along. It could not have been more clear. You took possession of the article and reverted each and every change (no matter how trivial!) over a period of many months. You have now compounded this behaviour by lying about your actions. Lying about my actions, and all over a single sentence which you could easily have changed back if it mattered to you so much. It is all there for people too see. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. If anybody reads the article as it is now in comparison with the original it is clear that the charges of "vandalism" are just lies. All it amounts to is a difference of opinion about whether or not it is important to mention that the monastery owned the land "it stood on". The rest is just Rushton2010 attempting to justify his malice and arrogance.

    ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I see that Rushton2010 has just reverted it once more, even while it is being discussed here! That makes a total of 11 reversions! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You are aware that if you make an edit, if it gets reverted, you're NEVER permitted to re-add it unless you have obtained consensus to add it via discussion on the article talkpage, right? DP 09:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexbrn reported by User:Etolpygo (Result: no violation, boomerang)

    Page
    Rosen Method Bodywork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Comments:

    This is ridiculous. User:Alexbrn has only made two reverts in the last two days, both restoring edits made by a user who has violated WP:3RR Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This notice should boomerang back to Etolpygo. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rahibsaleem reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [68]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [69]
    2. [70]
    3. [71]
    4. [72]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

    Comments: While a relatively new user should be cut a considerable amount of slack, Rahibsaleem has reverted three different editors who removed his addition from the article lede, made personal attacks on the article talk page and in edit summaries ("User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz seems prejudiced against the Arabic language"; "removed malicious edits by Malik Shabazz"), removed warnings from his talk page, then posted them on Malik Shabazz's, including content that plainly had no relevance to MS ([75], [76]), and generally shown no willingness to edit collegially ("Malik_Shabazz this is your last warning: admins shall intervene upon the edit warring you started. This edit cannot be deleted." [77]) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation (four reverts at Jews on 27 February). EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Housefullofcards reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Paul T T Easter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Housefullofcards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [78]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [79]
    2. [80]
    3. [81]
    4. [82]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

    Comments:
    I think that this is likely the same IP editor (User talk:94.197.120.135) that had been trying to revert to an unsourced version of the article previously, as User:Housefullofcards created an account and began making minor edits about the same time the article was given semi-protection. That IP user was given a warning as well and there is currently an SPI underway to see if all of the accounts are related. Here are the IP's edits: [85], [86], [87] and here's where I warned the user: [88]. The user has been warned previous to my post on his talk page by User:Ruby Murray. While the page reversions have differed slightly, it is still the same unsourced information that they are trying to add. There is an AfD for the page where I've also asked that people stop reverting to re-add the information and given various reasons for that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – Five days for edit warring. The user was previously blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing on 21 February. The Paul T T Easter article was semiprotected on 24 February. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kakadesi reported by User:Sitush (Result: blocked 48 h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [89]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22 Feb
    2. 24 Feb
    3. 27 Feb #1
    4. 27 Feb #2
    5. 27 Feb #3

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

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

    Comments:

    • Please note that this is a BLP of the recently-retired President of India. The issue of dedicated controversy sections and the nature of what constitutes a controversy etc has been discussed before, eg: here, here, here, here and here. There are numerous other examples in the archives and the article was semi'd for a while due to some of these BLP violations. The contributor has been doing similar stuff at Kapil Sibal and, to be honest, seems to be nothing but aggressive wherever they go.
    The article already contained some appropriately-place criticism, so the issue is not one of censorship but, as the prior discussions indicate, one of weight, recentism, relevance etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    They've just reverted again. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=597526537"