Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 1 May 2015 (→User:Rarevogel reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef): 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:Robynthehode and User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Two parties warned)

    Page: Street performance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported: Robynthehode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Beyond My Ken (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. 1st revert by Robynthehode
    2. 1st revert by BMK
    3. 2nd revert by Robynthehode
    4. 2nd revert by BMK
    5. 3rd revert by Robynthehode
    6. 3rd revert by BMK
    7. 4th revert by Robynthehode
    8. 4th revert by BMK
    9. 5th revert by Robynthehode

    BMK then adds this personal attack on Robynthehode's user page, despite being warned very recently by The Rambling Man not to do so, otherwise they'll be blocked. This warning was also regarding WP:3RR. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, BMK has lately embarked on a personal attack campaign, including those diffs provided by Lugnuts, and calling me a "jerk", obviously nothing like leaving a message saying "Hey, asshole, stop fucking around", but seemingly symptomatic of this user's inability to work in a collaborative environment right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits in question have to do with a sentence in the article. It originally was in the section about one-man bands, and was unsourced POV complaining that street performers who used backing tracks and MIDI-sequencing were not true one-man bands. I originally removed it for being POV, but eventually returned it to the article without the POV. Then the complaint was that it wasn't about on-eman bands, so I eventually moved it to another place in the article which described changes in street performance in the 21st centuty, but apparently the sma editor doesn't want it there either. So,I give up. I'm taking the article off my watchlist and other editors can be responsible for keeping an eye on it.

    The personal comments from the two editors above are beneath response, as both are aware of the circumstances beneath the events they so skeletatly and deceptively described, so I shall not respond to them. BMK (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Striking my remark on the recommendation of admin EdJohnston. BMK (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it off your watch list but it doesn't excuse the blatant violations of 3rr nor the flagrant personal attacks you are so quick to resort to. No deception here, just reporting the truth. No excuses for either the multiple violations of 3rr nor the personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm less concerned about the edit warring than I am about BMK's comments to Robynthehode on their talk page. I don't find a notice to Robynthehode about 3RR or edit warring anywhere in their talk page history, so I think at most a warning is appropriate for them. BMK has said he'll leave that article alone, and (more importantly, to me) apologized to Robynthehode, so I'd be inclined to close this without action, but with a reminder to BMK that another 3RR in the future, or a similar comment to another editor, will probably lead to a block. But I can see how that might be viewed as being too soft, so I won't close this officially, and will defer to another admin instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was recently engaged with BMK in a senseless edit war, where he wrote "To expect me to treat you as a colleague under those circumstance is asking too much, so this is how you'll be treated instead, like the pest you have become." for enforcing the rule of not setting an image size in infoboxes so that the new dynamic sizing can take effect. BMK sets the images to sizes that are optimized for his screen like 192px and 275px. He is a very grumpy person, difficult to work with in a collaborative environment, not open to accepting changes to policy as Wikipedia changes. ~~
    • Result: Mostly per Floquenbeam. BMK and User:Robynthehode are warned against further edit warring; BMK is advised to watch his language in this and other disputes. BMK has apologized to R. for personal attacks and says he won't continue to edit the article; Robynthehode wasn't properly notified of 3RR before these events. User:Floquenbeam has advised against blocking either party. If BMK genuinely wants to apologize then he should avoid attacking others in 3RR reports. (See the last sentence of his 20:54 comment above). He might fix this by striking out the sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know whether this is the correct place to comment but anyway - I think the behaviour of BMK is deplorable it is not only the use of swearing at me but the attitude in a previous post on my talk page that because he has been editing Wikipedia longer than me that this gives him some sort of superiority. While I understand I did edit war if you look at the previous edits I did on the Street Performer's page I asked for the edit dispute to be taken to the talk page and reminded editors that the edit in dispute was uncited. My history of editing has been, in good faith, about following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have no other reprimands or negative edits. I have always tried to listen to other editors and take on board their comments. I think the conclusion to penalise me in the same way as BMK is unacceptable considering his history and attitude towards editing and other editors. Please commentRobynthehode (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:46.177.166.134 reported by User:AlbinoFerret (Result: Stale)

    46.177.166.134 Disruptive editing, no dialogue or justification, violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in Olympiacos Women's Water Polo Team article.

    As you can see here: [1], [2], [3] this ip user violated the three-revert rule by making disruptive, unjustified and unexplained edits (he wants to impose his version or who knows what), despite my clear explanation after reverting his second edit. I am looking forward to your help, thank you so much for your attention.

    This is also listed on WP:ANI here is a link. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale – EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A_Georgian reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 24h)

    Page: Undead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: A_Georgian (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. [4]
    2. [5]
    3. [6] - User not yet warned
    4. [7] - User warned and notified of NORN discussion
    5. [8] - User ignored NORN discussion
    6. [9] - User ignored this report

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Undead#Resurrection_VS_Undeath and Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Undead_and_Ezekiel

    Comments:
    Three users (an IP, NeilN, and me) have supported removing the material, two of them (not the IP) citing relevant policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:91.148.83.244 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24h)

    Page
    Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    91.148.83.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 10:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* NATO bombing timeline */"
    4. 11:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    6. 13:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    7. 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kosovo War. (TW)"
    2. 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    I also see references to socking in other editors' summaries. NeilN talk to me 19:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Caskett2015 reported by User:Liz (Result: 24h)

    Page: Stana Katic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Caskett2015 (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

    The text that is always removed refers to the marriage of a celebrity:

    Katic married her long time boyfriend Kris Brkljac in a private ceremony in Croatia in April 2015.[1]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff diff


    Comments:

    The editor goes by the username "Caskett' which is the couples name of two fictional characters, Richard Castle and Kate Beckett, . It's clear that she has issues with one of the actors getting married because she has deleted this information four times in the past few hours. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Castle Star Stana Katic Marries Kris Brkljac". People. Retrieved 27 April 2015.

    User:Tytyim reported by User:Random86 (Result: Warned)

    Page
    CLC (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Tytyim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Members */"
    3. 03:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 05:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on CLC (band). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User will not stop adding unsourced information to the article. Random86 (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: Warned. If the editor continues to revert with no discussion they may be blocked without notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.193.241.162 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24 hours)

    Page
    Aspartame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    24.193.241.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 11:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659600136 by Jytdog (talk)"
    2. 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659577610 by The Four Deuces (talk)"
    3. 23:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659576944 by Yobol (talk)"
    4. 23:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659533005 by Jytdog (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [11]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    [12]

    Comments:

    Reverted after warning given. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Krull The Eternal reported by Sciophobiaranger (Result: Block, warning)

    Page
    Economy of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Krull The Eternal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    1. 06:23, 27 April 2015
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:52, 28 April 2015
    2. 20:54, 28 April 2015‎ "Undid revision 659747752 by Sciophobiaranger (talk)"
    3. 21:09, 28 April 2015 "Undid revision 659748322 by Sciophobiaranger (talk) Don't edit anything, I have written in the talk page. I don't see why I am the one who is supposed to stop."
    4. 21:17, 28 April 2015 "You are wrong. I dispute the subject in the talk page and there is and there is no consensus, so you are a liar who say untrue things."
    5. 21:23, 28 April 2015‎ "Undid revision 659751891 by Sciophobiaranger (talk) You did not wait for a common consensus by users, and therefore FIRST CHANGE IT. Stop violating Wikipedia policy."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    In several of the edits the user undone, he was told to stop edit warring. The same goes for his comment on the user talk page.

    1. [13]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    Attempt 1 Attempt 2 Attempt 3

    Comments:

    I repeatedly tried to get the user to dispute the subject on the talk page, and leave the official statistic as originally stated until a common consensus is reached. Despite the fact that this user was told in March that the GDP ranking should stay as-is until there are two sources that have official statistics the user continued to edit the page and even after appealing to the talk page continued edit warring. The user also posted an offensive and antagonistic link on this user talk page, instead of discussing the issue. It is noted on the article's talk page as to why the user's excessive revisions were undone. The official sources for the ranking are provided on the talk page of the article, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciophobiaranger (talk • contribs)

    I would want to say that there are currently newer statistics from the CIA World Factbook, which provides the Only official statistics on the subject. The page was reverted by me before fore than 10 hours and nobody stated that this is wrong. Than this user started changing it constantly and providing old sources to the argument. Consensus in the talk page is not made yet.Krull The Eternal (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The CIA Factbook is one source that clearly says they're estimates. Official or not, there are two other official sources that still dispute the matter. And even the IMF estimate is different than the estimate provided by the Factbook. The sources are not old, as the source provided from the IMF was published in April, 2015 (this month) and the World Bank source is the official report provided here, which clearly says "Last Updated 14-Apr-2015". These are not "old" sources. --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    The IMF sources for the 2014 states that China has bigger economy than the united states, and it is even the information into the Wikipedia's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)). They ALSO states that China has bigger economy, but because this information is just an estimate this user says that it shouldn't be taken into account, so only the CIA World Factbook remains as a source. This user wants the information from 2014 about the usa to be compared with information from 2013 about china, which is wrong. Krull The Eternal (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you care to look at the sources, you would see that they're estimates (IMF and World Bank). And the IMF clearly says that "IMF staff estimates continue to serve as proxies for historical series when complete information is unavailable." Here is the IMF report. Here is the World Bank Source as well. Did you not care to look at them? --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you care to read, I'm talking about CIA World Factbook, which is neither IMF nor the World Bank, but you don't even take it into account. There are 3 sources. You say that they are just estimates, OK. Let take only the CIA World Factbook into account, which is the only remaining source that you doesn't disagree with. It states that China has the biggest economy. Krull The Eternal (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember this? The source used for the ranking is the IMF. You only have one source and even that mentions that they're just estimates. Then there are two sources that state there is no official statistic for 2014 yet. With the IMF stating there is no complete information available when staff estimates are used. Sciophobiaranger (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Krull has been doing this since November of last year, and was 3RR warned in April by myself. Also this edit summary is concerning: [14] Ha-ha-ha. It is the second economy by PPP, and even it's corrected in wikipedia's list. Ho-ho-ho-he-he-he-hi-hi-hi. Stickee (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was happy, because I proved you wrong. I have tried to change this before, and then they told me that there is no reliable sources. Now there are reliable sources, so I am happy. Krull The Eternal (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: User:Krull The Eternal is blocked 48 hours, User:Sciophiobiaranger is warned for edit warring. Krull has been carrying on the dispute since November 2014. For example see this edit. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:151.44.206.178 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Necromancy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 151.44.206.178 (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. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]
    4. [18]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:151.44.206.178#Recent_edit_to_Necromancy

    Comments:
    IP does not understand English well enough to accurately judge article content, and is censoring sourced information because he has misread its contents to say the opposite of what it actually says. He thinks the article accuses Da Vinci of being a necromancer, when the article contents are clearly Da Vinci calling necromancy foolish. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rarevogel reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

    Page
    Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "Could you please explain why you remove sourced content which is crucial to understanding the background?"
    2. 11:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "People reading this article would be made to believe that the Ottomans were sending the Armenians to death camps to be exterminated, Nazi-style. This article is utter propaganda. It relies too much on Amenian sources. I have added some background facts."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Fresh from a two-day block for violating 1RR s/he starts another edit-war and is at revert #2. Previous report on this user is still on this noticeboard and is currently #3 from the top. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a 1RR violation, since each of the listed edits is trying to restore material he was warring about earlier in April. We could try to go through discretionary sanctions and propose a topic ban, but the editor's persistence suggests he wouldn't be willing to follow the terms of a ban. How can we keep this sequence from going on forever? I'd favor an indefinite block, but would listen to other ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as an editor and Administrator who has encountered this editor a number of times, I have no reason to believe that Rarevogel can change. Take a look at the editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Agree with EdJohnston. Never met the editor before, but a look at their block log, which includes personal attackssource misuses, block evasion, and warring, strongly suggests that an indefinite block is in order.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely – This report was open for two days and I hoped the editor might respond. When someone is this persistent we can't be optimistic that they will negotiate with others or recognize the problem they are causing. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced the editor will follow policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ion G Nemes reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Traian Vuia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ion G Nemes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "changed lede to match reliable source which is already posted here"

    2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    1
    2.
    3.

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traian_Vuia sections 21-38, plus an RfC.

    Comments:

    Slow burn edit warring and another revert against consensus despite current RfC as recommended at ANI, see here which was an attempt to resolve the issue. There have been many attempts to resolve this on the article's talk page, and on the editors talk page, including here and they are all met with sarcasm. Flat Out talk to me 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 1 month. I see five reverts by User:Ion G Nemes in April to restore his own POV about early flights by Traian Vuia. He seems not to have budged one inch in spite of the many discussions he's been part of. For background, see this ANI discussion from April 23. In his opinion, the subject of the Traian Vuia article is a 'lying scumbag'. I doubt that Ion G Nemes can remain impartial enough to edit this article neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.198.72.162 reported by User:Brianhe (Result: Warned)

    Page: List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 80.198.72.162 (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. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24] also on user's talk page earlier: [25]

    Comments:

    Anon editor's hostility and unwillingness to engage in consensus-building forces me to bring to 3RR noticeboard. This is evident in userpage edits here and here where he tells editors basically do it his way or "stop altering wikipedia". – Brianhe (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikimandia reported by User:Sagaciousphil (Result: warned)

    Page: John Hay, 12th Earl of Erroll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wikimandia (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]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

    Comments:
    The editor is breaking all the reference formatting and was asked to discuss on the talk page but has failed to do so.

    • Boomerang. First, I didn't see the invitation to discussion; secondly, being told I had created "ugly infoboxes" was childish and uncalled for, as was the comment from "Eric Corbett" that the article was "an abortion." By the way, as you can see from the timeline, "Eric Corbett" coincidentally immediately stepped in to revert after Sagaciousphil had reverted it twice... what are the odds? These are likely sockpuppets or colluding offline. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned. Wikimandia is definitely not behaving well. But they haven't reverted more than 3 times; this wasn't a revert. Moreover, this isn't an edit warring warning, it's just an alert about this discussion. Sagaciousphil, use for instance {{subst:uw-ew}} to warn edit warriors. Wikimandia, you were edit warring against two users, and both your sockpuppetry accusation and your argument here are objectionable. No, infoboxes are not "standard", and you don't have consensus for adding one. If you carry on with this kind of behaviour, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    User:2605:A000:FFC0:44:51EC:69DA:22F8:643F reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: blocked)

    Page: Kim Richards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2605:A000:FFC0:44:51EC:69DA:22F8:643F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [32] - 19:42, 29 April 2015

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [33] - 21:35, 29 April 2015
    2. [34] - 21:43, 29 April 2015
    3. [35] - 21:46, 29 April 2015
    4. [36] - 21:50, 29 April 2015
    5. [37] - 22:35, 29 April 2015 (after another editor, independent of me, reverted the anon IP's edit).

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38] - User talk:2605:A000:FFC0:44:51EC:69DA:22F8:643F#Required 3RR warning

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39] - Talk:Kim Richards#Appearance on Dr. Phil

    Comments:
    I made a good-faith effort at informing him of WP:BRD, I began a talk-page discussion, and I invited him to join the discussion. [40]. Despite this, he continued to edit-war over what he himself said (at revision #1 above) is "purely subjective" content. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DD2K reported by User:Lukeno94 and User:EoRdE6 (Result: No action)

    Page
    Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:50 (UTC) "No! Stop it"
    2. 22:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659952330 by Kenobi5487 DO NOT remove my comment"
    3. 22:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659950989 by DD2K (talk): Rvv. (TW)"
    4. 22:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659950705 by DD2K (talk): Rvv. (TW)"
    5. 22:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659950239 by DD2K (talk): Rv - And I said no, again, Opposers are NOT going to be the only ones prevented from posting replies. (TW)"
    6. 22:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659949949 by DD2K (talk): Rv --No way, opposers are NOT going to be the only ones not able to reply. (TW)"
    7. 22:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659949672 by Calidum No"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Doubtless this'll be framed as being a way to censor this user, given their edit summaries behind the reverts... but that's 5 reverts in ten minutes, against two different editors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Involved comment. I was merely trying to move his comment to the discussion section. The user in question noted replies should be moved there yesterday in response to another user. Calidum T|C 22:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Just an FYI to whoever closes this, the response DD edit warred over is now in two sections and should be removed from one of them. Calidum T|C 22:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with all above, user clearly knows where the comments belong by this edit, and now edit wars over his own, even as multiple users tell them on their talk page and by reverting. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to point out on this move request that there have been several Support voters posting in the Oppose AND Neutral sections. I asked one editor to remove their comment on my Oppose vote, and he stated that it was allowed and I could not remove his comment. The initiater in this very complain has posted several comments harassing both Opposers and Neutral voters. It is ridiculous that my comment kept being removed. Dave Dial (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes there are three very short replies in the oppose section, but any long ones (especially ones that mess up the numbering and indentation and require conversation back and forth) have been direct to a new section, by multiple editors from both sides of the debate. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe that people do have edit wars on talk pages too. One should not revert things written on talk pages unless it is very much abusive. Talk pages are made to express ourself freely. --Human3015 23:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what about the bright line of TPOC, which states

      Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

      I can take responsibility for my actions, as long as everyone, based on their own actions, knows that they violated TPG. As shown, an admin told me I could not remove his comment, and has now made other comments on other !votes. Yet mine was the only one repeatedly removed. Dave Dial (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I tried to implement a solution by hatting the comment, so as to not fragment the discussion, but DD2K still reverted me, isisting on the comment remaining untouched. I really think that they should take a step back from this at this time. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, I think any comments on a support or oppose vote should be moved; neutral is a bit more ambiguous really. But Dave, there is really no excuse for this many reverts (seven), and the fact you've made two more since the report was filed wasn't a smart thing to do. Describing things as vandalism when they clearly weren't is also a red flag. Your post was not (intentionally) removed, it was moved, or at least, it was supposed to be (everything seems to be lost in the mess of that edit history). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action. It appears the dispute has quiesced. There were enough reverts to justify a block, if we wanted to go that way. All parties are advised to stay cool from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Calidum reported by User:DD2K (Result: No action)

    Page: Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Calidum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [41]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [42]
    2. [43]
    3. [44]
    4. [45]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

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

    Comments:

    • It doesn't surprise me that you would make that comment here, without making the same note that my 'warning' was given afterwards too. I used to believe you were a good admin and stand up guy. This whole move request has opened my eyes to a lot of Wikipedia cliques. The boys club. Dave Dial (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I didn't make that comment up there, because, as is clear from the time stamps, you made two of your reverts after the warning was on your talk page. I'm somewhat anal about facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes. Facts ARE facts. And since you were one of the Support editors who made comments on Oppose votes(mine), and when I asked you to remove your comment because I believed it was not allowed, you refused and told me it was allowed and that I should not remove your comment. Yet, you allowed several editors to keep removing mine wihtout any comment from you at all. Yep, unbiased good admin that you are, the facts are shining through. Dave Dial (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. I also allowed a cat in Jakarta to be hit by a car last month. I only turn my omniscience on during duty hours. More to the point, Comments that are placed in the wrong section may be moved to the correct section by administrators or other participants. There seems to be a general agreement that short replies are ok, but long rants with formatting that break the page are not. But all of that is quite irrelevant for this discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid excuse for breaking WP:3RR, and neither is Wikipedia:Cabals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Human3015 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Blocked 72 hours )

    Page
    Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Human3015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660096606 by Lukeno94 (talk) this issue has been widely discussed in talk, please see talk page. Except 1/2 POV users, everyone has consensus. Please read talk page., long discussion"
    2. 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660094673 by Mar4d (talk) revert of sourced material, don't indulge in edit war, groupism."
    3. 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "added more citations by Human rights watch accusing Pakistan too. consensus made on talk. Read talk page. Discuss there before deleting highly sourced matter"
    4. 17:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660090481 by TopGun (talk) unexplained revert., see the talk page for earlier discussion on this issue. Don't revert sourced material."
    5. 07:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659983004 by Kashmiri (talk) don't revert sourced matter, see talk page. "Human Rights Watch" accused Pakistan."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    [47]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    [48]
    Comments:

    Open and shut case; reverting four separate editors without gaining any consensus, and using bogus edit summaries as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Human3015 was blocked very recently on 23 April for edit warring at Indian subcontinent. The user still does not seem to have developed an understanding of 3RR, making five reverts and undoing 4 different editors within a day at this article. As in the previous block, there's the same attitude - constant warring, refusal to use the talk page, and not accommodating alternative views. Like last time, this time he was also notified of 3RR and asked to self-revert, and he chose not to. This is as damning as it gets for total disregard of 3RR. Mar4d (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • here is long discussion where final decision was to write section on Pakistan. Kindly read it if you have time. Some POV people kept on reverting highly sourced matter without reading whole talk page.
    • That section has citations of Human rights watch that Pakistan does human rights violations by supporting militants in Kashmir. And that report clearly mentions that.
    • Some users whose user page shows they are from Pakistan always revert it. They deny even sourced matter. Read the talk page again.
    • Long discussion on same issue has been already done, it was two day long discussion and whatever I wrote has valid sources. --Human3015 18:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two day discussion? That's nothing. In fact, for something clearly this controversial, it's nowhere near sufficient. You also allude to a consensus that does not exist in the slightest. You were discussing an edit that had about 1.5k of content; this one is FOUR times that as well. Oh, and sending me bogus edit warring notices in your position does not help you one jot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I will elaborate it.

    • Here is my first revert I reverted user Kashmiri : His name suggests that he is from Kashmir and many Kashmiris support Pakistan so this user will not see talk page or will not think anything and will directly revert anything written against Pakistan even if it is highly sourced.
    • My second revert User TopGun reverted Me : He has been involved with me several times. He is also from Pakistan(his profile says, he want Kashmir in Pakistan soon) and he was so enthusiastic that he not even gave edit summary to his revert. He just can't tolerate anything written against Pakistan even of it is sourced and highly discussed on Talk. But I reverted him adding two more citations. See above.
    • My third revert I reverted Mar4d: Mar4d also involved with me earlier many times. His profile also says he is from Pakistan. He also can't see anything against Pakistan. I will give an Example. read here Mar4d's old edit where he wrote "Kashmiri militants" or "Kashmiri designated terrorists by UN" as "Freedom Fighters". Means he edit wikipedia with that mentality and he also can't see anything against Pakistan even if it is highly sourced.
    • TopGun and Mar4d usually work in group and I was got blocked for 48 hours very recently for edit warring with same two guys on page Indian subcontinent. They always work in group to get other users blocked which can be threat for their hidden agenda.
    • Hope admin will study this matter deeply. And I'm ready to get blocked because I have broken 3RR rule and I accept my mistake.

    'I AM OFF --Human3015 19:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything is not a conspiracy. This has more to do with your attitude and your approach to dealing with content disputes. With a might makes right attitude like that, where everyone else is wrong and you are right, you can't go very far unfortunately. Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Human3015, don't edit war even if you think you're right. I quote the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy, to which you have been repeatedly linked: "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Frankly, I think you ought to have got this clear in your mind the last time you were blocked for edit warring. Accusations of other people 'working in group to get you blocked' are unconvincing and inappropriate, please read WP:AGF. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    User:‎Wildthang22 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: )

    Page: St. Augustine, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ‎Wildthang22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [49]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [50]
    2. [51]
    3. [52]
    4. [53]
    5. [54]
    6. [55]
    7. [56]
    8. [57]
    9. [58]
    10. [59]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

    Comments:
    User presents their point of view, then reverts to their preferred version while consensus still not achieved. There may be weight issues, but they are not even being addressed. Other uninvolved parties would be appreciated to help resolve this. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Continuing edit-warring even after warning given. Also may be an WP:SPA, as they have only made edits to the St. Augustine article. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    User:124.180.153.119 reported by User:Anders Feder (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 124.180.153.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [62]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [63]
    2. [64]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No.

    Comments:

    The user is an IP editor who appears to be in breach of the 1RR restriction in place on Syrian Civil War related articles.[66] The editor has solely made pro-Zionistic/anti-Palestinian edits since it began editing yesterday.[67]--Anders Feder (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 1 week. Appears to be an WP:ADVOCACY account. Alerted to the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Benjamin.Franklin.1706 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: )

    Page: Aleksandr Dugin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Benjamin.Franklin.1706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor is a single-purpose account whose only purpose is the remove the statement that Aleksandr Dugin is known for his fascist views. All his/her edits are marked minor. He/she has never posted on the talk page.

    Previous version reverted to: [68]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Revision as of 15:01, 29 April 2015
    2. Revision as of 15:08, 29 April 2015
    3. Revision as of 15:25, 29 April 2015
    4. Revision as of 15:29, 29 April 2015
    5. Revision as of 18:32, 29 April 2015
    6. Revision as of 16:05, 30 April 2015


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:21, 30 April 2015


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been numerous discussions concerning the statement that Dugin is known for his fascist views on Talk:Aleksandr Dugin. I expect that User:Benjamin.Franklin.1706 participated in them as an IP editor or under a different ID.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:David Corriveau & James Corley reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Indef)

    Page
    Dell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    David Corriveau & James Corley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143565 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
    2. 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143397 by Joseph2302 (talk) Don't be an idiot, search for c-r72Nr8A44"
    3. 23:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143297 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
    4. 23:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143153 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
    5. 23:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
    2. 23:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
    3. 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
    4. 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dell. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Repeated addition of unsourced content, ignoring my warnings about unsourced content and edit warring. This user is suspected as a sockpuppet, but if not then their edit warring, and edit summaries calling me an idiot should lead to a block. As I already explained, WP:VERIFY means they have to provide a source for their claims. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=660157451"