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 Byates5637 (talk | contribs) at 02:08, 13 January 2017 (→‎User:Byates5637 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )). 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:Human like you reported by User:2003:77:4F1F:A044:715C:EA84:913:75FC (Result: Warned)

    Page: several pages (see below)
    User being reported: Human like you (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Note: The user Human like you (talk · contribs) edited as 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) before (this was confirmed by the IP here [1] shortly after it was already observed by other users [2]).

    Human like you (talk · contribs) is engaged in constant edit warring with several users in order to sustain persistent POV pushing, at the moment on the following articles:

    I'm responsible for the edits of the IP's 2003:77:... in this context. 2003:77:4F1F:A044:715C:EA84:913:75FC (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Result: User:Human like you is engaged in a pattern of edit warring across multiple articles, where he tries to insert material sourced to www.dailysabah.com on the theory that it's a reliable source rather than simply an outlet for the views of the Turkish government. He may be blocked if he tries to insert such material again, unless he gets prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: and you are supposed to be an impartial editor? You blame the victim instead of stopping an edit war. You also have the audacity to call the Daily Sabah "an outlet of the views of the Turkish government." It is not but even if it were, it can be added on Wikipedia to the regret of biased editors.
    May I remind you that I did not get a reply regarding a question in the past. Why don't you semi-protect my account now that I'm registered?
    Are you absuing your powers? I'm pretty sure many others think the same. Prove us wrong please. Sincerely, -Human like you (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, do you think the MAC address that is complaining is really that unexperienced while engaging in constant complaints with the experience of a skilled editor? -Human like you (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikishovel: Glad you noticed. I was trying to make a point. How about you warn the user with the same and stop them from doing it too? -Human like you (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Why didn't you instead report the user yourself, if you thought they were doing something wrong? Wikishovel (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:James J. Lambden reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Self-revert)

    Page
    Podesta emails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759222894 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Both sources are RS; BLP claim is spurious"
    2. 03:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759084920 by FallingGravity (talk) politifact doesn't trump the consensus of reliable sources; addressed specific objection"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 03:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC) to 03:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      1. 03:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758769081 by Fyddlestix (talk) additional sourcing"
      2. 03:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759084322 by FallingGravity (talk) We attribute it to Assange and include the correction;"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 03:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC) to 03:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      1. 03:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759009399 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Including WSJ op-eds for attributed opinion is common here, not a BLP concern; talk it out"
      2. 03:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758794471 by FallingGravity (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Podesta emails. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Jumped into a contentious article with a slew of blind reverts of several different editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand by the edit but this report is correct: the first edit listed did violate 3RR, which I did not realize at the time. I've self-reverted [1], but in the process removed an additional two sources provided by @XavierItzm:. I'll leave this to be resolved by other editors. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User has self-reverted as a remedy. I'd like to point out that the user has documented very well on the TP his objections to at least one of the reverts, i.e., the claim that his edit was not backed up by proper WP:RS; further, he wasn't necessarily just re-posting the same material, but fixing as objections were raised. Finally, observe the original reverts were at 03:32-03:52 and the 3RR violation took place at 23:03. I myself was once almost nicked for editing two consecutive "nights" for me... but I was a few minutes short of 24 hrs (!). Learned my lesson without having someone block me... and it looks like this user also will. XavierItzm (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Meenmore reported by User:Calidum (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    British Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Meenmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759273629 by Rjensen (talk) See History of British Army page, the Royal Scots Army page and the English Army page. The 1660 claim is inconsistent with their Active years of (1660-1707)"
    2. 05:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "The army founded in 1660 was an English army, this page is about the British Army founded in 1707 when the British state was created. The year 1660 is inconsistent with fact and the History of British Army page."
    3. 17:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759172933 by BilCat (talk) No source provided to back up deluded claim that the British Army was founded fifty years before the British state was created. British Army founded in 1707."
    4. 17:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759065244 by Calidum (talk) No consensus for stating the British Army was founded around fifty years before it was actually founded."
    5. 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759020726 by Rob984 (talk) No consensus for claim that the British Army was founded before the year 1707 when it was founded. Both Scottish and English regiments make up its regiments."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [13]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    Ongoing discussion here.

    Comments:

    User is trying to remove well-cited, longstanding content and is fighting over it. Despite the ongoing discussion, the reverts continue. Calidum 06:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated edit warring after block

    This user has resumed the same edits as before his block here. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And again [14]. Calidum 21:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LIC11377 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Elizabeth Crowley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    LIC11377 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759361541 by JesseRafe (talk)"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 18:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC) to 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      1. 18:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC) ""
      2. 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759347412 by JesseRafe (talk)."
    3. 16:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Full overhaul of the page, with exhaustive citations of reputable sources. Improved/added hyperlinks to other wiki pages and photographs from Commons."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Elizabeth Crowley. (TW)"
    2. 17:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Elizabeth Crowley. (TW)"
    3. 18:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "/* January 2017 */ response"
    4. 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "/* January 2017 */ r"
    5. 18:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Potential use of multiple accounts */ please see WP:notnews for further explanation"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has made zero good faith efforts despite being warned over the course of months that the photo they uploaded to the Commons is a copyright violation, per Clpo13 (talk · contribs), and persists in adding it back. In addition to their other blatant wording and puffery for the advancement of the article's subject. User seems intent to maintain their preferred version via no-summary reversions, and by adding the photograph back four separate times today. JesseRafe (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree with the "zero faith" characterization made against me by JesseRafe. If you review the edit history, you'll see that I publicly thanked user for many of their extensive revisions. I took issue with just TWO specific changes made - removal of section "Maspeth Shelter" and the photo I hold copyright for. How can Wikipedia encourage more users to contribute well-sourced, accurate information to the site if users like this are intent on imposing their own viewpoint on what is and isn't germaine to to particular page? I may not have the pedigree as this user has, given their frequent involvement as an editor, but my contributions are no less valid. LIC11377 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking into the image's history and the copyright violation (as seen here), and based on your user name there (Queens11377) per this diff, you/Queens11377 identify yourself as "a member of the Council Member's team", which is something LIC11377 has not denied (Note: 11377 is a zip code in Queens, New York, part of the Councilmember's district, and LIC is a frequent abbreviation for Long Island City, an adjacent neighborhood not in either 11377 or the district) but has also not admitted or brought up during the many claims of him/her making what looked like clear NPOV/COI edits. I don't know how this affects the current edit warring problem or whether the user "owns" the photo or the CM's office as an entity does, but the user must disclose their conflict of interest somewhere on their page or/and during their edits on the subject, no? Especially as "a member of the team" they are likely assumed to be paid, and thus a paid contributor? JesseRafe (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I lost my password and had to recreate my account. Yes - 11377 is a Queens zipcode and yes, it's a part of the Cm's district. Once again, I take issue with your aggressive and exaggerated characterizations of my edits. As I stated, I reconfirmed and thanked you for some of the clean up you did to the page, including some of the language that did not meet necessary objective standards. I am not disputing you on this. I take issue with your claim, as mentioned in my talk page, that the Maspeth Shelter issue is not relevant to the CM's bio. I have provided multiple sources from reputable journalists who obviously felt it was significant enough to cover in great detail over many months. Frankly I find it unfortunate that an open-source, user-generated site like Wikipedia is subject to such unilateral assertions as to what is and isnt' relevant. It's stuff like this that makes the average person not want to become an editor and contribute — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIC11377 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times must it be said that the problem is you are WP:edit-warring and have violated WP:3RR over your stubborn addition of an image which is a copyright violation and that is an extra sensitive topic when it involves a BLP article??? This is why I have already stated that anything you say cannot be taken in good faith because you refuse to even address this issue tangentially. As you have failed to read or respond to why this image is problematic, and insist on a policy of blanket reversions when you disagree admin attention is needed because you are clearly edit-warring. As this also demonstrates a failure to read the basis for one type of warning, it can also be assumed from the above that you failed to read the relevant information at WP:undue and WP:notnews and thus are without any leg to stand on, especially as regards what you claim to be one editor's (me) capricious in the interpretations of the rules. "Open-source" does not mean anarchy nor does it mean intellectual property laws don't apply. These the issues this notice is about. Not your addition of the Maspeth Shelter (which should be removed) or your COI issues as an editor who did not disclose they are a paid staff member of the article's subject. Please stay on topic and discuss only one of your infractions at a time. JesseRafe (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Err... He said above that he took it, and that he works for the councilwoman. Whether he took it as an individual and owns copyright or WFH and as an agent of the office then released it for commons use w commons ok licensing, how is that a problem? Or do you not believe he's who he said he is?
    (presumably he, apologies LIC11377 if you are female)
    There's obviously a wider issue with editing a page with conflict of interest, but I only count two reverts (adding it, then reverting twice when you removed) and the copyvio claim is not making sense to me now. Please clarify it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The copyvio as I understand it is still open at Commons and until it gets resolved there, it should be treated as still a copyvio, no? Isn't that the course for BLP topics? A different user tagged it in December at Commons and removed it here from this article a few times. I counted four reinsertions of the image today, maybe the diffs I chose via TW were wrong (lack of edit summaries didn't help). JesseRafe (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re the copyvio, I added a note about this to the Commons discussion, but in light of the larger version here it's evident that the other one is cropped from this one and as such it seemingly confirms the origin. I can't see how it would be a copyvio under the circumstances. Someone needs to lay out a claim for violation that isn't answered by the statements here etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for response there. I don't frequent Commons much, but another user, @Clpo13: had claimed the copyvio and removed it from the WP mainspace under that reason a handful of times. I won't presume to know how or when the issue will be resolved, but as it was an open issue, e.g. to be resolved one way or the other, I agreed with Clpo13 in keeping the article as it was, with the prior image until a resolution on the copyvio is found. Is that not sound protocol? User is continuing to edit-war, by the way.JesseRafe (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Georgewilliamherbert. Props for the pronoun apologies. I have directly addressed the copyright issue, by first confirming ownership when I uploaded the picture and now by disclosing my role. Once again, I publicly thanked JesseRafe for their edits, including removal of non-objective language. No one willing to dedicate hours of their life to a page can claim 100% objectivity and I'm the first to admit it. That's why I welcome any edits that help improve the page in this way. I don't see how this is anything but good-faith participation in the wikipedia editing process. It certainly isn't WP:edit-warring. Besides, I have improved on the page by providing accurate, meticulously-sourced information from reputable, internationally-known publications that in many cases have their own wiki pages (something I was careful to always cite). I would encourage anyone to search the Maspeth Shelter issue in google and you will see who major it was. The fact that it falls within the Council Member's district and was intimately involved in the issue makes it worthy of inclusion. LIC11377 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    LIC11377 has again showed their fundamental misunderstanding of what the grievance is and unambiguously thricely reverted another editor's removal of the two disputed items, the photo in dispute and the undue weight section in dispute after a third party, Zackmann08 (talk · contribs) came through the page and removed the items as I had left them there to file this notice as to not violate 3RR myself. This indicates the complete lack of awareness of and seriousness given to WP's policies on this subject and is clearly edit-warring just to win, ignoring any subtext of making the encyclopedia better, just to make his or her employer appear in the best possible light. JesseRafe (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours. Regardless of whether the official headshot image is a copyvio, I am counting four reverts on 10 January starting at 16:48. This is the first edit in a series which keeps restoring that image after it is removed by others. The choice of which image to use normally requires editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment User is now editing as 2604:2000:69D3:B00:D073:7D81:9C45:27AF without attempting to hide themselves as LIC11377, with zero demonstration of acknowledging the purpose of their block and the goal of Wikipedia. This might be in good faith, rather than a duck, but that itself shows the lack of willingness to contribute to the encyclopedia and rather that their only goal is to continue to edit war until they win. JesseRafe (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous. A CLEAR case of someone who works for the subject of the article and is trying to promote the subject. JesseRafe has done all the right things and has worked hard to make sure they are no violating the WP:3RR. I've nominated the page for protection would. The editor should be blocked for much longer than 48 hours as they are now using IPs for clear WP:BLOCKEVASION. User is CLEARLY WP:NOTHERE. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SuddenDeth reported by User:Laser brain (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Nine Inch Nails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SuddenDeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [16]
    2. [17]
    3. [18]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19] and [20]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

    Comments:

    In the last 2–3 weeks, SuddenDeth has been engaging in a slow-moving edit war to push changes to the band members and discography at Nine Inch Nails. Several editors besides me have removed his changes and asked him to get consensus on the Talk page, but he continues to push the changes and refuses to discuss them. The current item of contention is whether the new EP by the band should be listed in the Discography. Despite this being reverted by three different users ([22], [23], [24]) and at least two of us discussing it on the Talk page (where SuddenDeth has not participated), he continues to push the change. I request that he be blocked to prevent further disruption. --Laser brain (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Petergstrom reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: diff


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 03:38, 8 January 2017 (reverted by Doc James)
    2. diff 08:32, 8 January 2017 (reverted by Doc James)
    3. diff 08:41, 8 January 2017 (reverted by Doc James)
    4. diff 13:06, 8 January 2017 (reverted by CFCF)
    5. diff 22:05, 8 January 2017, reverting edits by Sizeofint; reverted by QuackGuru
    6. diff 23:40, 8 January 2017, reverted by Sizeofint
    7. diff 01:51, 9 January 2017, reverted by Sizeofint
    8. diff 02:59, 9 January 2017, reverted by Seppi
    9. diff 04:48, 9 January 2017, reverted by Sizeofint
    10. diff 00:25, 11 January 2017 reverted by me
    11. diff 01:49, 11 January 2017 reverted by Seppi
    12. diff 04:26, 11 January 2017 reverted by me


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:MDMA#Addictiveness (this is what Petergstrom is edit warring to change, against recent MEDRS refs and literally everyone else at the page)

    Comments:

    Recent but far from new user with some competence and aggression issues that we have managed without going to drama boards up to now. Their behavior at this article and its talk page is way, way out of line. Please give a significant block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Uhh, the most recent edit that triggered you to file this report was not related to the addiction talk. I was finding more recent sources for the symptoms of overdose, and removing the one that was over a decade old, and that was reverted...What? As for the addiction part, there is no way to quantify liability...moderate? Relative to what standard? It should be removed until a consensus can be reached, as the "Moderate" rating based off of FOSB is meaningless...Petergstrom (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't the place to discuss article content. EWN deals with editing behavior. Sizeofint (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Petergstrom has now made things worse by also misrepresenting their own edits here at EWN. The last diff very clearly changed the content about addiction by removing it. This is going from bad to worse. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • editor has continued to edit war:
    1. diff 05:51, 11 January 2017 (now with all cap edit notes)
    2. diff 06:19, 11 January 2017 with edit note thumbing his nose at 3RR.

    -- Jytdog (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah what was wrong with those edits. They were constructive, new data from quality sources. I wasnt "thumbing" my nose at the 3RR.Petergstrom (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 31 hours for long-term edit warring at MDMA. Petergstrom has been warring to change Wikipedia's account of the dangers of this drug. For example, this change which he has made repeatedly although it has been reverted by others. It is not always easy to get technical material correct, which is why it is important to work patiently and to search for agreement. He wouldn't need to make so many reverts if anyone else agreed with him. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Human, All Too Human reported by User:Safiel (Result: Blocked as a sock)

    Page
    Donald Trump Russia tape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Human, All Too Human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "added more references. please read them and stop vandalizing the article. there are more than enough to establish notability."
    2. 05:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Do not blank the page. I have provided references. How about you read them?"
    3. 05:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Please stop blanking, and just leave the tag. If Pizzagate and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories both of which were entirely imaginary and originated from crazy conspiracy theorists rather than intelligence agencies get articles, so does"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC) to 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      1. 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Please do not blank. Please read the sources which are adequate to establish notability. We have Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories and this is both more notable and has more evidence (sufficient for CNN and for American and British intelligenc"
      2. 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Stop blanking, the speedy tag is already there. Read the references first."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Do not remove the speedy deletion tag nor unblank the article */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    User was warned concerning 3RR by another user, plus warned about unblanking content that had been blanked as attack content. Safiel (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    The defense speaks. You are being disinengenous. I am trying to add references to deal with the criticsisms of the article, and you are preventing me from doing so. I have furnished more than enough sources to establish that my page is not an attack page. I left the tag, all I did was unblank, so I can continue adding reliable references to the article which establish its notability. What are you trying to achieve here? Unblanking cannot plausibly be considered "edit-warring." Blanking is a nefarious tactic which prevents the article under possible deleton from being improved. It is outrageous that anyone should object to me unblanking the page, so that I , and others (including those criticizing it) can continue to improve it. This is not an established page but one in active construction; blanking is manifestly harmful to the project's goals. Human, All Too Human (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC

    Comment by an involved editor: Human, All Too Human needs some basic education on what Wikipedia is and is not. I see potential in him becoming a good contributor once he "gets" what the rules are, both in the letter and more importantly in the spirit. I would recommend that any response be done with this in mind. Mentoring and guidance would be a lot better for the project in the long run than a block or topic-ban. Fair warning to potential mentors: Until he starts to "get" it, he may "push back." If you can't deal with that, don't volunteer to mentor him. I've been here about a decade now and he reminds me of myself back then: I was editing in good faith and thought that I knew the rules - I was following the letter of those rules I knew about, but wasn't aware that there were more rules I didn't know and wasn't fully aware of the spirit of the rules I did know. I would hate to lose a likely good future editor because he started with a controversial subject and didn't know how to behave and we ran him off. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC) update Damn, he had me fooled. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved explanatory note; Human, all too human when an article is tagged as G10 using twinkle, the page is automatically blanked. The reason being potential defamation of a living person. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-ping; Human, All Too Human. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    so then maybe they shouldn't use that tool in that instance. Perhaps they should take the time to examine the references before screaming "libel" when I am quoting as closely to verbatim from CNN and a dozen other sources as I can without commitimg plagiarism. Simply consider the fact that if there are objections to a page, blanking removes any opportunity to fix them. I cannot add references or address objections to the article while blanked. Reverting the blanking is not edit-warring, and bringing me here over reverting article blanking by editors who had neither read the article at hand or the original sources was a waste of everyone's time which did nothing to contribute to improving the article or indicating which aspects of it they objected to. If content is being hosted on CNN, NY Times, Vox, Buzzfeed, mother jones, The Guardian, AU, and 50 other places, it seems to me deeply disingenuous to claim that my material is "potentially libelous." Such a statement betrays almost no understanding of what libel is. No one can make a plausible claim of libel on the basis of Wikipedia writing "NY times states that X was alleged." If I had made something up with no sources, I can see the argument for blanking the page, but most of what I wrote was very close paraphrasing with references. Should we blank CNN and the NyTimes too? Personally, I believe the blanking was done in bad faith by parties that showed no indication of having read any of the sources. The fact that I was reported for unblanking a fucking article that was extensively referenced and merely reported these as allegations reported in the media is a joke. I don't need this aggravation.Human, All Too Human (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92slim reported by User:Triptothecottage (Result: No violation)

    Page
    Bernard Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    92slim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet"
    2. 07:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet - speak for yourself"
    3. 07:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet"
    4. 06:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet - no I will not"
    5. 06:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet again - new SPA"
    6. 06:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv sockpuppet"
    7. 06:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 759452996 by Oo Eddie oO (talk)"
    8. 06:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC) "Rv - discuss in TP"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Article has been discussed on talk page before edit began between this user and Oo Eddie oO. Please note: I am not entirely sure which, if either, editor is to blame and I think the case requires the attention of experienced editors with WP:BLP expertise.

    I am aware that I have not made any warnings to either editor, but as I say I am not sure where to direct warnings and I think this case needs attention before it spills over again. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Triptothecottage: I was reverting a suspected sockpuppet of User:Delotrooladoo. Edits by sockpuppets are to be reverted. For more info on the investigation, see here. --92slim (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @92slim: Ok. Sorry I didn't notice; I came from Recent Changes and just got confused. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Triptothecottage: No problem, please remove this box. --92slim (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from involved editor: I have no comment on the edit war with Oo Eddie oO, whose SP investigation is still ungoing, but I'd like to use this forum to ask for some help from uninvolved editors with the dispute on Bernard Lewis, where I've been fighting an uphill battle trying to have a policy-based discussion on including contentious material in a BLP lead. 92slim seems intent on labeling Lewis and a number of other scholars "genocide denier", and in this case in the lead, despite getting no support and consistent opposition from multiple editors (no matter how you count the socks). Eperoton (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you're the one not getting any support. All of these that you call consistent opposition are obvious socks: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Perhaps, come up with something better and actually discuss in the TP. --92slim (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You've gotten opposition from me, TheTimesAreAChanging and IPs from different countries. You've gotten no support. As for insunuating that I'm not "actually" discussing on the TP, I'll invite the others to take a look at Talk:Bernard_Lewis#Genocide denial and shake their heads. Eperoton (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Eperoton, here is support (for 92slim). The academic views of Bernard Lewis on the Armenian Genocide are contentious (he denies it was a genocide) - these views go against academic consensus, numerous individuals and organizations have criticized his position, and numerous sources have written about that position. The fact that a person's opinions are contentious is not the same as contentious material. I will continue this on the article's talk page, at your invitation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Those IPs from different countries are the suspected one use sockpuppet IPs and the weird newly created user that I mentioned above. You have not really got consensus. It's you against me (Since TheTimesAreAChanging is not even there). I invite everyone to see how User:Eperoton is being so partisan about suspected sock IPs. I shake my head instead now. --92slim (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - sock confirmed here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Delotrooladoo. --92slim (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there is almost nothing to see here. 92slim was technically in the wrong by repeatedly reverting an (at the time) unproven sock, but in this case it was so obviously a sock (a newly created account, editing just a single article, repeating the editing aim of proven socks who had either also worked on that same article or who had tried the same editing aims on similar articles) that this is not a serious infraction in my opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    92slim, I have a question that relates to an edit on a different page, but it seems to me to be a similar issue to those described above, in a similar time frame. Please can I ask for the basis of your claim here that Carlotm is a sockpuppet? I am not saying you are wrong or right, I just don't see a basis for that claim, and it might be helpful for other editors to assess the merits of that edit - especially in the light of the discussion above - if you could provide one. Thanks for your help. zazpot (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I also don't think Carlotm is a spa. However, they jumped into an article on a contentious subject straight after a series of IP edits that probably are spa, and, in a single edit, done without any prior talk page discussion, reworded or reordered large sections of the text, accompanied with a completely inadequate edit summary for such a major edit. So, in the context, I think it would be easy to confuse Carlotm with that earlier IP editor or the editing style of a spa. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a sockpuppet. 92slim is getting too excited and most likely didn't even read my changes, which, mostly, were not about content but about text flow, a more logical one and with less repetitions. If I reused a flawed text and ref (Simele massacre), which I did just by unlucky chance (I work offline), 92slim should have corrected it and not reverted everything and, on top of it, with a false assertion. It is absurd the suggestion by Tiptoethrutheminefield that I should have opened a discussion for changes not affecting the content. He should look at it and consider if the result is a better text or not. Unless he want to hibernate Wiki pages, which is not a good idea, given their average current condition. Carlotm (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is almost impossible to consider if the result is a better text or not. The diff [33] reveals you made substantial changes, and the differences are so spread out throughout the article that it is very difficult to identify what is new content, what is rearranged content, and what is reworded content, let alone assess whether all or part of that newness, rearrangement or rewording was a good thing. Such a substantial amount of change shouldn't be done to any article in just a single edit, let alone one on a contentious subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiptoethrutheminefield, I edited the lede and the "Etymology" chapter only. So you cannot say that my changes "are so spread out throughout the article". It is not a difficult task to read about lede and "Etymology" twice, the preceding version and mine. And there is no new content at all, except for the substitution of a CBS interview with Raphael Lemkin, not available anymore, with an UN interview with the same personage. I also removed one of three identical etymology explanations. All the rest is rewording and rearranging, sometimes in depth rewording having to overcome incomprehensible passages (there is a {{clarify|reason=Whole para is confused}} tag). For the lede, I changed the wording of the initial para, which was, and still is, thanks to 92slim, not even in correct English. In the last sentence of the lede I added the name of Lemkin, absurdly absent, and substituted a long list of historical massacres with a plain Wikilink to the page where everything can be conveniently assessed. Even if I made some mistakes they didn't warrant a reversion and could have been easily adjusted punctually. For these pages where guardians and owners are in the majority a notice should be put above the lede warning willing editors not to waste their time by trying to make improvements. Carlotm (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My point remains - that is a lot of different editing aims to be incorporated into just a single edit, and I think the resulting complexity of the diff makes it unreasonably difficult for other editors to assess the quality of the edit in whole or in its individual parts (for articles on controversial subjects it is important that editors do such assessments). I think it would have been better if these changes had been done through several edits, each having its own edit summary explanation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 75.119.245.130 reported by User:Sergecross73 (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Steam Machine (hardware platform) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 75.119.245.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [34]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [35]
    2. [36]
    3. [37]
    4. [38]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]


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

    Comments:

    To clarify: The IP keeps on adding the "eighth-generation video game consoles" category on the Steam Machine page, while the discussion linked shows that there was an consensus in a discussion the IP was participating in that a Steam machine is not considered a video game console at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Admin who has reported me is also involved in the dispute, they intentionally reverted MY attempts to preserve the original state of the article in question per WP:BRD while the dispute is worked out. These were improper edits and the admin knew that and chose to try to make them anyway by reverting my attempts to preserve per BRD policy. It was nothing more than baiting me into break 3RR which I fell for. 75.119.245.130 (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course I was involved, that's why I reported you instead of just blocking you myself. I reverted you once, while you did 4 times against 3 editors total. There was no baiting, not only did I give you a final warning (linked above), I even gave you a last chance to self-revert before taking you here, which you declined. You were essentially given 2 last chances, and still refused to change. Yelling "BRD" every time you revert another editor does not give you immunity to 3RR. BRD is an WP:ESSAY. 3RR/Edit Warring is a WP:POLICY. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, clear 3RR after warning. I'm not sure how explicitly warning you is baiting you. As noted, "involved" has nothing to do with a report at a noticeboard. Kuru (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Contributor87 reported by User:32.218.46.178 (Result: )

    Page: Joseph McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Contributor87 (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. [41]
    2. [42]
    3. [43]
    4. [44]
    5. [45]
    6. [46]


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


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

    Comments:
    Several different editors have notified Contributor87 of the problems with his edits in their edit summaries. User has also been warned on his talk page about his disruptive editing. Discussion has also occurred on Billmckern's talk page.32.218.46.178 (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 172.94.103.63 reported by User:TempTTC (Result: Both Blocked)

    Page: The Young Turks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 172.94.103.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [47]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [48]
    2. [49]
    3. [50]
    4. [51]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

    User:TaerkastUA reported by User:Number 57 (Result: )

    Page: Taiwanese cross-Strait relations referendum, 2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TaerkastUA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Over the last couple of weeks, TaerkastUA has done little else on Wikipedia except repeatedly attempted to change wording in this article to avoid using the words Taiwan and China or refer to Taiwan as the Republic of China, despite the fact that the articles on those countries are at their respective titles. This has consisted of a range of outright reverts and partial reverts, several of which reintroduced incorrect links to articles that had been moved.

    1. [53]
    2. [54]
    3. [55]
    4. [56]
    5. [57]
    6. [58]
    7. [59]

    I have repeatedly asked them to take their dispute elsewhere and stop edit warring, culminating in a note that they would be reported if they continued to makes these edits (the last edit above prompted this report)

    1. [60]
    2. [61]
    3. [62]
    4. [63]

    Comments:
    I don't disagree that I've been edit warring on this particular article, and it has gotten out of hand, as has the reporting user, however, the diffs do show that my attempts at compromise were repeatedly ignored, and their reporting as to my reasoning is factually incorrect. I did not try to change article titles, merely introduce the formal titles, but leaving the common names in tact. As can be seen in those diffs as well. If blocked, I will accept it, but I have stated my case and I am not the only guilty party to this.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, I am willing to recuse myself from editing the page in particular, and any similar pages for the period of at least 24 hours. The situation has escalated quickly enough. --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Byates5637 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

    Page: Vaxxed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Byates5637 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: diff


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 15:09, 12 January 2017, edit note: "NPOV"
    2. diff 00:30, 13 January 2017, Edit note: "Discredited it a subjective descriptor that clearly violates impartial tone in WP:NPOV"
    3. diff 00:50, 13 January 2017, edit note: "Please stop trying to edit war with me and let me improve this"
    • Diff of notice of Discretionary Sanctions on PSCI: diff (note their response to the DS alert)
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Vaxxed#.22Discredited.22 where they have not responded.

    Comments:

    This is a documentary advocating pseudoscience, and we get people who come and aggressively want to "balance" it. This is Byates5637's stated goal per their edit notes and this comment they made in a different section at Talk. Does not go over 3RR but obvious EW violation, especially in the context of DS. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    well, now they have, but it is a day late and a dollar short and not based at all on policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to make very small improvements to both the tone and content of this article and Jytdog has continually reverted my contributions. Jytdog Is actually the one in violation of WP:3RR and is trying to block others from helping make the article better. I'm not a prolific wiki editor, but over the years when I come across a bad article I like to try and add my small contributions to help. This user seems to be trying to bully me into non-participation by leaving borderline threatening messages on my talk page and I'm frankly dumbfounded as to why they are doing this to me. Byates5637 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You stumbled into a serious topic, as I have tried to tell you several times. If you understand a notice of DS as "threatening" there is nothing I can do about that. If you don't understand DS and why they exist, you should ask. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor Jytdog is now following me to different pages reverting everything I do. How do I make them stop? Byates5637 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) So Byates5637 just shifted to the Andrew Wakefield article which has been on my watchlist for a long time, to the discussion of Vaxxed there, and did:
    1. this, 13:52, 12 January 2017, edit note "Improving NPOV", removing word "propaganda" and was reverted by someone else,
    2. then this 01:50, 13 January 2017, to attribute "propaganda"
    3. this 01:58, 13 January 2017, reverting additional refs I had added.

    The intention to keep trying to force a WP:GEVAL perspective into WP about Vaxxed is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not "shift" to that article. I was making contributions there since earlier today before you began stalking me and edit warring over every contribution I make. Byates5637 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=759769934"