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 Direct action (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 13 August 2014 (→‎User:Direct action reported by User:Altenmann (Result: Warned)). 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:Alyxr reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Not blocked)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    There has been no violation of the 3RR in 24 hours, but Alyxr's aggressive POV-pushing despite the objections of three other editors has gotten out of hand and should be sanctioned. He has failed to engage in any further discussion and wantonly reverted Pudeo, Stumink, and myself to push an unsourced POV about what communist supposedly believe.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • After Pudeo reverted Alyxr, he's not reverted back. I realise there's no talk page discussion going on with Alyxr right now, but Alyxr has been active on the page till two days back. It seems currently like Alyxr is spending time away from this article and editing other articles; in other words, as of right now, he's not being disruptive You're absolutely right with respect to the fringe view that Alyxr is attempting to implant. I believe I saw somewhere that the reference he's quoting is a Yale University publication. Do you think that that might have made him believe in the credibility of the source? I might be wrong... Irrespective, it's an exceptional claim that Alyxr is making and he needs multiple reliable sources as per policy to insert the claim in the article. Perhaps you could use this line of reasoning with him once more. I'm not blocking Alyxr right now because I feel there's no need to do so right now. If he continues reverting after you've communicated to him the exceptionality of his claim and the need for multiple sources, then I'll block him immediately (unless he produces multiple reliable sources). I hope this sounds sensible to you? I'm not closing this report. Will follow your update in the coming few days here. Thanks. Wifione Message 10:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not blocked. I'm closing this report now as Alyxr is still not editing the article at all. Come back if there's any continuing issue. Wifione Message 16:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And now he's reverting again.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned - and gave some good needed advice. I suggest you stick to his talk page and attempt to open up some dialog directly with him there. Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:94.15.82.228 reported by User:Betafive (Result: )

    Page: Hacker News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 94.15.82.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [5]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [6]
    2. [7]
    3. [8]
    4. [9]
    5. [10]
    6. [11]

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

    Comments:

    User has repeatedly blanked large sections to make a point about moderation at Hacker News, engaged in edit warring, and threatened to IP hop and abuse open proxies to the end of perpetuating said edit war. User's end goal appears to be the introduction of a biased and unsourced 'controversy' section in the article, but has recently been blanking large sections. betafive 17:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the user in question. My edits have been continually reverted despite complying completely with Wikipedia rules. When I attempted to engage in dialogue on the talk page I was threatened with banning and all of my questions remained unanswered despite constant reverting of my edits.

    I fail to see how BetaFive can threaten to ban me for no reason and then become upset at a reference to proxy use. In addition, I fail to see why my edits are being reverted when none of the editors in question will engage in dialogue.

    The editor are borderline soapboxes for Paul Graham by censoring any criticism of his moderation policy which is unique it's passive aggressiveness and cruelty (noted and sourced by other editors than myself). They posit that a primary source from Paul Graham is Valid but a primary source elsewhere is Non-valid.

    I maintain it is the other editors which have a history of disruptive vandalism by removing encyclopaedic material in Violation of Wikipedia rules. Wiki demon is especially obstructive in this regard. 94.15.82.228 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My edits to the article are available for scrutiny by admins (which I welcome), just as is your disruption to it. Please to not attempt to dispute article content here, this is not the appropriate forum. betafive 18:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Clerk note: The IP has also engaged in an edit war with other users on the same article. I'd recommend semi-protection for 48 hours or so. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Th edit war was over content, not with specific editors. You are trying to turn one incident prolonged over a number of days into a series of behaviours which is patently false. The gist of the events is the following
    1. A number of IP editors highlighted the moderation controversy last year
    2. Editor Vladimir asked for discussion and closed the section
    3. I arrived in July to view any links to Hellbanning which I had been researching and found the links missing so I added them
    4. Vladimir removed them. So I researched the wiki history to see if they were previously there and a whole section had been removed
    5. I restored that section, also leaving my own addition in place
    6. Vladimir removed it and we began to debate the issue (quite civilly and in depth on the talk page)
    7. BetaFive arrived and reverted my edits. BetaFive threatened me with a ban and refused to engage in dialogue. Edit war continued.
    8. WikiDemon arrived and reverted my edits. WikiDemon outright refused to engage in dialogue and continually used belligerent language (I am gutting this whole section etc etc) Edit war continued.
    9. Two further editors expressed agreements that the moderation controversy had merit and should be discussed. Their points were ignored.
    10. WikiDemon and BetaFive demanded primary sources or they would continually revert my edits
    11. In line with their wishes I removed all content attributed to a primary source. Edit war continued.
    12. I was quite clear that if nobody would answer my questions then I saw no reason to stop edit warring. You don't get to come to an article, refused to debate, revert edits and then accuse the other party of breaking the rules and demand they leave.
    13. A third editor arrived and incorporated my/original edits into the wider article with sourced references with an admittedly less disdainful tone.
    14. The situation was marked as resolved.

    The idea that I edit warred with different editors is false. If anything, it was a selection of editors lining up to edit war with me. Wikidemon demanded that the page be protected on the version of edits that he had put in place. BetaFive simply demanded the page be protected on any version.

    I am new to Wikipedia but I found the experience cliquey and utterly devoid of any intelligent discourse other than my original exchange with Vladimir which ran into over 1000 words of well structured debate. Both BetaFive and WikiDemon refused to partake in that discussion which in my mind escalated the edit war way beyond where it had been previously with just me and Vladimir.

    157.203.243.21 (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • User has now IP-jumped (by his/her/its own admission) to 157.203.243.21, and then 157.203.242.36, and has been repeatedly editing my comments at Talk:Hacker News, having received no fewer than four warnings that such editing is wholly inappropriate. betafive 15:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have neither IP jumped or admitted anything of the sort you absolute liar. I was editing from my workplace which, if you review the IP, you can see the IP range has a number of edits on Wikipedia regarding our home town and locally relevant content. Are you planning to IP ban all 7,000 users from my workplace? How about you stop lying and/or jumping to conclusions. If I was using a proxy I wouldn't be here defending myself would I? In addition, I am editing your comments because you *continue* to disregard wikipedia rules by writing a conclusion to the page that *only* contains your arguments. Is it that important to you to "win" that you are disregarding everyone elses comments and arguments? Get the Conclusion changed. It's that simple. You do not reserve the right to speak on behalf of other editors and if you continue to do so I will revert your edits, it is that simple. Also, stop running to the administrators and refusing to engage in dialogue. Admins - is the user BetaFive allowed to write conclusion to the talk page which only lists his own arguments or does he have to write a Conclusion which impartial? He can write all of the personal arguments he wants, but I won't allow him to summarise or sideline *my* arguments from the "official" conclusion. 2.122.134.51 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I have closed the discussion at Talk:Hacker News, since it's devolved into a squabble over the closing summary. The IP appears to be abiding by my closure, so hopefully this matter has been resolved. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Righteousskills reported by User:Gilwellian (Result: Locked)

    Page: Alejandro Betancourt López (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Derwick Associates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Comments: Both articles are constantly being edited under a blatant difamation contributions prioritizing deletion of almost all information about the person and leaving the article almost exclusivelly about defamation suits. Please, see talk pages, another editor User:Eleonora Venezuela is doing a superb work of tracking and reverting under a neutral viewpoint so I did try to give an helping hand but finally this issue is going too far and beyond 3RR. I'm kindly asking to compare Righteousskills editions with previous anonymous ones (the anonymous IPs look like to have been blocked, see here, so he's forced to edit under real registered username (I do not understand what is the reason behind this but I do not care, even I guess is strange). Another anonymous editor User:46.24.172.71 posted this on his talk page so after his irrefutable contribution, I firmly believe that behind his edits, he's looking for something else than a neutral and informative article, clearly a conflict of interests. A Venezuelan exiled activist? Who cares? This is not the right place for political rivalries and conflicts outside wikipedia.--Gilwellian (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC) p/s. I was looking for some kind of arbitration and drop a line to administrator Daniel Case here, but he's on holidays right now.--Gilwellian (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a message to Daniel Case (administrator) looking for some opinion here, but he's on holidays.--Gilwellian (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Righteousskills has been notified of this discussion and given guidance. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These allegations are absurd and I deny them fully. I will be filing a similar complaint. There are several unregistered IPs editing on the page, all with the same views as Gilwellian. Righteousskills (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both articles have been Page protected (full) for one month by Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.97.195.84 reported by User:WPjcm (Result: Not blocked)

    Page: List of SpongeBob SquarePants merchandise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 70.97.195.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [13]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion unnecessary due to it being an obvious case of WP:SPIP (Proof: One of the sources he added here was from a SpongeBob fanfiction wiki page written by a user with a name similar to his "Danerdreal" account.)

    Comments:

    This user has added the indie game six other times before this one, making me believe that the article should be semi-protected. He also removed the template I used to warn him about edit warring right before reverting me again, showing that he knew what he did was wrong and did it anyway. ~jcm 01:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not blocked. The IP user's not returned. If he does, report back. Wifione Message 12:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:User931 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)

    Page: Isotretinoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User931 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [18]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    User931 had previously been in edit war over this matter in mid-May, had been brought to ANI over it and warned there (see [19]), and had simply walked away from the article and discussion. Showed up again yesterday, not talking and edit-warring instead.

    1. [20] 16:56, 10 August 2014 with edit note "For the love of... every chance you get you remove text and references while just previously been accepting the text"
    2. [21] 16:57, 10 August 2014 continuing to restore material deleted in his/her absence)
    3. [22] 21:34, 11 August 2014
    4. [23] 21:44, 11 August 2014
    5. [24] 21:54, 11 August 2014

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif


    • Back in May when problems started, I asked User91 to come and discuss via User91's talk page, here
    • User91 persisted and got 3RR notice from another editor in this dif
    • User931 was notified of an ANI discussion about his edits in this dif, started by Formerly 98. It was after this, that User91 disappeared.

    In current events I asked User91 to come to talk in edit note in this dif and this dif.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [25]

    Comments:

    User appears to be WP:NOTHERE -- has not responded to the discussion that he/she walked away from on Talk back in May, nor to requests to talk on his/her Talk page. Just here to edit war. Please block for edit warring and "failure to communicate." Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The difs provided span a two day period and do not seem to be a violation of 3RR because you need 4 reverts within 24 to violate 3RR. Also, the edit history for Isotretinoin shows Jytdog also involved in this edit war, although he is also under the 3RR limit. Seems premature to bring it here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bobo, you still don't understand Wikipedia. We discuss differences. You don't edit war... you don't edit war to the point where you get warned for 3RR and separately brought to ANI where admins warn you, and you don't just walk away after that and then come back months later and pick right up edit warring where you left off, still not talking. You don't still don't understand this. Neither does User931. I hated wasting my time posting this notice. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, I understand that discussion is important on Wikipedia. When I asked you on talk page "why not attain talk page consensus prior to deletion of longstanding text" you ignored that question and instead filed this ANI report (although I see since filing you have responding that I'm "judging" which I disagree with. I'm merely agreeing with User931 that it seems good practice to attain talk page consensus prior to deleting long standing text). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:User931 --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    as i wrote there, please review the discussion on talk that User931 abandoned. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can attest to jytdog's description of the events of a few months back. User931 attempted to edit war material supported only by non-MEDRS compliant sources into the article and refused to engage on the Talk page in our previous interaction. There are no subtle issues in play here or POV disagreements. The material in question is clearly supported only by non-MEDRS compliant sources, and User931 consistently re-added the material after the rules were pointed out, and refused to engage on the Talk page. I had not noticed this till now, but it appears to be a re-initiation of the same behavior. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Isotretinoin shows no talk page participation since May 2014. User931 has requested via edit summary and on his talk page that editors attain talk page consensus prior to deletion of long standing text. Jytdog has asked User931 via edit summaries and on User931's talk page to bring objections to the deletions to talk page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That's right. User931 has not participated in any Talk since May. He has just edit warred. Again, you don't seem to understand how fundamental collaboration and discussion are here. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page shows no participation by anyone since May.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the last several paragraphs found there are requests to User931 to respond to the comments that Jytdog and I left there. He chose not to do so, but to resume edit warring. There are no new posts there from Jytdog and myself, because User931 has not responded to the issues we already raised. Do you think it would be helpful for us to continue repeating ourselves?Formerly 98 (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is good practice and would be helpful to attain talk page consensus prior to deletion of long standing article text. Plenty of edits have been made since May, but no one has participated on talk page since May. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    BoboMeowCat, please read WP:BRD. In the absence of solid, policy and guideline related discussion of deleted or changed content (regardless of how 'long standing' it was) being pursued on the talk page, given the lapse in time, consensus has become that the changes have been accepted. What you are now discussing is challenging the standing consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Warned User:User931. This user appears to have some medical knowledge but may not understand how WP:MEDRS works. It took me a while to figure out what the dispute is about, but I think it's clear now. See especially the new thread at Talk:Isotretinoin#Conflicts of early August 2014. There have been some lawsuits by people claiming injury by this drug, but MEDRS tells us how to deal with the situation. Legal judgments can go in the history section using normal sourcing standards. But we can't put that same information into Adverse Effects unless sources acceptable per WP:MEDRS say they really are adverse effects. It is up to consensus how MEDRS is applied in particular cases but User931 is expected to join the discussion and wait for support there. User931 made a revert here which in effect declares that a legal judgment belongs under adverse effects. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Direct action reported by User:Altenmann (Result: Warned)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [26]
    2. [27]
    3. [28]
    4. [29]


    Comments:

    1. [[30] - Edit warring continues, without resolution in talk page. -No.Altenmann >t 06:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice that the user does not have many edits and might not realise what is the 3RR. No appropriate warning was given to the user. Subsequent to your report, I have warned the user and asked User:Direct action to revert their last undo. If the user doesn't comply, he will be blocked. Wifione Message 12:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've left Wifione a message. Personally I think Altenmann jumped the gun, as I was literally writing on the talk page (which I bid him take his issues to first, and which he neglected to do) while I was being reported for 3RR violation. Rather than falling over myself running to the admins, I'd prefer to work this out like a couple of adults who are capable of treating one another with respect, as I have done so in the past with other adults on the exact same issue regarding the exact same sourced content. Hopefully we can do that. Direct action (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Direct action, I'm responding here instead of on my talk page. You left a message, where the crux was: "I know what 3RR is, and I'm aware I violated it in this instance, but I did so in order to keep, in the article, properly-sourced and relevant content upon which I and other editors worked with each other for a long period to establish consensus vis à vis an agreeable version of the content (in short, the actual quotes were snipped and embedded in the references rather than written out in the article itself)." You cannot break 3RR on this premise. Read the policy and ask me if any part of it is unclear. I am sorry for putting it like this but you will have to restrain yourself, as another 3RR violation would not see you be forewarned before the block. Additionally, your writing to fellow like-minded editors[31][32] to join the edit war may be considered canvassing and should be stopped immediately. Please continue the discussions on the talk page of the article and collaborate towards a consensus. Use dispute resolution if talk page discussions fail. But no more multiple reverts please. I'm closing this report here assuming that you have realised the mistake. I'm watching the article for a few weeks from hereon. Thanks. Wifione Message 15:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The 3RR policy isn't unclear. It's fundamentally flawed and leaves Wikipedia highly prone to the bandwagon fallacy and to surreptitiously-coordinated efforts such as those documented as undertaken by several Zionist advocacy groups and official organizations, but the policy is not unclear. As a point of fact, since you accused me of "canvassing", I'm compelled to point out that I wasn't asking others to "join the edit war", not least since I don't see myself as participating in an edit war; I was asking for advice (which should be clear since I used the term "advice" directly and you obviously read the messages I left) given that I don't have much knowledge of or experience with the Byzantine dispute structures of Wikipedia. The case of this 3RR violation reporting is a perfect example of my lack of experience in this realm, actually, as, even though he and several others were clearly acting contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia (e.g. WP:BRD), Altenmann siezed the initiative by reporting me before I could (or even thought to) report any of them, and thus apparently only my actions came under any "official" scrutiny. I don't know what your purview is, i.e. if you only focus on potential 3RR violations or if you're supposed to respond to any violations you are alerted to or come across, but I find your total lack of comment on any of the behaviors exhibited by the other players in this ridiculous drama to be quite disheartening. Don't worry, I won't break the 3RR rule any time in the near future. Direct action (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned Wifione Message 15:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Toolen reported by User:Iñaki LL (Result: )

    Page: Duchy of Aquitaine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Toolen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:Diffs of the user's reverts:


    1. [33]
    2. [34]
    3. [35]

    I refuse to continue reverting, user seems to be set in his manners and continue edit warring. I add link to talk Iñaki LL (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I'M edit warring? He is the one who is edit warring. The user keeps reverting my edits, claiming France did not exist until the 11th century! The ridiculousness of this claim is obvious. Furthermore, the user refuses to talk with me on the talk page, where I outlined my case. It is he, not me, who is edit warring. Toolen (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Toolen, you've not broken 3RR, but are close to it. One more revert within this day, and I shall block you. Seeing the kind of edit warring warnings and block you've already had in the recent past, please tread extremely carefully. A strong suggestion would be to continue discussions on the talk page of the article. Read up dispute resolution and attempt to resolve the dispute amicably rather than in the manner going on. Iñaki LL is there on the talk page of the article attempting to discuss with you. So discuss there, and stop reverting immediately, else the block would be considerably longer than the last one you had. Wifione Message 12:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:94.175.99.66 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Not blocked)

    Page
    Moon landing conspiracy theories in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    94.175.99.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 11:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC) "/* On television */"
    2. 07:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "/* On television */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Inserted the same thing 7 times in the last 4 days. Repeatedly asked to discuss. Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not blocked. My suggestion is to engage the IP some more and see if they respond. To block for changing a term multiple times from "debunked" to "attempted to debunk" might not be the right thing to do here. If you think the IP continues to be disruptive without responding at all, come back and we'll work something else out. Hope this works for you? Wifione Message 17:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dcole2011 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Microevolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Dcole2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "This is a personal attack against a religious group and has nothing to do with the information on the page."
    2. 13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "This is a personal attack against a religious group and has nothing to do with the information on the page."
    3. 13:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "You're obviously disgustingly biased."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 13:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC) to 13:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      1. 13:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Misuse */ This section of the article serves nothing to the information except to attack a religious group who is not so much attacking themselves."
      2. 13:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "This sections of the page only serves to detract from the information in the article and to attack a specific religious group."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 13:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC) to 13:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
      1. 13:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC) ""
      2. 13:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Misuse */ Many Christians, like myself do not believe in a different science. We believe in the exact same science. The information deleted was false information."
    6. 13:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC) ""
    7. 13:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Misuse */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Microevolution. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    I've reverted so I won't block this editor, but frankly I see no future for them here. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Showmethedoor reported by User:Saladin1987 (Result: Declined)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [36]
    2. [37]
    3. [38]
    4. [39]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40] [[41]] [[42]]

    I have tried reporting him for his edits on two similar articles Azad Kashmir and Gilgit–Baltistan to two administrators over here [[43]] [[44]]. I am pretty sure they will take some action against him but i just wanted to tell that there is no doubt that the regions are disputed along with Indian Jammu and Kashmir region but there is no need to put disputed word in every other line if it is mentioned once as in the case of indian Jammu and Kashmir but he is just reverting like an indian nationalist:

    • Declined. The User:Showmethedoor's last edited version of the article you refer to shows the term "disputed" only once in the whole article. So I don't think the issue is as bad as you feel. At the same time, may I suggest that calling any editor "an Indian nationalist" might exacerbate the issue and I recommend you be extremely civil in your communication. Lastly, forum shopping might not be looked upon positively on the project. Use one forum to report the user and stick to it, rather than trying to go to various forums with the same issue. I'm declining your request as of right now as I see no edit warring. If the situation worsens, come back. Wifione Message 18:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=621095909"