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 Elvey (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 10 November 2014 (→‎User:FortLauderdale1911 reported by User:Elvey (Result: Locked): r). 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:বব২৬ reported by User:Redtigerxyz (Result: Both warned)

    Page: Bengali calendar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: বব২৬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1] (I have kept on revising the revision, the current preferred reference)

    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: Talk:Bengali_calendar#User:.E0.A6.AC.E0.A6.AC.E0.A7.A8.E0.A7.AC.27s_edit

    Comments:

    • Redtigerxyz, I am sure you are aware that edit war involves at least two party and you are equally responsible for the feud. Though I can see more clean reverts done by you than বব২৬. You both are trying to push some POV, specially some of your views are biased towards hindu origin of the calendar. While, বব২৬ is wrong about lunisolar nature of the calendar and others. You two should continue to talk on the talk page and I suggest you both refrain from editing the article for three days or until dispute resolves. There is no need to continue this ANI. It is entirely possible to to resolve content dispute through talk, especially when you both are talking. – nafSadh did say 18:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, I am adding referenced material in the article and the reference clearly says that calendar is solar and is based on the Surya Siddhanta and the month names are Sanskrit. My POV is based on RS. I have redirected the user to WP:RS ("Please explain on the basis of WP:RS") as well as other policies (see article talk). However, the user is removing the referenced info and adding that the calendar is lunisolar, which is inaccurate. The current edition still has the inaccurate data, but sadly I can't edit. I have tried discussing, all I am getting is WP:OR, which is not backed by RS. What is the meaning of such a discussion? Isn't there a policy stopping removal of referenced material and introduction of inaccurate data? Redtigerxyz Talk 13:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    nafSadh, I will refrain from editing the article. However, the article should be NPOV and accurate. Theory of origin by Shashanka and Surya Siddhanta, must be noted as references note them. Also the reference also explicitly say that the names are Sanskrit. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:Dispute resolution for some steps you can take. If you can get consensus on Talk then the article can be changed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GiorgosY reported by User:Why should I have a User Name? (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    List of wars involving Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    GiorgosY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    Obvious nationalist agenda, which I'm (regrettfully) not very patient when dealing with. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of one month. The one month is based on the user's edit warring at multiple articles, not just the reported article, as well as the user's disturbing history. Why should I have a User Name?, next time file a complete report, including diffs, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FortLauderdale1911 reported by User:Elvey (Result: Locked)

    Page
    Jack Seiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    FortLauderdale1911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 21:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 21:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    5. 20:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Offender was warned 4x today, 2x before the most recent revert. I see no way to "select[] edits where [I] warned the offender. Elvey(t•c) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected (full) for one week. The new user's motives may be suspect, but the material they were removing cannot remain in the article. First, there are copyright violations. Second, there are WP:BLP violations (one of the two sources is a dead link, and such controversial material cannot be sourced to a dead link). And why in the world is there a quote from Jesus in the article? Did anyone read the material? I've therefore locked the page, as too many editors believe the material belongs, and removed the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick note that I'm off to eat dinner and won't be able to respond for a while if editors complain about my actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Some fair criticisms. Now lets separate the chaff from the wheat. I'll give it a shot. --Elvey(t•c) 03:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to hear. Two more criticisms. First, the dead link source is not reliable. It's a political rag. Their About Us says: "Firedoglake.com (FDL) is a leading progressive news site, online community, and action organization consistently ranked as one of the most influential political websites." ([7]) Second, the article is short, and that much material attacking the subject is clearly WP:UNDUE.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've been interacting IRL... can't follow up, at least for a while. Encourage you to copy relevant bits of your comments on the article content to the talk page for other editors to see, or give me the OK to do so.--Elvey(t•c) 03:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DonBarchanga reported by User:Jaam0121 (Result: Malformed)

    Page
    Afro-Latin American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    DonBarchanga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:
    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir used disruptive edits and vandalism (Result: No violation)

    Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir used disruptive edits and vandalism in order to erase an idea and a reference of a scientific work in the pages of Origins of Romanians.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians) and section: Georgescu's statement They censored an historian who have several citations in that pages. Personal points of view and original research are not admitted. Eurocentral (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The censored phrase is: Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 06:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    They acted together in order to censor a reference. It is not the first time they acted together trying to censor data. Eurocentral (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation. This report is, of course, malformed. No action against the reported users. However, I recommend some sort of sanction against the filer based on this. EdJohnston?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DonBarchanga reported by User:Jaam0121 (Result: Page protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 06:36, 19 october 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 630177789 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
    2. 06:46, 6 november 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632223779 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
    3. 02:24, 8 november 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632798079 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
    4. 00:51, 3 november 2014 (UTC)
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 04:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User has been warned more than five times and unresponsive. It was blocked few days ago (for a few hours but it expired, and then continued issues reversing Note: Sorry if there are errors in format, English is not my native language but I try to do my best regards..

    You are both edit warring. Page is now protected. Go and use the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Baltimora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Synthwave.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "No problem, see Template:Infobox_musical_artist#genre. This section "aims for generality"."
    2. 16:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "No, one song is NOT representative of what the whole material performed by one act."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 13:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC) to 13:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
      1. 13:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "One song is not enough to qualify an act as a specific genre ! You need sources which explicitly describe the act as "new wave" and not only one of their song."
      2. 13:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 01:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "No, AllMusic sidebars are UNRELIABLE. See all the exemples I provided on my talk page. Don't use them any more."
    5. 00:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "1) Incorrect, see last paragraph. 2) I think you should read WP:GENREWARRIOR and WP:OR."
    6. 00:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632896100 by Harout72 (talk) Did you read my edit summary ? You cannot use AllMusic sidebars, they are unreliable."
    7. 00:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632894264 by Harout72 (talk) AllMusic sidebars are unreliable, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Baltimora. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Harout72 continue to add poorly sourced material to both Baltimora and Den Harrow while I provided rules which prove that the editor's edits are not helpful. AllMusic sidebars and other poorly sourced material is not acceptable in music-related articles. Also just because one song is described as "new wave" is not enough to prove a band usually performs "new wave music" (which is obviously not the case because I found a highly reliable book associating these two acts with the Italo disco genre). Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Harout72 reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Baltimora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Harout72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Template:Infobox musical artist#genre restricts no such thing. Your removing source Genre is nothing but disruptive."
    2. 16:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Infobox can have as many Genres as the group has had. Even if it's only one song that belonged to a certain genre, it can be included. Unless you can show me the Policy that it can't, DO NOT remove it again based on you personal views."
    3. 14:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "New wave was one of their Genres, and it can be included in the infobox as long as there are sources for even one song."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 06:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC) to 06:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
      1. 06:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "There are other sources than allmusic that say Baltimora was new wave."
      2. 06:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Providing one more source that supports Baltimora being new wave."
    5. 00:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Allmusic is ok to use until a better source is located. We currently do not have one."
    6. 00:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Synthwave.94 (talk): Yes the table you're referring to doesn't have Allmusic there. (TW)"
    7. 00:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Synthwave.94 (talk): Your explanation for this revert is? (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Baltimora. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Please note that User:Synthwave.94 persistently removes sourced Genres from the Infoboxes of both from Den Harrow and Baltimora claiming that the sources talk about one song only, therefore, it isn't enough for that Genre to be included. The user Synthwave.94 has so far failed to back up his/her removals with such policies that restrict Genres from being included, if sources provided speak of one song only.--Harout72 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's not cause to edit war. And indeed it looks like you're both past 3RR at Den Harrow, too. If you can't resolve these issues via article/user talk pages, take it to dispute resolution or, if you find his/her actions particularly egregious, it may be appropriate for WP:ANI. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:XenoBlaze reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Potential superpowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    XenoBlaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 17:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
    2. 17:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Potential superpowers. (TW)"
    3. 17:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Potential superpowers. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Adding unsourced material. NeilN talk to me 17:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of one week. This is a single-minded WP:SPA adding the European Union as a superpower to this and to other pages. As far as I can tell, that's all the user has done since creating the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saadkhan12345 reported by User:Faizan (Result: )

    Page
    Operation Zarb-e-Azb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Saadkhan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 12:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC) to 13:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
      1. 12:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "i have removed afghan militants because it is the view of User:Faizan and User:TheSawTooth....according to rules ... discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. will hve to wait until the mattr is resolved on talk.Pg"
      2. 12:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632949361 by Saadkhan12345 (talk)"
      3. 13:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "I have removed my own view which was (CIA drone strikes should be added in belligerents) ...User:TheSawTooth and User:Faizan view that afghan militants" should added in belligerents. I think we should resolves the dispute on talk page first."
    2. 18:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC) "TTP is involved in cross border attacks...for reference TTP(infobox) and talk page"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Operaation Zarb-e-Azb. (TW)"
    2. 08:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* 3RR at Operation Zarb-e-Azb */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. [8]
    Comments:

    Continuous edit-warring there at Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Made a 3RR violation between 7 and 8 November 2014 with 4 reverts. Faizan 08:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-reversions don't count (and consecutive edits only count as 1). So the 3 edits between 12:37 and 13:01 only count as 1 revert, placing them at 2 reverts in 24 hours. Stickee (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roscelese reported by User:Djcheburashka (Result: Fully protected)

    Page: False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    The reverts are of the POV template. When the editor refused to discuss POV issues in the article, and reverted changes, I opened discussion on the POV dispute resolution page and added the POV template. The editor has now, less than a day later, tried to remove the template three times.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user deleted the warning from her own talk page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&oldid=633052627

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:False_accusation_of_rape See also the POV dispute resolution page.

    Comments:

    Same issue applies to David Lisak -- the editor refuses to discuss on the talk page, then reverts edits to the page, then when this is raised as a POV dispute continues to try to revert the template without consensus. I've also requested protection on the page.

    User:187.189.154.153 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: )

    Page
    2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    187.189.154.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    2. 08:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    3. 08:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    4. 08:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    5. 07:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    6. 07:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* September */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    IP continues to edit war, despite being asked to discuss their content changes. —MelbourneStar☆talk 08:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lake4455 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    List of wars involving the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lake4455 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of wars involving the United States. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:172.56.20.97 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    List of wars involving the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    172.56.20.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of wars involving the United States. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours  Philg88 ♦talk 11:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NasiKK reported by User:Avono (Result: Locked)

    Page
    Najib Razak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    NasiKK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633048377 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
    2. 03:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633040514 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
    3. 01:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632990305 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
    4. 13:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632921288 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
    5. 03:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632594004 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    removal sourced content as "vandalism" dosn't discus consensus in talk page Avono (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is transparent as glass that this is an undetected sock of Roman888. The exchange above, including the trademark use of the expression "serial vandaliser" are straight out of his play book. Block on sight. --Drmargi (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected (full) for one week. Drmargi, if you believe the editor is a sock, then open a new case at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Caitlanowen2001 reported by User:Avono (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    The Passing Bells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Caitlanowen2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
    2. 21:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 22:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "Added active account"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Passing Bells‎. (TW)"
    2. 21:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on t The Passing Bells‎. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    adds twitter handle https://twitter.com/BenMcG1 into The Passing Bells article even though I said thats unencyclopedic (twice). Only engages after final edit-war warning to insult me and do 4th revert. Avono (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    violation of WP:Twitter Avono (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spotter 1 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

    Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Spotter 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [9]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [10] Note that this *is* in fact a revert, of an edit from Nov 1 22:19 [11]. Basically, with this revert, Spotter 1 is resuming an edit war that occurred on Nov 1.
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14] slightly different from the previous, but essentially the same. The slight difference in the tagging is a pretty transparent attempt to WP:GAME the system and circumvent the 3RR restriction.

    Previous edit warring on the article - note that these were not strictly speaking 3RR violations but rather tip-toeing right up to the line then backing off. Then coming back a few days later to resume it:

    3 Reverts in less than 2 hours on October 29:

    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]

    Depending on how you count it, either 3 or 4 reverts, over the same issue, on October 22:

    1. [18]
    2. [19]
    3. [20]
    4. [21]

    It very much also looks like Spotter 1 is either tag-teaming and coordinating with User:Kenfree or actually is that user. The pattern is the same: make 3 reverts in regard to the POV tag, and after being reverted by multiple editors, come back in a few days and repeat. It's also quite possible that these are socks of indef banned user User:LarryTheShark (same issue, same style). Users other account User:Spotter 11 (possibly created in good faith).

    By my count Spotter 1 has been reverted on this article by 5 or 6 different editors (including admins). So this isn't a two sided edit war, it's just one (actually two, if you include Kenfree) users who refuse to listen to others and are edit warring with a stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] [24]. User responds/posts walls of text, rants and soapboxing (these are just on the article talk page, he also posted similar to other venues, including other user's talk pages) or engages in some kind of "I know you are but what am I?" argumentation (exs. [25], [26], [27], [28]). Basically, rational discussion is impossible with this user.

    Comments:

    The edit warring today constitutes 4 reverts in less than one hour and 45 minutes. The edit warring on the two other days is 3 reverts in less than 2 hours, each.

    • Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:McGeddon reported by User:Urammar (Result: )

    Page:Alien (creature in Alien franchise) Alien (creature in Alien franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: McGeddon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)&oldid=633070133

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)&oldid=633070133

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

    Comments: This user is intentionally attempting to abuse the RFC system, resetting it under false pretense after it elapsed naturally, with an overwhelming majority for change of article, the user is continuing to block the majority approved change of article, restarting the edit war that got us here in the first place


    Urammar (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NebY reported by User:Jackboston (Result: )

    Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    NebY: NebY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=632304135

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633124596
    2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633126190
    3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633125860

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer

    Comments:

    I've watched this page for some time before creating an account, and the above user is engaging in disruptive and frankly unnecessary behaviour on the above page which borders on some form of edits war/vandalism. The user has repeatedly edited the page to remove sourced material and has acted utterly arbitrarily in so doing. The user removes historical references in the "history" section of the page and seems incapable of understanding why this is in fact relevant when explaining the above firms "history." The user also considers him/herself so educated on the subject that they dismiss as irrelevant a book precisely about the above firm. The book is not as he/she states by the firm itself, but is written by the legal historian Judy Slinn http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-History-Freshfields-Slinn-Judy/dp/B002622CHO

    The user has also removed information from an interview with the firm's former managing partner which was clearly relevant and sourced - purely because the interview was reproduced online in a blog. While there may be a couple of Peacock words on the above page, following Wikipedia guidelines, this does not mean that the user should simply "gut" the page of all useful or relevant information. Nor does it explain why the user removed information regarding the firms legal work on the 2012 Olympics, or information about the location of Freshfields offices - which would be relevant to any user of the page.

    Information like this - historical and otherwise - is common on other international law firm pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell

    The users behaviour is inexplicable to me, and is not at all consistent with Wikipedia editing guidelines.

    Should this page be protected?




    User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (Result: )

    Page: Eric Holder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [31]
    2. [32]
    3. [33]
    4. [34]
    5. [35]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] [37] [38]

    Comments:

    Outrageous, vulgar and disruptive behavior for any editor. Far worse for an ADMIN! What kind of example is this in how to calmly and rationally resolve disagreement and edit collaboratively toward an NPOV result? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I reverted three times, not four. The IP has been edit-warring all weekend (from various IPs), and the article has now been protected. I recommend the IP be given a strong warning about WP:BOOMERANG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The editor just admitted he edit-warred. But his defense was that he "reverted three times, not four?" Interesting, since I don't believe it's called "4RR". But I actually listed five times. Also, the editor made absurd assertions he cannot support. Namely, who was I edit-warring with "all weekend" - and where is their 3RR complaint? And if it was "from various IPs" how in heaven does that point to me? Obviously, not all similar IPs are the same person. This editor just needs to take responsibility for his own actions, and stop finger-pointing, rationalizing and deflecting. He admitted here that he edit warred. Even before that, he dared me to report him. As though, because he's an admin, he is some entitled entity, above the rules. Perhaps he is. If he isn't blocked, like any other editor would be - and for a significant period, because of the totally unnecessary and vulgar tone he took from the beginning in the edit summaries - then I guess he's right. Also, the page certainly doesn't need IP protection. You'll notice that the last edit before protection wasn't from an IP. It was from him. But to semi-protect/block such a prominent page, over a single disagreement regarding a single word,(now addressed), is, I think, pretty excessive and unnecessarily extreme. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=633182878"