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 Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs) at 04:39, 28 November 2016 (→‎User:TRUEV140 reported by User:Essex-1799 (Result: ): Tweak). 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:Hakan3400 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Turkish military intervention in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Hakan3400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 12:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    2. 13:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    3. 18:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    Diffs of edit warring / 1RR warning
    1. 18:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article (and his) talk page
    1. 08:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    2. Talk:Turkish military intervention in Syria#Soldier casualties
    Comments:

    All Syrian- or ISIL-related articles are under a general 1RR sanction. The editor in question first canceled my update (based on a source) from 17 to 18 soldier deaths, claiming sources were only confirming 4 deaths in the last 48 hours, not 5. After User:Mr.User200 added a new source confirming 5 deaths in the last 48 hours, editor Hakan3400 cancelled his update as well. After I re-updated it to 18 based on available sources that 5 died in 48 hours he fully reverted me. Thus making a total of 3 cancellations in less than 6 hours. I attempted to discuss the issue with him at both his and the article's talk pages. I also warned him as I am obligated about the 1RR policy (at both talk pages) and that he should cancel his revert and continue discussing the issue. I asked him to cancel his revert 5 times. He continued to claim only 4 soldiers died because Turkey identified only 4 so far and claims the sources confirming 5 soldiers died are wrong based on his own opinion (Original Research violation). I pointed out his sources only point that Turkey identified 4 of 5 soldiers that were confirmed as killed (I even provided two links confirming 5 soldier deaths). He continued to claim those sources were wrong without providing verifiable evidence. EkoGraf (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The death of 5 Turkish Soldiers in the last 28 hours; include 3 Maroon Berets killed in a alleged Syrian Airstrike, the death of a Turkish soldier by a ISIS attack at al-Bab and the death by wounds of a Turkish commando the same day. I still dont know the reason of the revert.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. EkoGraf (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Editor in question also resorted to violations of WP:CIVIL during discussion: calling me a liar, my actions stupid, and that I'm afraid. At this point three out of four editors who discussed the issue are in agreement/consensus (including me) except the editor who violated 1RR. EkoGraf (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours for WP:1RR violation. This article is subject to WP:GS/SCW. The user is new since November 23. They have also been revert warring at Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drdpw reported by User:Neve-selbert (Result: No action)

    Page: Living Presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Drdpw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:57, 24 November 2016
    2. 17:59, 24 November 2016
    3. 17:40, 25 November 2016
    4. 20:03, 25 November 2016

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

    Comments:
    There is currently a debate going on as to whether the table at said article should be redesigned. I (along with YBG and the user-in-question) am in favour, but rather conditionally. Drdpw unfortunately has displayed a few traits of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over the article, reverting any minor tweak he isn't satisfied with while claiming that the layout is still under discussion. All I had done was tweak the alignment back to the way it was originally (when the redesign was first implemented), but I was reverted. So then I thought it would be better if I just reverted to the layout before all this hullabaloo started. I was reverted again. I am wits' end here. Two users (namely Earthscent and Marbe166) oppose or are cool to the redesign. Therefore reverting to the layout before this commotion would favour the wishes of the majority for the time being, while a consensus is built on the article talkpage.--Nevé–selbert 22:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems mostly to be a dispute over which version should remain in main space while a discussion is taking place. I think both Neve-selbert and Drdpw have been spending too much time and effort reverting and unreverting changes in main space, and I am sorely tempted to quote Shakespeare. I would hope that they would both devote themselves to the discussion I have been attempting to carry forward. I myself agree not to make any changes in main space without first announcing what I am about to do on the talk page and then waiting for a period of time and/or someone to tell me to go ahead. I think it would be good if these two editors would agree to this also. I am inspired to make this offer by this edit by Drdpw. YBG (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have let sleeping dogs lie, but I didn't, and here we are. So, to cut to the chase, I myself agree not to make any changes in main space unless consensus has clearly been reached for them, and to make them only after getting the green-light to do so. I hope that Neve-selbert will agree to this as well. Drdpw (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action. It appears that a reasonable discussion is taking place on the talk page, and that User:YBG is helping there. I hope that User:Drdpw and User:Neve-selbert will be careful going forward. If more problems occur, full protection may be considered. It is non-trivial to get agreement on a page that is so stuffed with information. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I am utterly dismayed by your decision, EdJohnston. Drdpw violated 3RR and hence should at least undergo a block of 24hrs. As you very well know, I once made four reverts on a page and you were the one that blocked me, despite how similar my plea was to Drdpw's (above). I strongly urge you to reconsider; it's as if there's some kind of double-standard that you have here.--Nevé–selbert 16:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last revert was more than 24 hours in the past at the time of this closure. I advise both parties to wait for a talk page consensus before making further reverts, since blocks are possible. I'm posting this message to User:Drdpw as well as you. Notice Drdpw's assurance just above: "I myself agree not to make any changes in main space unless consensus has clearly been reached for them.." EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SlitherioFan2016 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Motion picture rating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SlitherioFan2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    This case is pursuant to this one: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#SlitherioFan2016 Socking/edit-warring/using misleading edit summaries


    Diffs of the user's reverts since RFC outcome:

    1. [4]
    2. [5]
    3. [6]
    4. [7]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]


    Result of RFC on article talk page which went against SlitherioFan2016: Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users?

    Comments:
    SlitherioFan2016 is an SPA whose sole agenda is changing the color scheme in the tables at four articles. At the original case SlitherioFan2016 agreed to not edit the article until the RFC was concluded. The RFC resulted in selecting the color scheme which offered better accessibility to color-blind users but SlitherioFan2016 refuse to accept the result and has changed the color scheme back on three occasions now. Within 24 hours of the original RFC closing he started a second RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should we propose a new 8-color scheme in the comparison table? to overturn the result (which an admin advised him to withdraw) and then a third RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#RfC: Should we install a color scheme with 8 colors in the comparison table? essentially with the same goal.

    I found his actions to be immensely disruptive so requested a topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_topic_ban_for_SlitherioFan2016. He promised at that filing to not change the color scheme again but continued to change the color scheme. He is clearly edit-warring against the outcome of the RFC and this needs to be dealt with.

    If he wishes to explore other solutions this needs to be done on the talk page, but the RFC outcome needs to enforced. Betty Logan (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If you had read my last edit summary, I said to not change the color scheme disruptiveIy again from that point on. Despite this, I'm still confused. Do you want me to change the color scheme or not? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not edit the article again. --Tarage (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 1 week. Each time it appears that SlitherioFan2016 is about to follow consensus we are disappointed yet again. See two prior discussions at ANI. One of them is at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#SlitherioFan2016 Socking/edit-warring/using misleading edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bbbshell reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Bbbshell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "seriously. you're not going to make me say this again, are you?"
    2. 21:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "As i said, if we leave this person in our township's history, we need to refer to ALL former council members. This is untenable! If you make an exception for him, you can not make an exception for all other former members who wish to be identified here!"
    3. 20:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "If i have to talk about Harvey Lester's change of party, then we also need to talk about a lot more than simply removing him from the discussion. Furthermore, if we accord him a place in this township'"
    4. 20:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Harvey Lester lost his re-election bid. He should not be on this page. He is no longer part of the council."
    5. 18:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Deleted reference to Lester, who is not on the Township committee"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 21:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "/* f we leave this person in our township's history, we need to refer to ALL former council members. */ new section"
    Comments:

    New editor refusing to get that they can't keep pushing their content removal agenda. Three experienced editors have reverted back to status quo, given reasons why the removal isn't helpful or appropriate for the article, newbie keeps reverting anyway. Hoping this report will get them to stop, however, I'm expecting a gaming the system move to occur after 24 hours following their last revert passes. A short block might keep that from happening. Or not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: The disruptive editing continues with these additions: [9], [10]. Something needs to be done to convince this new editor that his edits are not only disruptive but WP:POV and a violation of our WP:BLP policies. ("After two years in office, with no prior consultation and barely a word of explanation, he went back on his word, dropped his commitments, and flipped to the Republican Party (apparently to nominate and vote for himself as mayor.) His performance has been dreadful, allowing spending in the budget to skyrocket, ignoring the looming issue of state affordable housing mandates, all the while taking credit for the work of those who preceded him.") -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Questions have been raised whether User:Bbbshell is capable of editing neutrally on this topic. I'm alerting him to WP:ARBAPDS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marc87 reported by User:NFLjunkie22 (Result: Page protected)

    Page
    List of black NHL players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Marc87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to Diffs of the user's reverts

    1. (cur | prev) 11:50, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,876 bytes) (+15,334)‎ . . (Undid revision 751551106 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    2. (cur | prev) 11:49, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,876 bytes) (+5,025)‎ . . (Undid revision 751550931 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    3. (cur | prev) 11:43, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,876 bytes) (+15,376)‎ . . (undo | thank)
    4. (cur | prev) 11:42, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,876 bytes) (+15,376)‎ . . (undo | thank)
    5. (cur | prev) 11:31, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+1,136)‎ . . (Undid revision 751548856 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    6. (cur | prev) 11:10, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+15,057)‎ . . (Undid revision 751546900 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    7. (cur | prev) 11:05, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+15,057)‎ . . (undo | thank)
    8. (cur | prev) 10:58, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+13,921)‎ . . (Undid revision 751545317 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    9. (cur | prev) 09:52, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+6,553)‎ . . (Undid revision 751538957 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    10. (cur | prev) 09:48, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+6,553)‎ . . (undo | thank)
    11. (cur | prev) 09:46, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+5,083)‎ . . (undo | thank)
    12. (cur | prev) 09:45, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+5,083)‎ . . (Undid revision 751538315 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    13. (cur | prev) 09:41, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+5,083)‎ . . (undo | thank)
    14. (cur | prev) 09:24, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+174)‎ . . (→‎List) (undo | thank)
    15. (cur | prev) 09:13, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751535268 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    16. (cur | prev) 09:09, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (then who?) (undo | thank)
    17. (cur | prev) 09:05, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751533219 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    18. (cur | prev) 09:04, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751533183 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    19. (cur | prev) 09:04, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751533120 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    20. (cur | prev) 09:01, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751532894 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    21. (cur | prev) 08:59, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751532680 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    22. (cur | prev) 08:57, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751532508 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    23. (cur | prev) 08:53, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751532193 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    24. (cur | prev) 08:47, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751531325 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    25. (cur | prev) 08:41, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (undo | thank)
    26. (cur | prev) 21:15, 25 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Undid revision 751427820 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    27. (cur | prev) 16:13, 25 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (Undid revision 751414711 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    Comments:

    User continually revert article, despite a whole section not being sourced and many link that are given as reference don't mention the ethnic background of individual players. User:Marc87 refuses to give a response on why he reverts. User basically took ownership of the page, and refuses to engage in the talk page. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have restored the article to the pre edit war state as the status quo and projected it from editing for a week. User the talk page and discuss it calmly. -- GB fan 13:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    not good enough User:GB fan. I have attempted multiple times talk with Marc:87 so far, nothing. he blatantly admitted he thinks he owns the page, also to the fact that he'll keep reverting. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • and still no response. tell me mister chinese User:Marc87, under what authority does a non mixed non black individual like yourself, feel you can classify and categorize people with my background? shm...still no answer? - I wouldn't be responsive to you either, try not antagonizing another user and then maybe you'll get a response. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted, and I'm about to give the 4-npa warning. This will stop or I'll block him myself. Katietalk 13:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Aight, thanks. Out of an interest for fairness I've given Marc a warning for doing the same thing here. Personal attacks are unwarranted and useless. If you cannot work with another editor avoid them. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be as un-enraged as I possibly can. I AM A MIXED INDIVIDUAL I TAKE OFFENSE IN ANYONE WHO DENIES PART OF MY HERITAGE BY CALLING ME BLACK. User:Marc87 is basically telling me by reverting any attempt at specifying what is black and mixed on the page, shuttup blackie, you're black no matter what heritage you are, since you have one drop of black blood. The One-drop rule has a racist past to it. This is not about fairness this is about an individual perpetuating racist stereotypes and ignorant admins enabling it. BTW the players are still not properly sourced. only about 10 out of the whole bunch have link that states they're black or identify as black. Isn't properly sourcing articles part of the editors duty? NFLjunkie22 (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    • Page protected Fully protected one week by GBfan. Katietalk 13:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also note that we have a WP:RS that quotes Kane himeself stating that's he's Black: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/evander-kane-race-problem-winnipeg-183115925--nhl.html -- The Anome (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    that's one down, now properly sourced the 70 others. oh... and source the section that's hasn't been sourced so far, please. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... possibly re-rename the article to something short, but, more nuanced. Say; List of NHL players with Black ancestry or List of NHL players with African ancestry. For this though, you'll need a {{RM}} on the article talk page. Admins won't counter community consensus except where policy necessitates it. Though, from the actual proposal, I did note this statement; in Canada and the United States "black" is defined as "of Black African descent". Mr rnddude (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    i support this, heck that's how this whole thing got started. i rewrote the lede from black players to players with black african ancestry, but it got reverted by one of you (i'm not sure which one), the justification was that the lede must mirror the title, so i started to remove non black players and players who's ethnicity wasn't sourced. in the meantime i was edit warring with User:Marc87 who just reverted everything, and literally gave no reason on why NFLjunkie22 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TRUEV140 reported by User:Essex-1799 (Result: )

    Page: Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TRUEV140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Last best known revision


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff
    6. diff


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11], [12], [13] (Not exactly edit war warning, but for deliberate inclusion of factual errors)


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, diff (user did not participated)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: diff, diff, diff (user did not participated)

    Comments:

    User is again edit warring after the expiration of his recent block. The user is a "large scale" IP hopper, one of his frequently used IP was blocked recently along with his original a/c, which apparently again started edit war in other pages. See this report to get a better understanding. For edit warring, the user alternatively uses his original a/c and his IPs. Last time he used his IP, hence this time its his original a/c. User is trying to re-add some long-disputed content, to leave no stone unturned it is further manipulated in the maximum possible way through his own extra additions and alterations. The user is not willing to participate in any of the discussions initiated in the article talk or in his own talk page, which I tried 3 times. I am pretty sure that the user very well knows what he is doing is deliberate inclusion of problematic content, hence he has nothing to discuss about it (other than bluffing in edit summary). So his only option to establish the content is through edit war. This is not the only page he is doing this. As far as observed, the account is created only to promote his favorite actor Mammootty and his films, by adding puffery and other claims in favor of his star. If anyone questions his activities, he don't care. --Essex-1799 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    reported user here! I have given explanation for each of the edits. Essex-1799 is actually edit warring which can be checked in : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film) The Essex-1799 is removing sources, which are valid and correctly explained, so I am restoring these valid sources and informations . In this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film)#Box_office - Firstly the user is telling Times Of India report(http://m.timesofindia.com/others/news-interviews/Hariharan-MT-Vasudevan-prepare-for-Randamoozham/articleshow/9807050.cms) is invalid without any proofs. Secondly the user is providing producer's box office claim(http://movies.ndtv.com/regional/pazhassi-raja-to-be-shown-at-tokyo-film-festival-52284%7Ctitle=Pazhassi Raja to be shown at Tokyo Film Festival), which can not be actually placed as source according to wikipedia rules WP:V. Admin Cyphoidbomb has explained rightly about this thing in talk page of the article Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film)&action=edit&section=7. After this explanation also, the user Essex-1799 has started giving invalid reasons against admin's explanation and started removing valid sources and restoring back invalid sources. The user is also removing sources from other pages also without any valid reasons...TRUEV140 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    To administrators, for knowing this issue correctly, visit the talk page of this user and the article talk.--Essex-1799 (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note - TRUEV140 has cited IndiaGlitz, a site that is not considered reliable per WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources. Onlookersmedia is a blog formed by a few nobodies who met on Facebook, so it shouldn't be used as a source as it fails WP:UGC. TRUEV140 incorporated an International Business Times (IBT) reference that cites Onlookers as the source of some information, so TRUEV140 is using an inappropriate reference by proxy. I think that TRUEV should have left the status quo alone and gone directly to the talk page immediately upon being reverted, rather than participating in this edit war that appears to have gone on since October. I've been just too busy with other stuff to notice this going on. Both editors haven't behaved at their best. I do note that at least Essex opened a discussion circa 8 November, where TRUEV140 didn't respond until 26 November. I will also note that at Indian cinema/actor/TV articles in general there is a significant problem with paid editing rings who sweep through articles puffing them up with arbitrary records, so I can understand Essex's sensitivity to puffery. I note that some of the content submitted by TRUEV140 included subjective ideas like "The film was successful at both Malayalam and Tamil versions.[38] The film was successful at Kerala,Tamil Nadu,Mumbai,Delhi,UAE and USA[39][40][41][42][43]" I haven't scoured through these, but this is one reference that is attributing the claim of success in the Indian state of Kerala to the film's director, which I would argue violates WP:PRIMARY. So there might very well be fundamentally flawed information and sourcing going on here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Essex-1799 is simply edit warring with TRUEV140 with invalid reasons...OneFourZero (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that, user OneFourZero is a possible sock account. He is doing exactly what the other user is doing.--Essex-1799 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note I would tend to agree. Essex-1799, don't war with the new account. leave things alone for a little bit, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to encourage any reviewing admin to hold off on sanctioning Essex for the time being, please. Some of the IPs used by TRUEV140 have generated some disruptive content, like this one who kept adding hyperbolic statements about films being "highly successful" or in this case describing a film as a "disappointing failure". I feel very strongly that I've dealt with this person a number of times, and there's a strong possibility they are evading another block and are already de facto banned. In which case, Essex would be protected from 3RR per WP:REVERTBAN. An SPI case is pending CU. What is clear, is that this user has, while logged out, been warned numerous times about promotional tone and introducing subjective content about film success. Here's a warning from FoCuSandLeArN about this very thing. And Materialscientist warned this IP for unsourced content, though it was in fact for this edit, which introduces the hyperbolic description of a film as a "super hit". Admins should also check this report. The IPs mentioned above all geolocate to Thiruvananthapuram, in the Indian state of Kerala, on ISP Asianet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Much to my chagrin, Editor Essex-1799 was determined by Bbb23 to be a sock of Inside the Valley. The progression of events went: I opened an SPI case against OneFourZero and asked for CU to compare the account to TRUEV140. That actually turned out to be a dud, but since I was also suspicious that OneFourZero had been created as a decoy, I asked Bbb23 if Essex could have created it themselves to throw off the edit-warring case. During B's investigation he uncovered a "can of worms" and as detailed here that sweeped up a few accounts including Essex, Charles Turing and Inside the Valley. I'm at least shocked about Charles Turing, who was developing as a very strong, communicative editor. However, I still think that TRUEV140 has dirty hands, considering the months-long campaign to assert his preferred version of articles despite community-approved sources, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jjreedreed reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: )

    Page
    Morgellons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Jjreedreed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751608690 by Alexbrn (talk) new scholarly source and information added back in"
    2. 19:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751607560 by Geni (talk)"
    3. 19:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "added more current scholarly research and source information; expanded to complete quote from CDC report to provide context"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 19:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "/* November 26, 2016 additions */ new section"
    Comments:

    New editor has now been reverted by three separate editors and edit warred after warning. Warning given by another editor. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    On unrelated note, this new editor's other early edits were to Ecosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jjreedreed was adding content and links to material by and about Jennifer J. Reed, a sociology Ph.D. student (?) who has published some work on the topic. Someone who's up to speed on the appropriate links to advice for editors with a COI should probably provide her with suitable guidance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this not outing another editor? DrChrissy (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. If J.J. Reed is inserting links to J.J. Reed's blog and publications while editing under the username JJReedreed, then they've openly identified themselves. (Indeed, if the editor in question isn't J.J. Reed, the account should be renamed or blocked as an impersonator.) Going forward, DrChrissy, it would be a very good idea for you to read WP:OUTING before making accusations of such serious misconduct in the future. The answer to your question is in the first sentence: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. " TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you realised I asked a question rather than making an "accusation". I have another question for you: If your identification of the editor is unrelated to the thread, as you stated in your opening sentence, what was the motivation behind making the posting? DrChrissy (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    JAQing is just a sleazy way to cast aspersions without taking responsibility for your actions. To be clear, outing is generally a gross breach of decorum, highly obnoxious, sometimes illegal (depending on circumstances and jurisdiction), and may carry the risk of serious off-wiki harm to its victims—aside from being a very serious violation of Wikipedia policy. I guess you're still carrying some sort of grudge from the times I've criticized your editing in the past, but insinuating that I am engaged in outing is serious business and not the sort of thing you should casually toss around.
    The "motivation" was simply to avoid spawning multiple parallel noticeboard discussions which would be needlessly confusing and potentially intimidating for a new editor. (Heck, it would be needlessly confusing for any admins interacting with her to have to deal with multiple separate discussions, too.) I didn't think she needed to get dragged to WP:COIN as this didn't look like a particularly complicated issue; I just hoped a "word to the wise" from a fellow admin who had the links (and the time and patience) handy would suffice. WP:NOTBURO and all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The hostility in your posts above and the one you sent to my Talk page (now deleted) are ample evidence that you have failed to WP:AGF. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of how WP works. Rather than this, you have directed me to a page which is not even an en-wiki page, and even more importantly, the article states in the opening It should be noted that accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well. Asking questions in and of itself is NOT invalid. We are now well off the topic of this thread and I suggest an admin (not a non-admin) has a look at this to see whether anything is actionable and if not, I suggest it should be hatted. DrChrissy (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Antiochus the Great reported by User:TechnicianGB (Result: No action)

    Page
    Power (international relations) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Antiochus the Great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "Removed Spain. Neither of the two citations are academic and neither state Spain is globally recognised as a cultural superpower.)."
    2. 21:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "removed unsourced)."
    3. 17:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "Removed Spain. Once again, none of the sources are describing Spain as a Cultural superpower)."
    4. 22:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 751594289 by Antiochus the Great: Again, a source that describes Spain as a Cultural superpower is needed. (TW))."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC) " 1st warning inserted on the talk page of the user "Antiochus The Great". Next time, this warning will be listed at the administrators noticeboard. This edition is for preverting false reversions.)"
    2. 22:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "Added a warning in his own talk page"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 22:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC) " "
    2. 23:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC) " "
    3. 23:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC) " "
    Comments:

    Was given two edit warnings, both quite friendly editions, where the 1st was maded after adding an additional source of the University of San Diego. and one directly maded on his own talk page). But the user keeps deleting the changes without major/reasonable reasons. All of this started the last week when another user decided to remove Spain from the page Power (international relations), which included Spain from several months ago and many other users have edited the page without changing it.

    Spain is a cultural superpower, it's the founder of the Hispanic Heritage and the Spanish culture, being also the the place where it was originated the 2nd most widely spoken language in the world (Spanish). Spain maded the expeditions leaded by Cristopher Columbus (Columbus wasn't Spanish, but the expedition was Spanish) which resulted in the official discovery of the Americas in 1492 (Voyages of Christopher Columbus).

    Also, many Spanish icons are present nowadays in the top of the European culture, like Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dalí, Francisco de Goya. Miguel de Cervantes, El Greco or Felipe II, just for putting some examples. The sources say that Spain is a main cultural reference for the world, and a main cultural influencer; although it doesn't say specifically "cultural superpower" as this term is unspecific, and it's mostly used on Wikipedia or in British internet articles. Anyways, "cultural superpower" means huge influence on culture, and that's what it says the source from the University of San Diego as other sources.[1][2] The Hispanic heritage is noted on all continents, due to spanish ex-colonies, as mostly of Latin America[3] has Spanish colonial architecture. Huge influences are also found on Morocco,[4] Western Sahara,[5] Equatorial Guinea.[6] and Philippines.[7]

    The same user also added on his edition [14] maded at 21:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC) exactly this: "Unlike traditional forms of national power, the term cultural superpower is in reference to a nations Soft power capabilities." While Spain is listed as a soft power country by many sources, like for example the prestigious Time newspaper[8] or the role of the Spanish language in the foreign policy.[9]. In fact in the architecture of the global presence maded by Elcano foundation, Spain appears as one of the top 10 countries in global presence; this same user linked the soft power cultural capacity of a country to the cultural superpower, and Spain enters inside that categorization. So another thing that links closely Spain to a cultural superpower, which the user deleted without any reliable reason (even being something obvious). A very prestigious and trustworthy source says exactly this: From Seville to Brussels: The Architecture of Global Presence[10] --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The filer, User:TechnicianGB, has stated that consensus was reached about this dispute. Can anyone explain? EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://extension.ucsd.edu/studyarea/index.cfm?vAction=singleCourse&vCourse=OSHR-70055
    2. ^ "Spain, main reference for world's Hispanic heritage". ABC.es. Madrid. 2014-07-03. Retrieved 2016-06-08.
    3. ^ http://hispanicheritagemonth.gov/about/
    4. ^ https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-725452011/the-spanish-language-presence-in-tangier-morocco
    5. ^ http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/04597237508460354?journalCode=tssu20
    6. ^ http://www.everyculture.com/Cr-Ga/Equatorial-Guinea.html
    7. ^ http://preparetoserve.com/blog/spanish-influence-on-the-philippines/
    8. ^ http://world.time.com/2012/07/05/beyond-soccer-the-poignance-and-royalty-of-spains-soft-power/
    9. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281564726_THE_ROLE_OF_THE_SPANISH_LANGUAGE_AS_SOFT_POWER_IN_FOREIGN_POLISY_OF_SPAIN
    10. ^ "From Seville to Brussels: The Architecture of Global Presence". International Relations and Security Network. October 28, 2015. Retrieved December 9, 2015. Our partners at the Elcano Royal Institute have released their latest edition of the Global Presence Index. It confirms that the EU – if perceived as a single global actor – has the greatest degree of 'presence' in the world, largely because of the contributions of the UK, Germany and France.

    Hello @EdJohnston:, here it is the agreement: Talk:Power (international relations)#Spain. Kind regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:104.245.38.23 reported by User:Feinoha (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

    Page
    Asher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    104.245.38.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751670042 by Imminent77 (talk)"
    2. 04:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751669728 by Feinoha (talk)"
    3. 04:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751669484 by Feinoha (talk)"
    4. 04:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751669338 by Imminent77 (talk)"
    5. 04:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751669232 by Imminent77 (talk)"
    6. 04:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Asr is closer to the Hebrew alphabet, so where did they get Asher from?"
    7. 04:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751667052 by Yintan (talk)"
    8. 04:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751666745 by Yintan (talk)"
    9. 04:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751666627 by Yintan (talk)"
    10. 04:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 751666273 by Yintan (talk)"
    11. 04:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User is repeatedly changing the content of the Asher page as well as another page despite being reverted by more than one user. Feinoha Talk 04:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mailmehotlips reported by User:NOTNOTABLE (Result: Indef)

    Page
    Tesco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mailmehotlips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 15:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC) ""
    4. 15:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC) ""
    5. Consecutive edits made from 14:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC) to 14:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
      1. 14:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Highlighting the negative areas of Tesco not just the positive"
      2. 14:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Tesco. (TW)"
    2. 15:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    Blocked indefinitely – By User:Favonian per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:63.143.193.75 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page
    Inauguration of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    63.143.193.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Wrong. It was the deletio of this material that was contentious. How can it be contentious to mention a controversy in the lead? Per policy, all significant Controverises MUST (not may) be mentioned in the lead. Learn the rules or choose a new name, judge"
    2. 20:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Restore unexplained deletion of content, contra policy. This is your final warning against your biased editing. Go put the pom poms away and act like an encylopedist. :Contributions/Mr. Vernon
    3. 20:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "How is it irrelevant? It is a protest of the inauguration. If you continue your harassment, I will have you blocked. Undid revision 751779846 by Mr. Vernon (talk)"
    4. 20:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Restore unexplained deletion of referenced content by vandals. Only a fool or a knave would thnk the protests are irrelevant. Undid revision 751435712 by 76.106.6.238 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Inauguration of Donald Trump. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 20:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Discussion of inauguration-related protests */ new section"
    Comments:

    Editor is currently aggressively attacking other editors. Note that he was given a 3RR warning but blanked his talk page, see [15] Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm obligated to add something, since I'm mentioned by name (and is the one who gave the 3RR warning). He won't stop reverting, even when we have told him to stop. Sro23 suggests they may be Kingshowman, and I'm led to believe he might actually be a sock. Also this edit. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Widr (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Coneleir reported by User:Mehmedsons (Result: )

    Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Coneleir (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. 23:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    2. 04:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    3. 04:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)



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

    1. 04:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    2. 12:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    3. 15:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    4. 15:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    5. 15:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    6. 19:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


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

    1. 08:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    2. 19:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    3. User talk:Coneleir#Xeber24
    4. User talk:Coneleir#Al Bab advance

    Comments:
    This is my first complaint so do not judge strictly. But I ask experienced participants to do something in this situation. Mehmedsons (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.222.33.212 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: No action, self-reverted)

    Page
    Sardinian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    71.222.33.212 (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:

    The edit that I was reverting was clear and obvious vandalism, after which I warned the user and can be seen here. If this edit wasn't obvious vandalism, then I apologize, as this was not meant to be any sort of content dispute; just reverting vandalism, that's all. 71.222.33.212 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Not vandalism. Please self-revert or you will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Self-reverted per request, no further action required. Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=751849710"