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 17:09, 26 April 2014 (→‎User:MiG29VN reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: 2 week): 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:Bmwz3hm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Heleen Mees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bmwz3hm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:16, 18 April 2014 (edit summary: "")
    2. 07:21, 18 April 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 604703952 by Theobald Tiger (talk) What Dutch people consider promotion, other people consider simple facts.")
    3. 07:43, 18 April 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 604705395 by Theobald Tiger (talk) TT and I don't agree.")
    4. 07:47, 18 April 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 604706054 by Theobald Tiger (talk) You do all the edit warring here. Nobody else disagrees with the content of the Heleen Mees article.")
    5. 16:56, 21 April 2014 (edit summary: "")
    6. 17:19, 21 April 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 605173431 by Theobald Tiger (talk)")
    7. 06:30, 22 April 2014 (edit summary: "")
    8. 09:49, 22 April 2014 (edit summary: "The original text of the article is more balanced and informative than Theobald Tiger's and AussieLegend's draft. So if you want to edit the page, this text should be the starting point.")

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

    Comments:
    Bmwz3hm has been making contentious edits at Heleen Mees and refuses to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. On 18 April, Theobald Tiger made several edits to the article, which Bmwz3hm reverted without explanation.[3] The two editors then got into an edit war but stopped after each had made 3 reverts. To his credit, after his second revert Theobald Tiger started a discussion on the article talk page,[4] but Bmwz3hm has refused to participate. Atama subsequently left 3RR warnings on the talk pages of both editors. On 21 April, after more than 3 days without comment from Bmwz3hm, Theobald Tiger restored the edits that had been removed by Bmwz3hm,[5] but Bmwz3hm almost immediately reverted,[6] in the process restoring an image that has been deleted from commons several times.[7] Atama then left a final warning on Bmwz3hm's talk page,[8] stating "Revert again before engaging in the discussion (and resolving it there) and I will block you". After noting that some editors had expressed concern that Bmwz3hm may have a very problematic COI issue (I'm trying to avoid WP:OUTING here), I decided to closely look at the edits made by both Bmwz3hm and Theobald Tiger. Ultimately I concluded that Theobald Tiger's were preferable to those made by Bmwz3hm and edited the article appropriately,[9] noting that I did have some minor concerns with Theobald Tiger's edits on the talk page.[10] Despite the warning on her talk page, Bmwz3hm has reverted again, reverting not only the edits I made, but again restoring the deleted image and all without any explanation.[11] --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see, Theobald Tiger has replaced the entire content of the Heleen Mees article without barely any explanation, let alone prior discussion. Bmwz3hm (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC) has responded to the editing war that was thus launched by Theobald Tiger, addressing his arguments and offering to work on a draft together. But Theobald Tiger has simply refused to do so, and has kept replacing the original article by his own text. Moreover, the photo Heleenmees2.png under license cc-by-sa-3.0 (confirmed by Wiki Commons) has been deleted time and again. Why? Because it is a nice picture of Heleen Mees and the content of the Heleen Mees article can be anything but nice. It's an illusion that Theobald Tiger or AussieLegend are anywhere objective on the topic of Heleen Mees. Bmwz3hm (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Theobald Tiger has provided edit summaries for all but one of his edits,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and that one was for a spelling fix marked as minor. On the other hand, your summaries have been absent or argumentative and you haven't chosen to participate in discussion on the talk page. As I have explained,[19] I reverted your second to last revert because it restored the invalid image link and damaged the infobox by partially removing a parameter, as well as restoring the contentious edits that you had made, but I see you have since reverted that,[20] demonstrating exactly why a block is warranted. Where exactly is the post that supports your claim that you have offered to work on a draft together? I have explained in your talk page why the image was deleted. As for the claim that "It's an illusion that Theobald Tiger or AussieLegend are anywhere objective on the topic of Heleen Mees", that's utter rubbish, at least regards me. I had absolutely no idea who Heleen Mees was when I saw her on the news. I still don't know why she was on the news in Australia. It must have been a slow news day. Getting back to the point, after receiving a specific warning that if you reverted again before engaging in the discussion you would be blocked, within a day you've now made two more reverts,[21][22] both without discussion on the talk page. We're really at the point where you need to explain why you ignored that warning --AussieLegend (✉) 10:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, the image was deleted because it was deleted from Wiki Commons. But why has it been deleted from Wiki Commons even though it has the license requested by Wikipedia? Because the article about Heleen Mees for sure may not look nice in any way, that's the only reason. I have explained the edits several times, but Theobald Tiger just presses ahead with his edits. Anyway, the info box looks fine now so that can hardly be an excuse for you to completely alter the article of a woman you hardly know anything about, except the one time you saw a news report on tv. And the newspaper articles you read may not be the most reliable sources for an Encyclopedia. Bmwz3hm (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And here you find the discussion about the photo that has been deleted for no reason from Wiki Commons, and thus from the Heleen Mees article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JurgenNL#File:Heleenmees2.png Bmwz3hm (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't press ahead with my edits. I have started a discussion on the talk page, but bmwz3hm has not left a single post there. The copyright issue should be adressed on Commons. I have no COI regarding this article. I am neither pro nor anti Mees. I am against non-neutral edits and against edits clearly revealing a COI. Newspapers are perhaps not the most reliable sources, but there are no others, because Mees is known in the Netherlands as a columnist expressing provocative feminist views and as a person who is accused, deservedly or mistakenly, of stalking Buiter. With regard to the court case there is some malicious delight in the public attention, deplorably so, but that is not something Wikipedia should or could correct. We can only be reticent with regard to the biographies of living persons. I have no objection to the minor concerns AussieLegend has with my edits. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue about the photo is not going to be resolved because people will delete it even though the photo has the required license. Your text for the Heleen Mees article is short-sighted/myopic, unbalanced and unfair to her. Moreover, you push through everything in the English article that you did not get support for in the Dutch article about Heleen Mees, talking about unresolved issues Bmwz3hm (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)s.[reply]

    This is a deliberate and malicious lie. If you lose a discussion, don't resort to ad hominems or speculations about the motives of your opponents. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The issue surrounding the image on Commons is irrelevant on the English Wikipedia, as is any discussion of the content of the Dutch Wikipedia. What I do see is ownership and an incredibly massive misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS, and ridiculous edit-warring. The element of question is not "to block Bmwz3hm or not to block them", but "for how long" based on these multiple infractions PLUS the personal attacks. the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DangerousPanda: @EatsShootsAndLeaves: I would have blocked Bmwz3hm but I'll leave it up to your judgement. Typically I'd block for 24 hours for someone with a clean block log who is edit-warring but you're right that there are other offenses here. -- Atama頭 13:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Trust me, I'm not the malicious liar here. The issue with the photo of Heleen Mees is highly relevant as it goes to show that people will do anything to present a negative picture of Heleen Mees. Theobald Tiger is a case in point. Bmwz3hm (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please cut out the personal attacks. Comment on content, not the contributor. No, the image is not relevant at all to your edit-warring, other than it was but one part that you persistently restored, even after it was deleted. What is relevant is your edit-warring and failure to discuss, which you have not explained. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    AussieLegend, I appreciate that you only heard about Heleen Mees through a single tv report in Australia, and that you did not follow the discussion on the Dutch talk page with Theobald Tiger. If you would have, you would see Theobald Tiger's true colors. Bmwz3hm (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I am prepared to defend and to adstruct my edits on the talk page on nl.wiki - there is nothing I am ashamed of; bmwz3hm has only one minor contribution on that talk page in June 2013 - I think it's better to discuss matters here as they are on en.wiki. My true colors are already unfolded. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My contributions on Dutch Wiki may not have been properly administrated on the talk page, but we discussed TT's contributions at length and concluded that his contributions were not up to par. Now he uses the English Wiki page as an outlet which makes it all the more confusing. Bmwz3hm (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your contributions anywhere other than Heleen Mees are really not relevant here. As an uninvolved editor I reviewed the edits made by both Theobald Tiger and you and concluded that the edits by Theobald Tiger, with some minor exceptions, were more encyclopaedic and less self-serving, and that's really all that matters. so, please stop commenting on Theobald Tiger's edits elsewhere. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate somebody drawing attention to your edits at Willem Buiter. As I've said before, your edit-warring and failure to discuss, which you have not explained, is what is relevant so please concentrate on that. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bmwz3hm just reverted again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=605273361&oldid=605272932 --TheCockroach (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. For the love of Pete. I'll be monitoring this user after the 24 hours to see if any of the advice they've been given sticks. If not, it will be a longer block. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Resumption of edit-warring after release from block

    Only 5 hours after release from the above block, Bmwz3hm made a series of edits that reverted the article to a version that is almost identical to the version that resulted in her being blocked.[23] The initial edits made significant, undiscussed changes to the page.[24] These were opposed by another editor,[25] after which she reverted the changes she had earlier made and then reintroduced the version from 2 days ago. The first edit today did not revert directly to her previous version,[26] and the next edit was exceptionally minor, albeit being contrary to MOS:LQ,[27] but the next edit was an almost complete reversion to the disputed version that resulted in Bmwz3hm being blocked.[28] This included reintroducing errors into the infobox and was a significant change from Bmwz3hm's first edit today.[29] Subsequent changes were only made to the lead, removing the birth place and inexplicably removing dates from the citation.[30] This is something Bmwz3hm has done in the past,[31] which is why I had to restore it a few days ago.[32] After explaining all of this on the talk page,[33] I left an adittedly terse warning on Bmwz3hm's talk page,[34] and then reverted the article.[35] After that, I notified the blocking admin, but while I did so, Bmwz3hm reverted again.[36] I've left another note on Bmwz3hm's talk page suggesting she self-revert,[37] but that has not happened. Even after Atama explained edit-warring in simple terms,[38] Bmwz3hm's response is "I'm not edit-warring", --AussieLegend (✉) 05:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly agree with AussieLegend. --TheCockroach (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pk041 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Indef)

    Page: Shabbir Sharif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pk041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [39]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22 April
    2. 22 April

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: GS/Caste warning

    Comments:
    Pk041 is under 1RR sanction on castes/social groups related articles but he/she is persistently adding caste association in this article. -- SMS Talk 16:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Blocked indef. When sanctions are issued, the hope is that the user will stay away from the kind of edits that cause trouble and will become productive in other ways. There's no indication that this editor understands the sanctions or has any intention to follow them. His talk page is full of warnings (since late 2012) and he has never made any kind of response on his talk page. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that the user understands Wikipedia policy and will follow it in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:64.12.116.71 reported by User:Cyphoidbomb (Result: 24 hours )

    Page: Bob Shaheen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 64.12.116.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    2011 version of the article citing "arms trafficker" as Khashoggi's claim to fame

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [40]
    2. [41]
    3. [42]
    4. [43]
    5. [44]
    6. [45]

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

    Comments: Firstly, this case refers to long-term edit-warring, not just the 3RR/24HR aspect of it. I don't recall what first brought me to the Bob Shaheen article, but what struck me as odd was the pointed language used to describe the subject in subsequent edits. I removed some POV content which seemed to paint the subject in a negative light, for example this odd phrasing. As the article stood, it was unclear to me why the subject was notable, but I performed due diligence and most of the resources I found via the Google books database contained news articles that kept referencing Shaheen as Adnan Khashoggi's "right-hand man". What soon became apparent, was that Khashoggi was notable for being one of the richest men in the world at one time, but drew more attention for being a central figure in the US Iran-Contra scandal, having brokered the various arms deals. The NY Times said of him "Mr. Khashoggi has been linked to — but never convicted in — almost every major scandal of the late 20th century" So I attempted to re-incorporate SOME aspect of Khashoggi's notability using softer (and ostensibly neutral language) to explain why Shaheen was notable, without implicating Shaheen in any shady dealings. Example: "...Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian businessman and reputed arms merchant".

    The reported IP has been removing any mention of "arms merchant" with no explanation, no edit summaries, and no discussion either on their talk page or on the article's talk page. Another IP, 108.67.14.186, has removed the same content,[47][48] so I suspect sock/meatpuppetry, or more simply, IP hopping. I invited this IP to the discussion. Cullen328, who has periodically edited the article over a series of years, is the only editor who has responded to my talk page query, and he and I appear to be on similar wavelengths, so the IP is basically editing against consensus.

    Cullen's pointed out that the article has remained mostly unchanged over the last few years, but in 2014, a flurry of pro and anti activity has proliferated. It's fairly clear from the edit history that there are editors who want to make Shaheen look like a tyrant, but there are other editors who want to remove any mention to Khashoggi's newsworthy business deals entirely, and this doesn't seem consistent with numerous Wikipedia principles, from WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. I requested page protection to dissuade IP edits but that didn't have a lasting effect.
    Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety talk 06:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: )

    Page
    53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605416894, News about support of dawoodi bohra, and news of FM having mention of 'accession to the 53rd Dā'ī office' is retained. Please don't attempt 3rd for complete matter removal."
    2. 06:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605382698 by Summichum (talk)Condolences as son does not carry any weightage but condolences with remark as new leader carry weightage here as support.."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 18:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC) "/* salaman khurshid content has no relation to succesion controversy */ new section"
    2. 05:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "/* salaman khurshid content has no relation to succesion controversy */"

     Comment: this is second time user:summichum has refered to Notice board without prior warning and discussion.Rukn950 (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    This user is having a COI and trying to add irrelevant offtopic text into article.

    This has been proven from [49] that both of the above editors are die hard followers of the dawoodi bohra religion and Mufaddal, Khuzaima are the two rival leaders of the religion and they are not letting another non aligned editors like User:Anupmehra , admin User:Crisco 1492 and other users like User:Ftutocdg to make neutral changes as per the available media reports of the people involved.

    I had edited as per User:Anupmehra as he is also the one without any conflict of interest , the other two editors have clearly shown their conflict of interest as they have proclaimed that they are followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin whereas I am not even born into that community but when I saw the initial versions I was suprised how people were pushing their POV without any evidence on such a famous issue of succession controversy which is now appearing almost daily in many Indian media. I had MADE the edit request after modifications requested by Anup Mehra .

     Comment: even though he may not be born in this community but summichum's Vandals (Diff:[50],[51]) has seen no limits. His POV speaks as loud as blowhorn.Rukn950 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proof:

    And Off-course I am True Dawoodi Bohra and I have concern that these Articles not be used as propaganda,The POV user Summichum again and again tries to impose. I have direct interest in this issue. As follower of Mufaddal Saifuddin. I will not tolerate blatant lies made by summichum or any other bad faith editors. Still as my fellow editors would attest That I am assuming good faith.

    — Rukn950 (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


    .... can judge the face of Moula when he was sitting on the bridge near Raudat Tahera and taking salaami( guard) on his birthday, his face was full of happiness(same thing on the day of Nass at Raudat Tahera), we can visualise tears of joy in his eyes, when hundreds of thousands were crossing in front of him with folded hands whipping and crying "moula, Moula" and he was trying to raise his hand again and again in return but was abiding god's will. Mufaddal was sitting near, where was Khuzaima then? Why I am writing all these here, myself don't know, please understand

    — --Md iet 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

     Comment:: I would like to add that summichum is quoting us out of context from another article's talk page.Rukn950 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I also request User:Anupmehra to look into this matter as he is a trusted third party and is highly experienced in handling these issues on wikipedia and knows about what happened in talk page. Summichum (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Summichum (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)— Summichum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: )

    Page
    53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page
    Mohammed Burhanuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Summichum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I request Admin to better look to the edit pattern of user Summichum and his history. He is assuming ownership of the above mentioned article. and other related articles. his POV is clear. and refering to Notice board, good faith editors has become his habit.he is assuming bad faith of other editors. his sole purpose in joining is to promote his POV and reverts any other good faith edits. Infact I request user:summichum should be blocked again, he never seems to learn from his previous blocks.Rukn950 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please refer COI NB [52] and succession talk page [53], intention of Summichum would be clear, may please consider accordingly. He has reverted the matter immediately twice and stopped doing third, only after my advice of not to get blocked and avoid 3RR case. He wants to support only his POV irrespective of Wiki norms at any cost, and disrupting normal process.--Md iet (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Difference in 53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy

    Diff:[54]

    Diff:[55]

    Diff:[56]

    Difference in Mohammed Burhanuddin

    Diff:[57]

    Diff:[58]

    Diff:[59]

    Along with his reverts please see the matter he tries to impose.Rukn950 (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff:[60]

    Attempt to reason and resolve this dispute:

    Please Refer [61]

    Summichum kept on inserting Pritish Nandy qoute even after reasoning with him about its WP:BLPGOSSIP violation as same was removed from another article Diff:[62] by Admin Mr. Stradivarius

    The qoute by Summichum showing his POV

    ‘The much cited ghadir khum incident was not a succession deed (Nass) but rather to resolve misunderstandings between a group who complained about Ali to the prophet , and the prophet said "Whoever takes me as his patron , should also take Ali as his patron" and this was said in ghadir and not in the final Haj. If there had to be a succession then it should have been made at a place where all people gathered and not ghadir khumm. In short the prophet did not say that after me some person like Abu Bakr, Ali etc would be the caliph\Imam. The fatimid bohras like dawoodi bohras are a minority group who have invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims’... Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

    ' Comment: 'This is a Serious allegation against Islam as whole. Summichum should be strictly restrained in interest of integrity of Wikipedia and prevention of Vandalism.Rukn950 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As usual, seems like Summichum is not going to stop using Dawoodi Bohras or Mufaddal Saifuddin's page as battlefield. OccultZone (Talk) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with Rukn950 as argued at [63], a strong action is requested please.--Md iet (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    The above users are reported at COI noticeboard and one of them also have a track record of sockpuppetry . The above users all belong to one partisan group and they are trying to use Wiki as advertisement propaganda page , selectively hiding important information . I was the one ho sought third party intervention of User:Anupmehra , I suggest ruqn , md_iet should be blocked from editing bohra articles. A lot have been written about their behaviour in almost all the major notice boards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Summichum (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    — Summichum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    now summichum is getting personal. and accuses us of propaganda when he himself does so. I am surprised at his audacity.Rukn950 (talk)

    may please see discussion at[64], Summichum has accepted that he is from one of Ismaili shia group, and started behaving somewhat in cordial manner, but his tone is still too much offencive. Nizari are Ismailies but they follow Fatimid, have their Imam and almost no competition with any Bohra group. Alavi group Mazoon came to Mufaddal for condolences, and they principally have no differences. Now left out are Suleimani and progressive one. Sulaymani are also accepted the facts and happy with their group. This fellow claims that he is not born in Dawoodi Bohra, let us believe him and there is full possibility that he is from young progressive group , born after seventies, after separation from DB. This group don't have their Dai or any leader. They are feeling isolated, frustrated and very zealous of their fellow DB. They also want to get attached with Khuzaima to have something of their own and eager to form Qutbi Bohra. Khuzaima group is clever, he don't want to have separate name and want to get hold property of mass DB group and wanted to call themselves DB, but only few hundred real DB are with him.

    Being disciplined follower of Wiki, and being DB also, we want to honour WIki regulations, but some how doing attempt to bring the real truth to public. We are not against having well published matter, although not a fact to have NPOV here at Wiki, but this fellow is adamant and somehow not able to sustain anything just written not in his favour. He has gone too far blaming Shia faith itself, to prove him right although claiming himself a Ismaili shia follower of Ali.

    This fellow seems to be learned man, and trying to get cordial with us. We also don't want any personal harassment to anybody, as well principled by Wiki. We request him to not to take matter up to community level involving complete Shia community just for blaming DB. He may be having opinion difference, his opinion is his choice , we honour his freedom, but not this way please. Hope it is still time he respect Wiki principles above all. We are soldiers of Wiki and as being DB also we will further try to keep wiki above all and restrain us to the extent possible. Conduct of accusing complete community above is beyond any limit, and we all hope that situation to have edit restriction on DB topics is not good, not reflecting the principle of tolerance DB community have towards other faith. Hope we all including me will further restrain so to abide wiki rules completely. You Sumichum, searching our old accounts and finding our mistakes. Our intentions were never bad. I was just helping my nephew to open his wiki account with full of his agreement, when I was on visit to his place. He never continued further and I was trapped, which I have openly accepted.

    Mr. Sumichum , please cooperate. You are blocked twice recently. No one wants there name on notice board. You put your claim on talk page with proper citation( for the god sake don't bring Azad or Bohra Youth forum news which are purely written to propogate hate propaganda), we will definitely cooperate. We have quoted from 'BM' theinternational DB magazine, published by private publication. It's authencity was questioned ,so we have put up the case in 'reliable source NB' and never reinstated the material. Shiv Sena has it's controlled news paper, having vide accepted circulation in Mumbai, whether Wiki will object to it's news inclusion, if not then BM case is similar and to be discussed comparing that. We will never oppose any matter if it is as per wiki rules even though not true. Let Ajay Mehra be our umpire till your aggression calm down, as he is having in depth knowledge of wiki guidelines and a true third party editor.--Md iet (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SyossuPL reported by User:Dudel250 (Result: Declined)

    Page
    Courthouse in Września (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    SyossuPL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 12:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "GL&HF :*"
    2. 12:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 11:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Courthouse in Września"
    2. 12:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Courthouse in Września‎. (TW)"
    3. 12:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Courthouse in Września‎. (TW)"
    4. 12:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Courthouse in Września. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 12:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Contested deletion */"
    Comments:

    This is a bit of a mess: it looks as if an article on a building has been nominated for speedy deletion A-7, erroneously and repeatedly, and in fact deleted. A-7 doesn't apply to buildings. The (new, school-project) editor who created the article repeatedly removed the tag (though probably without understanding that it was in fact incorrectly applied, or they might have pointed it out). Mistakes all round: one editor repeatedly incorrectly speedying a building; one new editor repeatedly removing that tag; one admin erroneously deleting. Ouch. PamD 14:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined I am the admin who mistakenly deleted this as A7. SyossuPL reverted 3 times, so formally 3RR was not violated. Dudel250 and myself are admonished to familiarize themselves better with the CSD criteria... Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by memills:Memills (Result: Declined)

    Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
    User being reported: Leavingtherain


    Previous version reverted to -- see recent History

    User's reverts -- see the recent History

    The user Leavingtherain is edit warring -- repeatedly removing properly sourced material without an explanation, and, without, as requested, taking the issue to the Talk page.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See recent History

    The user cannot be contacted because he/she doesn't have a user or a talk page.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    In the article History, I requested that Leavingtherain take the issue to the Talk page before making reversions. He/she has not done so. Also, I note that these are the only edits that this editor has made to WP.

    Comments:

    • Declined A few reversions over several days is not enough edit warring to justify a block. I've put a note on the user's page to engage in constructive discussion. Meanwhile, you could start this discussion on the talk page yourself, no need to wait for another editor to start one. Leavingtherain, as you note, is a newbie and might not yet know much of the way we do things. I see that you have not tried to engage the user on their own talk page either. I also note that you did not notify them of this posting, as is required (see top of this page). Please beware of WP:BITE. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SergiSmiler reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: )

    Page
    Britney Spears discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    SergiSmiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts

    SergiSmiler made 4 reverts, trying to introduce (poor) information into the article.

    Attempt 1, reverting User:Status

    Attempt 2, reverting User:Status

    Attempt 3, reverting User:Status

    Attempt 4, reverting User:Tomica

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    User:Status tried to resolve the edit war on SergiSmiler talk page.

    Comments:

    This user is incredibly disruptive, continuously warned about their edits, has had 10 warning altogether over the past months and blocked twice, once in October 2013 and the other in December 2013 for 1 Month for disruptive editing. There is a language barrier and a very stubborn temperament that he refuses to cooperate with other editors after they warn and give reasons as to why his edits are reverted. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:I like the truth reported by User:RJFF (Result: indeffed)

    Page: Sweden Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: I like the truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [65]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [66]
    2. [67]
    3. [68]
    4. [69]
    5. [70]
    6. [71]
    7. [72]
    8. [73]
    9. [74]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [76]

    Comments:

    This is related to a post that I made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible edit war on Sweden Democrats. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gumanthakur reported by User:Dudel250 (Result: Declined)

    Page
    Goldrop Adventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Gumanthakur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC) "Goldrop Adventures"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
    2. 08:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
    3. 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
    4. 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Had recreated the page after it got deleted one time before under G11 Dudel250 (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:94.55.39.189 reported by User:IJBall (Result: Semi)

    Page: List of metro systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 94.55.39.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    (And, earlier: link )

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

    Comments:

    IP user 94.55.39.189 has been reverted by at least one other editor besides myself since April 13, and has been warned multiple times at the IP user's Talk page that this behavior constitutes "edit warring" and that they should go to the List of metro systems Talk page to discuss this issue - the IP user has ignored all such entreaties. Worse, IP user 94.55.39.189 went so far as to delete the entry in question (diff) back on April 20 in retaliation for a previous reversion, which could probably be considered article vandalism.

    • Result: Article semiprotected one month. The talk page is almost entirely a discussion among registered editors. If IPs will participate more actively there and will wait for consensus on contested items, the protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Central Casting reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: IP blocked)

    Page: Vader (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Central Casting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 217.96.115.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [77]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [78]
    2. [79]
    3. [80]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

    Comments:
    User was blocked previously for this exact behaviour: making changes without discussion or sources to the same Polish death metal bands, and constantly reverting to their preferred version. User shows no interest in working collaboratively on this project, refuses to discuss their edits, etc. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    They edited today, see [83]. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MiG29VN reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: 2 weeks)

    Page: Massacre at Huế (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: MiG29VN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [84]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

    Comments:I've been working hard fixing the cites on this page and adding missing ones. This guy keeps removing some and reverting others to improperly formatted cites. I've asked him to stop it. So have others. But he persists. He's already been warned about edit warring and blocked for 30 hours, but he continues. It's getting quite old.Txantimedia (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't revert his edit. I only ask him "Add the link for his source" and i will revmove the "fact", but he didn't do thatMiG29VN (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see (http://www.vlink.com/mauthan/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1236530105&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&). This is Self-published, it isn't a reliable source, and i removed it. But Txantimedia reverted it. Addition, he claimed that he used FAKE figures in other source (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF#Unreliable_sources.3F (3-7th lines)) MiG29VN (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have NEVER "claimed that I used FAKE figured in other source". What I said was I added up the numbers that Vennema provides and wrote the total. I can't reprint the entire fucking boook inside the Wiki page to shut your stupid mouth up. The Massacre is covered from pages 129-141. Each grave site is discussed individually and a total given. A third grader can add them up. Providing the total is NOT FAKE FIGURES. GAWD this is getting old. I'm trying to provide facts that I've uncovered in my research, and this jerk is claiming I'm lying because he doesn't have a copy of the book.
    I quoted as you said: "Vennema does not provide a total number of graves or a total number of bodies" - As you said, So, WHY do you add that EXACT NUMBER in there (27, 2,397, etc...)? I don't said you "reprint the entire a book", you only scan (or use camera) this page, which have this number (27 graves, 2,397 bodies)MiG29VN (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already explained to him on the Talk page that it is an eyewitness account that falls into the exception for self-published content. The author was a member of the lower House of the RVN congress and was in Hue during Tet. He witnessed the events and interviewed a number of his constituents. Yet he's removed it every time I've fixed it. Without explanation and without notice. It's getting very old. He just keeps claiming the cites are fake and removes them. [91] Txantimedia (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeezus, he's done it AGAIN!! PLEASE tell this guy to stop it. [92]
    Please: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

    the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.
    Remember, this is a battle in history, not "information about themselves", not "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"MiG29VN (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you serious? the material is not self-serving or an exceptional claim, there is no reasonable doubt about its authenticity and it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source. Can you not read??? Txantimedia (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source" - It's one of matters. An article is directly related to the sourceMiG29VN (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What needs to be made clear here is that Txantimedia is an extremely new user who has been given an extremely hostile reception by MiG29VN, and that MiG29VN has a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry at this article. MiG29VN is simply far too quick to revert, and his edits are often sloppy. Even if VLink is a questionable source, there is no excuse for MiG29VN to delete references to Vennema's book (and tag the material cited to Vennema) on the grounds that he doesn't have access to the book, or to perpetually replace the neutral term "accuracy" with the POV "truthfulness". From issuing random threats and ultimatums to screaming that a source is "FAKE" because an editor combined its numbers with basic addition, MiG29VN has not been conducting himself in a very civil manner--and the way his careless edits constantly disrupt the formatting and language of the article makes any progress impossible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, I didn't removed all of Venemma source. I only remove some words, which none in this figure (I ask him "add the quoted and i will agree", but he did't quote)MiG29VN (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a DAMN lie. You have REPEATEDLY removed the Vennema cites. Now you have labeled them as unreliable. How many God Damn times do I have to tell you I HAVE THE FUCKING BOOK. Just because you can't find it in Google books does not mean it's not there. If you have a damn problem, bring it up in talk instead of arbitrarily removing cites without justification. Furthermore, every time you edit the page you fuck up the cites I have repeatedly fixed. I'm getting damn sick and tired of it. You obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works.

    This user, MiG29VN, has:

    • Used fake references to cite his content, references which don't even mention anything about the content he claims it supports. e.g. here, here, and here. Yet, he runs around and deletes other people's references, calling them "unreliable", "fake", or "self-publish".
    • Removes references to content he hates, then later removes the content altogether because "it's unsourced" or "unreliable source"
    • Total disregard for other people's contributions, and forces that his version be used only, even if it meant deleting improvements and new content
    • MiGVN doesn't truly understand what are reliable sources and what's not. He has made the declaration that "In wikipedia's law, and we agreed History.net and xxx.edu are the reliable sources". An online criminal can create a malware site using the .edu domain, or any fake "educational" institution can create an .edu website, and those will still be considered "reliable sources"?
    • Tried to falsely, deceptively frame opposing editors (myself and Andreas Philopater) as "vandals", in order to get unsuspecting, unaware users to delete content that I and Andreas have contributed that MiG dislikes. MiG wants other users to delete content for him, so that way he's not on the hook for edit-warring.
    • Engaged in extensive copyvios, by copy-and-pasting whole swaths of text into the Massacre at Huế#Dispute and denial section. Esp. his English is poor, yet how does he manage to "write in flawless English" in his article contribs??? Evidence of poor grasp of English: Here and all his responses in sections below When TheTimesAreAChanging paraphrased and summarized his content, MIGVN insists that the original copy-paste version be used. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, you referenced David Hunter, a US Unionist military commander in the US Civil War, not Hunt, then you changed when you're busted. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 2 weeks to MiG29VN for violation of WP:3RR. Editor has already been blocked twice in connection with this article. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard may be consulted if the quality of a source is in question. Admins should consider fully protecting this article if people continue to revert without adequate discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.62.20.174 reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: blocked as sock)

    Page: Afro-Latin American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 75.62.20.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [93]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [94]
    2. [95]
    3. [96]

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

    Comments:
    75.62.20.174 has made persistent reverts, disregarding numerous attempts to settle it through the talk page all throughout its process and have had a fair share of warning. I have also included a "citation needed" where the topic of conflict lies.

    User:Roscelese reported by User:BoboMeowCat (Result: )

    Page: Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (subject to 1RR, like all abortion-related pages)
    User being reported: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [98]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [99]
    2. [100]
    1. [101]
    2. [102]
    1. [103]
    2. [104]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105] [106]

    Comments: I was originally hesitant to bring this to the noticeboard, because today's revert violated 24 hour rule by only 1 hour, but a review of the article's edit history showed *three* violations of the 1RR rule, by this user, in just the past 3 days. User repeatedly reverts and/or deletes contributions of other editors, instead of consensus building on talk page. History of disruptive editing on this page by this user.


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=605917559"