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 DatGuy (talk | contribs) at 10:14, 26 November 2015 (Adding new report for 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. (TW)). 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:Castncoot reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Castncoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691735530 by Sitush (talk) If it's ongoing, then you don't alter the status quo."
    2. 21:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691671951 by John (talk) already discussed on talk page"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    DS notice

    Comments:

    This page is under WP:1RR, pursuant to the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions. This user is aware of this, having been given a SCW&ISIL DS notice. Despite this, he continues to edit war. RGloucester — ☎ 00:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Until a short while ago, Talk:Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks didn't even have a sanctions warning notice on it, and despite some vocal proponents of the sanctions, I maintain it wasn't clear at all to all editors (I suggest asking User:Fuzheado or User:John for instance) that particular article was intended to fall under the sanctions' wide umbrella, being an article about reactions about something that was probably done by ISIL affiliates (which has its own article). On whether what User:Castncoot did constitutes edit warring deserving of sanctions, I have no opinion, but I wouldn't consider 1RR as a factor in deciding it. LjL (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Much as I disagree with Castncoot regarding the specific issue, I too am bewildered regarding the 1RR thing and was not aware of it. I would be surprised if I have not breached it myself. There is some sort of mission creep going on here, and some assumption of the legal notion that "ignorance is no excuse". I'm afraid that I find that unacceptable in the current situation and I think that Castncoot should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. Let's do a bit more IAR and a bit less GovCom or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw this and am flabbergasted myself. I'm sure this can't be serious. I've never heard of this before within Wikipedia. I am a respectful editor in good standing. How can one particular topic (or any topic for that matter) be given a 1RR limit? That completely paralyzes the ability of editors to debate and edit effectively. That violates Wikipedia's mission. It's also completely ambiguous whether this applies to a reversion issue with one particular editor or in total. I in fact thought it applied in a one-on-one situation and really wondered about its authenticity. And how far peripherally within a topic does this go? This is not even the parent article in question. And for how long? It's already been one week since the attacks have occurred, and the evolutionality has slowed way down, such that it's not much different in tempo from many other relatively "current" events. I have to agree with the term "mission creep" here, and on a broader note, it's exactly this kind of operative conduct among some within Wikipedia that is disillusioning many new and current editors from editing. I think this rule (if it really exists as this complainant wants to interpret or enforce it) is patently bizarre and should be voided, returning this subject to the general Wikipedia policy. Best, Castncoot (talk)
    You have no reason to be bewildered. I provided the standard notification to you, which informed you about the 1RR. If you did not read it, that is on you. The procedure has been followed, and should be enforced. The notice that I provided you says "All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here". If you'd have clicked the link, you'd have seen that it says "When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert". There was no reason for you to continue reverting, contrary to the 1RR that has been in place on SCW and ISIL-related articles for years. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been editing this topic "for years," nor have I ever heard of a 1RR policy in Wikipedia before this. Obviously, if that's the policy, then that's what I will follow. But I am bewildered. Castncoot (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. However, that's why I gave you a DS notice, in line with the procedure specified at WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. The purpose of those notices is to notify editors of the system, so that they are not bewildered. If you did not read the notice, again, that's on you. Having had the notice, which clearly mentioned the scope of the sanctions, and explained 1RR, etc., there was no reason for you to revert more than once per twenty-four hours. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since blocks are meant to be preventive rather punitive and since the editor says that they will now follow the restriction, I don't think there's a need for any type of sanction here. Volunteer Marek  04:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I can understand this position, and it seems sensible. RGloucester — ☎ 04:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tkaehfdl1234 reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: Warned user(s))

    Page: Korean sword (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tkaehfdl1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: 04:54, 27 October 2015‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,152 bytes) (-463)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 98.224.110.9 (talk): Unsourced addition. (TW))[1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:22, 21 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎[2]
    2. 22:06, 21 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (Undid revision 691727363 by Phoenix7777 (talk))[3]
    3. 02:23, 22 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (Stable version)[4]
    4. 05:34, 22 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (Stable version Revert.)[5]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:06, 21 November 2015‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,494 bytes) (+13,494)‎ . . (3rr warning) [6]

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

    Comments:

    Phoenix7777, Tkaehfdl1234: If I had seen this yesterday then a block would likely have been issued. As this report is now stale, I will warn both of you that this kind of conduct is not acceptable, and if it persists then I will issue blocks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Natsume96 reported by User:Einstein95 (Result: 1 week)

    Page
    Metrostar Rattler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Natsume96 (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:

    This user is repeatedly removing a deletion notice from the article claiming that the "discussion is closed", despite the notice haven only been added less than an hour prior, and so not after the 7 day period. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It also appears that other edits also revolve around fake video games. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Einstein95: which articles are you alleging are fake? If there is a wider problem, we may need to consider a longer or indefinite block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MSGJ:: The "Metrostar Rattler" and "Proton 1M" systems, "Natsume: Moonwing Warrior (Metrostar-Bizzare/Studio Vector) 2001/Codename: Nightstar 2002", "The Star Knight", "Street Wings", "Street Warrior Natsume", "Wing Knight", "Streets of Rage Remake" (using MUGEN and "E-Metro32"), "Metro-Active X: Streets of War", "Streets of War: The Bureau", "Project R: The Contagion" and "Project X: Love Potion Disaster", of which the last four would be fan games at best (not regarding Project X is supposedly a Sonic hentai game). -Einstein95 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked through deleted contributions and can find nothing related to "Proton 1M". Can you provide links please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [13] and [14] -Einstein95 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by User:Vague Rant. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For edit warring on this page (I had to laugh at the irony) I have blocked again for a week. But I think we could be looking at an indefinite block in the near future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Retro-redakteur.u12 reported by User:Green Zero (Result: declined)

    User Special:Contributions/Retro-redakteur.u12 without arguments delete text from page Yury. In the his user talk page do not want talk about this and delete my questions. What can i do the next step? — Green Zero обг 18:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    First, new editors need to be warned about edit warring before being reported here. I've added an appropriate warning. Next, Retro-redakteur.u12 please stop reverting and explain your deletions. --NeilN talk to me 21:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And when reporting, you need to use the prescribed format. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hellznrg reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page: White Ribbon Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hellznrg (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] restore of previously removed material
    2. [16]
    3. [17]
    4. [18]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] (only one discussion)

    Comments:
    User has added and then repeatedly restored poorly, unreliably sourced contentious material to the article and has been reverted by three other editors (including me). The fourth revert ocurred less than an hour outside the 24-hour window.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yazebi and User:Cyclopsox reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Both blocked indef)

    Page
    Sukhoi Superjet 100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    First sock report

    Coordinated LTA attack with another sock Cyclopsox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see second sock report below. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gbgfbgfbgfb. Coordinated LTA edit-warring by multiple socks to replace a featured picture with a picture the socks prefer.

    User being reported
    Yazebi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692162822 by Dr.K. (talk) Rv sock."
    2. 05:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692162548 by Dr.K. (talk) see talk"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 05:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC) to 05:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
      1. 05:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "per talk"
      2. 05:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Variants */"
      3. 05:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Accidents and incidents */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sukhoi Superjet 100. (TW★TW)"
    2. 05:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sukhoi Superjet 100. (TW★TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "/* New Image */ I agree with Bilcat"
    2. 18:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "/* New Image */ ce"
    Comments:

    Coordinated LTA attack with another sock Cyclopsox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gbgfbgfbgfb. Dr. K. 06:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Second sock report
    User:Cyclopsox reported by User:Dr.K. (Result
    )
    Page
    Sukhoi Superjet 100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Cyclopsox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691942091 by BilCat (talk) i have explain it alredy"
    2. 04:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "rev"
    3. 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "better picture"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "/* New Image */ I agree with Bilcat"
    Comments:

    User:বব২৬ and User:Akbar the Great reported by User:Human3015 (Result: )

    Page
    Bangladesh (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
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "please recheck your edit"
    2. 20:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "your edit is vandalism, you cannot add religious info on the main paragraph also you have changed the grammar to very poor read."
    3. 20:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "you are changing the grammar and the basic structure. Discuss before you want to add anything in the main paragraph on talk page."
    4. 20:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "you'll reported to the admin. your destructive edit has been reverted even before. To add or change main paragraph talk page. WP:VANDALISM"
    5. 20:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "there is no personal attack. Be productive instead of destructive. Don't destroy the grammar and the paragraph style. Don't make Wikipedia your personal diary."
    6. 20:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "WP:VANDALISM"
    7. 20:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "This is a country page. stop it. Make an edit only after your edits are verified /discussed on the talk page. WP:VANDALISM"
    8. 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "WP:VANDALISM"


    Page
    Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Akbar the Great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "rv good faith. reduced paragraphs from 6 to 4. but change was necessary, previous version has poorly written content and grammar"
    2. 20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692304062 by বব২৬ (talk) why? explain any issues in the talk page"
    3. 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692304754 by বব২৬ (talk) why are you taking it personally?! plenty of countries have religious info- Nepal, Turkey."
    4. 20:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692305283 by বব২৬ (talk) what are you talking about? you have a problem with religious percentages?"
    5. 20:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692307058 by বব২৬ (talk) stop making personal attacks. give a valid reason on your problems"
    6. 20:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692308306 by বব২৬ (talk)"
    7. 20:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692309001 by বব২৬ (talk) stop shouting"
    8. 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692309270 by বব২৬ (talk) stop your WP:EDITWAR, grow up and reply on the talk page"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:
    This is nothing but a senseless personal attack campaign by these two users. They accused me of vandalism and destruction for simply ±this lede edit.--Akbar the Great (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also posted on the talk page of the article, requesting BB26 to discuss. Strangely, he only responded after this complaint was filed.--Akbar the Great (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Akbar the Great: You are allowed to do 3 reverts within 24 hours, but here you have done 8 reverts. You are not new editor, now you are experienced enough, you should know this. 2nd thing is that you were doing it at article like "Bangladesh", which is very important article with many readers, this is not any minor kind of stub or start class article. This is one of most important article. So you should have keep that in mind. --Human3015TALK  22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was being accused of vandalism and destruction for simply this edit. Clearly, I understand the value of the article given my contributions. But when it's patrolled in such as a nonsensical way by users like BB26, you wonder if there's any decorum left on the scene.--Akbar the Great (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Akbar the Great: I think your edit was first time got reverted here. When you add something to article and some other user reverts it then you are suppose to follow WP:BRD. And BB26 replied to your talk page thread before I open this complain, so your above comment is wrong. Obviously I am not supporting BB26, but as you are commenting here so I am talking about you. --Human3015TALK  22:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was told the edit was too long, so I then reduced it to 4 paragraphs per Wikipedia guidelines. Then BB26 barged in and started the edit war. Can't we reach a conclusion over the actual content dispute? The discussion on the talk clearly isnt going anywhere. So we should have stuck to the DRN.--Akbar the Great (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Akbar the Great: Case on DRN has been declined because there was not talk page discussion at that time. See, you are relatively new user, I am not discouraging you to go for DRN, but case would have declined there even if I would have not commented there. There must be detailed talk page discussion before going for DRN. Another thing is that, you should not edit war in any case even if you think that you are right. I think if you get blocked then you will learn more things, I myself got blocked for 5 times for edit warring, so its ok to get blocked, people learn new things after getting blocked. You will come back as more sensible user. --Human3015TALK  22:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note @Akbar the Great and বব২৬: You're both edit warring, and the edits aren't clear WP:VANDALISM. If either or both of you continue to revert war, you risk being blocked from editing. --slakr\ talk / 00:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to restore my work, which was totally undone by BB26 without any concrete reason. He can't claim ownership for the lede since he hasn't written it.--Akbar the Great (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Akbar the Great: It doesn't matter if the other person had a concrete reason or not; you're both edit warring and are in violation of the three-revert rule. I don't consider either the reasons given from you or the other person as covered by one of the listed exceptions to either policy. There are numerous options available for dispute resolution, including launching a request for comment to bring in uninvolved outside editors or simply obtaining a neutral third opinion. --slakr\ talk / 01:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Omar-toons reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: 31h)

    Page: Sand War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Omar-toons (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. 14:35, 24 November 2015
    2. 12:36, 24 November 2015
    3. 02:42, 24 November 2015
    4. 00:46, 24 November 2015
    5. 23:37, 23 November 2015

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

    1. 02:51, 24 November 2015
    2. 12:47, 24 November 2015

    Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

    Comments:
    Omar-toons is completely out of control, despite having been warned (twice) to stop his edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Krzyhorse22 reported by User:Human10.0 (Result: Both warned)

    Page
    Stoning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Krzyhorse22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Filing user
    Human10.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Diffs of the user's edits
    1. [21] [No edit summary given, he basically removed the citation of a news article that stated tribal leaders had carried out stoning extrajudicially in Afghanistan]
    2. [22] [Again no edit summary given, he removed mention of the words "tribal practice"]
    3. [23] "That article is about stoning in Iran and Pakistan (not about Afghanistan), you're wording implies that tribal leaders are allowed to stone women in Afghanistan" [Note: the news article explicitly mentions stoning in Afghanistan]
    4. [24] "I've read all of it, that UK news article is about stoning in Iran and Pakistan. A mere mention of something in that report doesn't mean much, I deal with Afghanistan, which tribal leader is stoning women? What's his name? Which tribe he represents?" [He basically says the article's statements about stoning in Afghanistan don't "mean much" and implies that they shouldn't be added to the wiki article's section on Afghanistan]
    5. [25] "ONLY you are accusing Afghanistan's tribal leaders, which includes Hamid Karzai, of stoning people to death. Either stop reading this unsourced POV or provide sources. That UK news piece is focusing on legal stoning in Iran and Pakistan." [Note: no one accused Hamid Karzai of anything. He claims the news article is unsourced POV]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on Krzyhorse22's talk page
    1. [26]
    2. [27]
    3. [28]
    4. [29]
    5. [30]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. [31]
    2. [32]
    3. [33]

    I have mentioned the instances of Krzyhorse22's edit warring on the stoning article and summarised my attempts at resolving the dispute here. Krzyhorse22 has been active on Wikipedia since the post on the article's talk page was made but has not engaged on said talk page.

    You're both revert warring. Seek dispute resolution. --slakr\ talk / 05:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. Krzyhorse22 kept deleting sourced text despite my repeated requests to solve the dispute first so I kept reverting him. If he deletes the sourced text again, I will not revert him but I will request a Third Opinion (3O). I hope that is okay. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As per my observation, these two users reporting each other on ANI, SPI and now here at Edit warring board. I think admin attention is needed regarding articles in which they are involved. Maybe one of them can be topic banned to resolve this. --Human3015TALK  21:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that I only reported Krzyhorse22 to this edit warring board, I did not report him on SPI or ANI. Saying "these two users reporting each other" implies I reported him on all those boards too, even though I did not. Krzyhorse22, on the other hand, did accuse me yesterday of being a sock here, on a page investigating whether he is using a sock (he has since heavily edited that page and also removed his accusation against me). I am not aware of anyone reporting me or him on ANI. —Human10.0 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI was this, indirectly related to you. Anyway, you both have to resolve your issues, continuous conflict with same editor makes editing unhappy. Maybe you both can ignore each other for some time. --Human3015TALK  22:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know about the ANI. I am still open to resolving the issue, I do not want any animosity between me and Krzyhorse22. I wish I could ignore him but that's very hard to do when he is accusing me of POV-pushing just for restoring sourced material he deleted without giving any reason.
    I also have a question: The result below says I can't make reverts on the stoning article. Does that mean I'm not allowed to make any reverts or am I just not allowed to revert the text that is disputed between me & Krzyhorse22? The thing is an IP has recently made a small edit where they messed up the grammar of a sentence on the stoning article. I would like to correct that.—Human10.0 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a crime or a violation of Wikipedia to report someone at SPI, everyone does it and so did I because I was 100% convinced socks were unnecessarily following me. However, I have not breached any Wikipedia policy so I see no justification for reporting me here. About the article Stoning, which is about punishment. Human10.0 believes tribal leaders in Afghanistan stone people to death as punishment. He cites Emma Batha who states, "In some countries, such as Mauritania and Qatar, stoning has never been used although it remains legal. However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially." [34] Emma Batha does not clarify if she's talking about tribal leaders in Iraq or Afghanistan. All the other sources say only Taliban soldiers do this but as a crime. I have not seen any report in which Afghan tribal leaders doing it or even being accused. Human10.0 is simply POV pushing in articles.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Krzyhorse22 please do not selectively quote the article. The relevant passage, as I pointed out on your talk page, is: "In some countries, such as Mauritania and Qatar, stoning has never been used although it remains legal. However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign."[35] I think it is clear now that the article was talking about Afghanistan. I would also like to point out that I wasn't the person who added the part about tribal leaders, that was someone else. When you deleted their contribution without justification, I merely re-added it because it was reliably sourced. There are many reports of Afghan tribal warlords/leaders carrying out stoning (in violation of current Afghan law), I guess I will have to add some of those reports to the wiki article to convince you that other sources also mention tribal leaders being involved in stoning incidents. One article also reports how local officials are known to blame Taliban insurgents for stonings to cover up for the actions of their tribal leaders. Please stop insulting me with accusations of POV-pushing, it is evident I am not doing that. Anyways, if you want to discuss this matter further, I would appreciate if you do so on the stoning article's talk page. We shouldn't clutter this board. —Human10.0 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.104.189.139 reported by User:206.45.83.147 (Result: Semi)

    Page: Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 76.104.189.139 (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. 692378508
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:

    User:206.45.83.147 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: 31h)

    Page
    Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    206.45.83.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "What he did was the technological ability equivalent of peeling a banana and putting it in yogurt. That line needed to be fixed"
    2. 07:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692376305 by VQuakr (talk) If you think technological ability and the ability to repackage electronic components is the same thing then you are just as clueless."
    3. 07:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 07:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692377899 by 76.104.189.139 (talk)"
    5. 07:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692378088 by 76.104.189.139 (talk) 1 More Revert and you're going to be reported for violating WP:EW 3RR"
    6. 07:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692378508 by 76.104.189.139 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. (TW)"
    Comments:

    Removed the 3RR notification from their talk, but obviously read it per this edit summary. VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kurzon reported by User:151.20.120.221 (Result: Blocked)

    I'm reporting User:Kurzon's edit war in Mafia article. After being blocked 4 times for non-stop edit warring (twice for edit wars in Mafia) and warned here (You are continuing to edit war over that pointless IPA thing. I can't imagine why you would let something like that bother you so much. But you should know that if the escalating blocks have still not had the desired effect, the only logical next step will be an indefinite block. The other side will also be dealt with appropriately. — Martin) and here (As far as I'm concerned you're both at fault. I have nothing to add to the warning above. It's your choice whether to heed or not. Regards — Martin), he just kept on with the edit war, again, again and again, choosing not to heed. Please take appropriate measures. 151.20.120.221 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See previous reports about the same editor at this 3RR search. The IP wants to add '([ˈmaːfja])' following the word 'mafia', but Kurzon doesn't like it. Regrettably, all attempts at persuasion have failed. The next step is probably an indef for Kurzon (until he will promise to desist) and long term semiprotection for the article. I'll ask User:Kurzon to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emlodik reported by User:7&6=thirteen (Result: blocked)

    Page: Titanic (1943 film)
    User being reported: Emlodik

    Prior version

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692437768

    Linked Edits and request to take it to talk page:

    • November 2015‎ Emlodik‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692420477 by MarnetteD (talk) Badly written, repeated info addressed elsewhere in the article.) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
      • {cur | prev) 15:41, 25 November 2015‎ MarnetteD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (restore info rmvd w/o explanation - other than PAs that is) (undo | thank)
    • 15:21, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692418342 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (undo | thank)
    • (cur | prev) 15:21, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692418342 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
      • (cur | prev) 15:20, 25 November 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎top) (undo | thank)
      • (cur | prev) 15:20, 25 November 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,512 bytes) (+601)‎ . . (Undid revision 692418004 by Emlodik (talk)If you have objections, bring them to the talk page, and do not edit war\) (undo | thank)
    • 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692417457 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (undo | thank)
    • 14:54, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Fixed grammar) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
      • 14:52, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692414959 by Emlodik (talk) Take it to talk page. You are the WP:Vandal) (undo)
    • 14:49, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Repeated vandalism with pointless, badly written redundant info.) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
      • (cur | prev) 09:27, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+471)‎ . . (Undid revision 692372904 by 2601:280:C500:B700:2417:B34:4550:209A (talk) Better this way. Please take it to the talk page.) (undo)
    • 01:09, 24 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-250)‎ . . (→‎Themes and propaganda context) (undo | thank)
    • (cur | prev) 01:08, 24 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | c
    • (cur | prev) 15:17, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692417457 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (undo | thank)
      • (cur | prev) 14:52, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692414959 by Emlodik (talk) Take it to talk page. You are the WP:Vandal) (undo)
    • (cur | prev) 14:49, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Repeated vandalism with pointless, badly written redundant info.) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
      • (cur | prev) 09:27, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+471)‎ . . (Undid revision 692372904 by 2601:280:C500:B700:2417:B34:4550:209A (talk) Better this way. Please take it to the talk page.) (undo)
      • (cur | prev) 01:10, 24 November 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (rem POV edits) (undo | thank)
    • (cur | prev) 01:09, 24 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-250)‎ . . (→‎Themes and propaganda context) (undo | thank)
    • November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | c

    Warnings

    Blatant violation of WP:3RR. Refuses to go to talk page. Posted insulting statements on User: Beyond My Ken's talk page. Won't discuss. Just keeps reverting in tamdem with two IPs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a 'moving target' as he continues to edit war even after being given notice of this discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And here 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And here. Res ipsa loquitur. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    {{subst:AN3 report|diffs=# Consecutive edits made from 03:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC) to 05:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

      1. 03:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692415517 by Typ932 (talk) Edit war warning to Typ932 has failed..."
      2. 04:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Engines and performance */ CE not DIN standard"
      3. 04:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Reference to the fact that engine power quoted (510 PS) is based on CE standard"
      4. 04:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Engines and performance */ typo"
      5. 04:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Engines and performance */ Corrected reference to 280 PS engine output for 2.0 Turbo petrol engine"
      6. 04:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Corrected reference to 510 PS engine output for Quadrifoglio"
      7. 04:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Engines and performance */ missing / in <ref name>"
      8. 05:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Engines and performance */ added additional reference for data quoted being on CE standard, due to edit war by other user and to remove any ambiguity or chance of further wrongful reverts/claims"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 06:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC) to 14:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692295013 by Typ932 (talk) Typ932 undoing resulting in significant loss of verifiable info due to war editing. Will raise this in appropriate Automotive group soon."
      2. 14:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Models */  L"|warnings=# 08:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Alfa Romeo (952). (TW)"|resolves=|pagename=Alfa Romeo Giulia (952)|orig=|comment=Per NeilN. ~~~~|uid=CtrlXctrlV}}

    {{subst:AN3 report|diffs=# 10:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692529755 by Dat GuyWiki (talk) another one and I'll request assistance from admins"

    1. 10:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692529410 by Dat GuyWiki (talk) speaking of harassment, please don't leave any more messages here"
    2. 10:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "/* November 2015 */ remove as well meaning but misinformed"|warnings=# 09:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on User talk:Heatwizpromo. (TW)"
    3. 10:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Notice: "Biting" newcomers. (TW)"|resolves=# 10:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC) ""|pagename=User talk:2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|orig=|comment=Is deleting my warnings. I kind of sadly got dragged into it a bit, but am trying to be as professional as possible. ~~~~|uid=2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63}}
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=692529968"