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 KnowledgeAndPeace (talk | contribs) at 19:33, 11 August 2017 (→‎User:KnowledgeAndPeace reported by User:JohnBlackburne (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:Raskolinkover reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    Yahweh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Raskolinkover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794624904 by FyzixFighter (talk)"
    2. 02:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794623674 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
    3. 02:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794622949 by Just plain Bill (talk)"
    4. 02:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC) ""
    5. 02:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794621973 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
    6. 02:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794620857 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
    7. 02:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 793945358 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 12:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Yahweh. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    See talk page discussion also."No, this is fake history made up by atheist to discredit God and his Word Jesus Christ his Son who died for us" and "Again this is all fake history. God is my witness and he knows your lies. " etc Doug Weller talk 15:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keith Johnston reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    Google memo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Keith Johnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 16:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "re-introduced section on sources used in the memo - this is subject to a talk page section and we have not reached consensus so it is not done to remove this"
    2. 11:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794675610 by ChiveFungi (talk) why not engage in the talk section to find out? See talk page"
    3. 22:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794589799 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Who cares? Multiple RS do, which is why the editor uploaded it. Argue on talk."
    4. 21:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794587076 by Volunteer Marek (talk) This is a source which provides an overview of academic opinions"
    5. 21:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794583145 by Sandstein (talk) Lets keep the scientific reaction separate from other commentators (of which there are many). This is a key distinction."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Sources cited in the memo */"
    2. 15:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Sources cited in the memo */"
    Comments:

    User ignored warnings from other users, appears to just entirely reject the concept of 3RR. Demands that the material be left in unless there's a consensus to remove it, which is not the way things work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anmccaff reported by User:VQuakr (Result: page protected)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

    Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Notified: [8]

    Comments:
    No 3RR violation, but pretty clear WP:EW violation. Previous history of blocks for the same, most recent was just last month. VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Read the talk page; I think it's clear enough that more editors have trouble with this source than not, and that VQuaker has edit-warred against other editors posts. Anmccaff (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Opinions seem pretty evenly divided: the straw poll was 3:3. That that's not relevant to the complaint here though, which is about your behavior. As noted on your talk page, policy is "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As the page hisory clearly shows, from this diff forward, we have a disputed section that has seen three edits proper, by myself, you, and @DrFleischman:, and one revert by DrFleischman, two reverts by yourself, three by myself, and four by Morty C-137.
    This followed a section, as the history also shows, in which a considerable number of IP scoks, following rather closely to Morty's usual line, disrupted the page; I'll let those speak for themselves. Anmccaff (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: @VQuakr: @Anmccaff: Please do not start an argument over the dispute in the article, on this noticeboard. Let an admin sort out what should be done here. I'm not taking sides here, but I do note that Anmccaff has already had two blocks here, so that will likely go against him.
    To Admins: I think a page protection on the article is needed to stop disruptions on it, as this looks to be a serious Edit Dispute going on there, that needs to be calmed down. GUtt01 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is any argument here over the dispute in the article per se, @GUtt01:, where do you see that? Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we all at least put on wrong version tags? Anmccaff (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    User:98.16.78.80 reported by User:PureRED (Result: Page Protected)

    Page
    My Pillow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    98.16.78.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794739333 by 208.54.83.224 (talk) Please use talk page to discuss if we are going to summarize all sections or not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:My_Pillow#Must_we_summ"
    2. 16:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794700317 by 208.54.83.208 (talk) It is a stated fact on the BBB site - see cited BBB link."
    3. 14:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794692134 by 208.54.86.133 (talk) Huh? The edit was only about updating the BBB text based on what is currently on the BBB site."
    4. 14:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794605422 by 172.56.14.87 (talk) Information is not false - it is on the BBB page in the BBB link."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC) to 17:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
      1. 16:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794457504 by 172.56.14.135 (talk) Either we summarize ALL of the sections in the lede, or let the sections speak for themselves."
      2. 17:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC) "Updated BBB review stats to current stats."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This isn't concerning this user alone, though they're definitely a culprit. This page has blown up with edit warring today, and I suspect there is some sockpuppetry at work too.

    I've already requested protection for this page, but it's been sitting in the queue for a good while. PureRED (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I would suggest that this IP and the other's on the article mentioned in this report, be fully investigated for possible sockpuppetry, or, at the very least, for disruptive editing. This one IP User, is not the only one causing problems on this article. (Check article's history log) GUtt01 (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Result: No action will be taken against the IP User in this report. However, Samsara has placed the page under semi-protection for two weeks, due to the disruptive editing by the IPs listed in the article's history log. GUtt01 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amar Tushar reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked Indefinitely)

    Page
    Template:Kamal Haasan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Amar Tushar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794820650 by Kailash29792 (talk)dont do it again, i like kamal haasan, his hindi films must be written separately"
    2. 06:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794819937 by Kailash29792 (talk)It was necessary"
    3. 06:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Navboxes */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    NO ACTING CREDITS must be included in navboxes per WP:NAVBOX. But Tushar has violated that, not only by adding select films that Kamal Haasan has acted in, but those which are of Hindi-language, in an extreme display of WP:POV. This was done even after he was warned and given an explanation. Nevertheless, they persisted. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop these logic and Please Publicize Kamal Sir's Hindi films. Amar Tushar (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This reported user has not committed a 3RR offense, but there may be a possibility that they are not conforming to WP:NAVBOX, in terms of the section WP:FILMNAV, which states:

    "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question."

    I would suggest that an admin possibly give the reported user a warning about their actions, if there is another evidence in their edits to show that they did not conform to the above policy. GUtt01 (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely – by User:Swarm for admittedly biased editing. As his reason for the inclusion of the Hindi acting credits in the NAVBOX, contrary to the guideline, Amar Tushar says "Kamal Haasan is GOD to me, also my mother tongue is Hindi...". In his above response to this complaint, Amar Tushar says "Please Publicize Kamal Sir's Hindi films". EdJohnston (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fan4Life reported by User:U990467 (Result: Blocked for 2 weeks)

    Page
    Ariana Grande discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Fan4Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794491445 by U990467 (talk) "Jason's Song (Gave It Way)" is not a single."
    2. 14:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794871986 by U990467 (talk) It was not sent to radio, meaning it was not a single. Do not add again."
    3. 15:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794874228 by U990467 (talk) Publications misuse the word single all the time. It is not a single, stop adding it."
    4. 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794877464 by U990467 (talk) Vandalism."
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    Comments:

    User keeps edit warring despite warnings and reliable source shown in the hidden note. --U990467 (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Your edits were vandalism, and reverting vandalism doesn't count as edit warring. As per WP:SINGLE?, "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" is not a single. Also, the same publication later called "Everyday" the fourth single, and so did Ariana herself, if "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" was a single, then it would be the fifth single. Fan4Life (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fan4Life should be blocked for starting edit warring so many times. --U990467 (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A user can't be retrospectively blocked, and in this case, it wasn't an edit war, I was reverting vandalism, which doesn't count as edit warring or 3RR. Fan4Life (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Quick question (although I know this report can be considered dealt with), but did the blocked user's reason for his edits, in that the disputed information didn't conform to WP:PROMOSINGLE, was correct perse, or were they trying to push their POV on the matter? GUtt01 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Clown town reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Already blocked)

    Page
    Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Clown town (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Criticism and controversy */ Again, use the talk page. This is a pov point and has established, equally qualified articles showing it is wrong. Since it is debatable, it should not be included or at least discussed on the talk page."
    2. 18:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794898917 by Calton (talk) No, that is not how it works. You need to argue how it is reliable. Go on the talk page and stop with the harassment."
    3. 18:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794887894 by Calton (talk)Again, please discuss this on the talk page before contributing to an edit-war."
    4. 15:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 794872961 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Read and review the talk page before you begin edit-warring. This is your warning. Discuss on talk page."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Reliable sources */ new section"
    2. 20:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "/* 3RR violation */ new section"
    3. 20:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 20:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Reliability */"
    2. 20:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Google Memo */"
    Comments:

    Also note that the user a 3RR warning on my talk page, (though I have only reverted twice) thus demonstrating that they well know what the policy is. It is not an inadvertent error, then, but a calculated and knowing violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User to Admin Request: I think this page needs some protection for the moment, as the article;s history log seems to show this to be a heated Edit Dispute between the reported and the reportee. GUtt01 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am, as the edit history demonstrates, not the only person who this user has reverted. It is the above user who has behaved as an edit warrior, repeatedly reverting two separate editors objecting to his remove of reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You were pinged to use the talk page by another editor and did not. The input was not NPOV. I asked multiple times to use the talk page, which you refused and reverted multiple times. I warned and pleaded, but you chose to keep reverting. Thus, you had to be pinged by another user to use the talk page. Clown town (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one person who is edit-warring in violation of policy here, and that is you, as the diffs above clearly display - you reverted the same material four times in just over five hours after your edits were objected to by two separate editors, myself and User:Calton. That is a violation of 3RR and of bold, revert, discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NorthBySouthBaranof:@Clown town: Right, both of you, cool off for the moment, and don't continue arguing over this matter here on the noticeboard. You both have reported each other for Edit Warring, so don't start an argument over who is in the wrong here. Just leave this matter to an admin. I will state this though; if neither of you couldn't have agreed on this, why didn't you both go to the article's Talk Page and had a civilized discussion on the matter? And I also do not approve of Clown town's report... That looks retaliatory at best, and could be on the fringe of going against WP:NPA... GUtt01 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I did use the talk page. If you look at the diff, I wrote on the talk page yesterday. He never responded on the talk page and only reverted. I kept stating to use the talk page each time and she refused. This got to the point to where another editor had to ping her to use the talk page, which is all I asked because the addition was npov. My report was not retaliatory. I warned her and she reported me before I could report her and she never gave me a warning. She wanted to fire the first shot so to say even though I followed the rules. I warned and then reported. I also requested each time to use the talk page which she refused.Clown town (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC) @NorthBySouthBaranof:@GUtt01:[reply]

    @Clown town: Look... I don't want to hear anymore. You said your piece. Now please let an admin sort out this matter.
    User to Admin Request: I'm gonna now recommend that the disputed article is given temporary protection, until this Dispute between the reported and reportee can be resolved with civility and peacefully. GUtt01 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Right, that is all I wanted, to discuss this on the talk board. She didn't want to. I asked that multiple times. @NorthBySouthBaranof:@GUtt01:

    User: NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Clown town (Result: Nominator blocked)

    Page: Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (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. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794910696
    2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794872961
    3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794720506
    4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=prev&oldid=794720132


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Google_edit-warring


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Google_edit-warring

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google&diff=prev&oldid=794739476 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google&diff=prev&oldid=794905261 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google&diff=prev&oldid=794915987


    Comments:

    These four edits are not within 24 hours, and the third edit listed is not a revert - it's the simple insertion of a Wikilink to the subject's main article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User to Admin Request: I can't believe this. If an admin can, protect the page in dispute, and have words with both users. I can't believe that this one decided to report the other for Edit Warring, after they were reported themselves... GUtt01 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "both sides"ism is unhelpful. As even the most cursory examination of these edits reveals, I have not violated 3RR. Before you toss out accusations, check the facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You reported me after you were warned many times to stop edit-warring and use the talk page. You didn't. So here we are now over a NPOV post that should have easily been discussed in the talk page, but you wouldn't do so, even after being warned and pinged by multiple users. Clown town (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide a diff for "multiple users" warning me - you can't, because it doesn't exist. The only one is you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Clown town (the filer) is at 4 reverts on Google in the past 24 hours. NorthBySouthBaranof is not violating 3RR, this report appears to be purely retaliatory in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/794904960 you were pinged here in the first diff of the talk page. Clown town (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC. I used the talk page. He didn't.

    User:KnowledgeAndPeace reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: )

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

    The user has been repeatedly adding information on a "Cantonese conference", despite it being removed by three other editors (myself, Citobun and Drmies) with clear consensus against it being added on the talk page. These are not straightforward reverts but the diffs of the most recent additions of it to the article:

    1. [9]
    2. [10]
    3. [11]
    4. [12]

    The most recent additions are smaller as they have forked off most of the unwanted content into a new article: Worldwide Cantonese conference

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

    Discussion on article talk page: Talk:Cantonese #Why I deleted the "Worldwide Cantonese conference" section

    Comments:
    The only other thing to add is the editor seems to have an uncommon obsession about this conference, suggesting some conflict of interest, though this is only a supposition. They do though seem unwilling to contribute to the encyclopaedia outside of this narrow area.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user JohnBlackburne have repeatedly targeted only the Cantonese conference section page but ignoring all others wikipedia pages having a "conference" of their own such as the Hakka people conference. I had asked him multiple times why he didn't remove but he never replied it and kept ignoring it. I've checked on the wiki user JohnBlackburne apparently also chatted with other Hakka wikipedia users and including with other moderators to help him out. I've used multiple references, well sourced from both English and Chinese again and again but removed in the end. Other wikipedia pages with unsourced references can have a section or even just mention of their own conference so why can't the Cantonese people wiki page with multiple reference of their own have neither a section nor a mention in their own wiki page. There is no rule that says you ain't allow to mention of having a conference.
    It is a abuse of moderators bias judgement, unfairly deciding what page should they allow to edits and what page don't want to allow.
    Hakka conference page had existed since 2009, nearly a whole decade, almost 10 years. This shouldn't be consensus either but why they they ignored for so long while not allowing the Cantonese to have their own conference? it is double standard hypocrisy at best.
    1. [14] 24 December 2015
    2. [15] 14 March 2011
    3. [16] 7 June 2009
    Also Drmies), he had ignored the red links of the Hakka people page that has over 70+ red links of unsourced figures while on the other hand my page only had a few but he chose to remove mine and unwilling to remove the ones in the list of Hakka people. The conversation can be seen in the talk page of JohnBlackburne and Drmies being extremely double standard and unwilling to remove anything from Hakka people wikipedia page. In the end it took me to do it again even though it's suppose to be their job.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cantonese_people (talk page).
    I demand justice for this unfair abuse, bias judgement. There is absolutely no reason for other unsourced wiki pages to have a conference of their while my sourced wiki page is not allowed to have it.
    My personal feelings: I don't want get blocked right now, I will stop editing the conference page to safe myself from getting blocked if that what it takes. But I won't be surprised if I get blocked since moderators have more rights/control than any normal wiki editors, they make the rules but they also abuse it and you have to submit to their way, in the end we don't even know what their real intentions are (or their real true identity behind the bias judgement). I didn't think having a conference page could bring me so much trouble, some may consider it insignificant and not a big deal, I only copied from the other wikipedia pages, if they can have it ( with sourced/ or unsourced reference ) why can't I have it aswell with multiple sourced reference. I'm supposed to believe that the moderators are being fair on this ? They absolutely did nothing to other wiki pages who had a section/or mention of conference of their own for nearly a decade but they started doing something only when I created my own. It's not fake because there is high number of multiple reference. I really can't think of any reason other than the fact they have something against to those they dislike. They are not just against wiki trolls and abusers but also against those people they dislike. I know there are moderators with nationalistic feelings and moderators with anti-feelings against other wiki editors. -KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 12:50 , 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    I have a good reason to be suspicious. I have already checked many wiki pages that have a conference of their own, such as Jews, Hakka, Germans ect I can show you right now, the Germans themselves have many. So I really don't understand the reason why they are allowed to have it but not in the Cantonese page. I wouldn't respond like this if I was treated fairly, this if there wasn't any evidence I would agree with your ways immediatly but the fact is many other wikipedia pages have a conference of their own from a few years to nearly a decade.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 01:36 , 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    Comment: @KnowledgeAndPeace: Right, two things I got to say. First - "anti-feelings"? I never heard anyone say or write this before in my life. Surely you mean, "zero feelings"? Secondly - If you felt like this was a serious issue, why didn't you go to a administrator noticeboard and see if an admin could look into the matter you have issues with? Surely that would have been better, than getting into a clear Edit Dispute with the reportee and other users. Stating things like "I demand justice for this unfair abuse, bias judgement" raises some questions over whether this will sway people to your side, and quite frankly, I don't think this will help your cause much. GUtt01 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By anti-feelings I mean't someone's who display bias and unfairness against a certain group, like for example a Korean moderator can have anti-feelings against any Japanese wiki editors due to historical reasons and for those reasons use his moderators powers to abuse, control other wiki editors opinions. I don't know the real ethnicity of the moderator so I don't what the motives behind the removal of my edits but the evidence I witness and presented clearly shows double standard behavior against Cantonese people. I don't know fully well how to use the administrator noticeboard and believe it would't do any good reporting against moderators who stick out for eachother.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 08:40 , 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • What happens on another page (or doesn't happen) is of no consequence at all. From a selective absence of facts, KandP wants to derive that two editors here are racist and have it in for him. See KandP's recent complaint at Talk:Cantonese people--"if something happens to me". I think it is high time that someone else points out to this editor that their accusations of racism and favoritism are a form of harassment. (And what is this nonsense about "conferences" anyway?) Drmies (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    Previous version reverted to: diff 20:50, 10 August 2017


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 21:22, 10 August 2017
    2. diff 09:09, 11 August 2017
    3. diff 13:08, 11 August 2017 (after this was filed)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Hiding the sex differences section and Talk:Neuroticism#POV_tag

    Comments:

    So this is related to the Google memo kerfluffle. This editor has floated in, made several unproductive joking remarks on the talk page, and slapped a POV tag on the article (their only contrib to the article itself) solely because the article doesn't give a ton of space to the RECENTIST nonsense: ...Shouldn't the sex differences part have at list a heading for itself? I know the various arguments. But it looks way too bad.... etc. (diff) and this is what most people will deem more central... (diff). None of this has anything to do with editing per the policies and guidelines. They have obviously not violated 3RR but this is classic disruptive tagging. Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    The article was massively amended in the recent days. Original passages were removed.
    Lots of heavy-handed editing. By Jytdog (the complaining party here)
    Lots of edit undo *not by me* but Jytdog forced his way via edit control, rather than more consensual discussions
    Finally, Jytdog decides that the POV issues do not exist.he removed the POV tag, even though it is now clearly explained.
    He did not got a *single* sarcastic remark of my, and comes here dishonestly portraying my arguments "several u productive joking remarks". Where in fact, I have argued my cases in great length, along with offering editing suggestions. And..... Unlike him, I have put my edits as suggestions on the talk page, rather than brusquely forcing my edits through Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog might need a talking about how t behave politely without one handed decisions and edit "undo". One can count him for how many undo he did on the said article alone 10:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think the Google memo is the main issue here. The neutrality dispute is about whether or not there should be a heading "Sex differences". This heading was in the article until [diff] and it is not clear why it was removed. Was it because of political correctness? Roberttherambler (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For admins, it is clear from the comment, but Roberttherambler is borderline HOUNDING me since I was among those who rejected their anti-vax content at Vaxxed. The behavior is blatant and if it continues will become the subject of its own dramah. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog reverted claiming that "added POV without discussion in talk". Well, a discussion was opened and no conclusion was reached. In which case, the aggressive repeated undo/edit warring of Jytdog should be cancelled, and POV tag to stand until a consensus is reached.
    With more people reverting, I refrained from adding it back. Even though, removing POV tags without consensus is against POV tag policy. I preferred to avoid an edit war. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The neutrality of the article is disputed so I can't see why it should not be tagged. Roberttherambler (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not on any valid basis in NPOV; the claimed basis is purely personal opinion about style and as well as recent events. Your main contribution to that discussion was the entirely inappropriate: The opposing points of view here are about political correctness. Jazi Zilber is arguing that we should have a heading for "Sex differences" while his/her opponents are arguing against this because it is not politically correct.-(diff)) Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: To any admin who deals with this report, I think that the article has a serious Edit Dispute going on, and until the editors above can discuss and get consensus in regards to whether the article has a Neutrality dispute or not, I would recommend that the page be temporarily protected. I also do not think the reported user has done enough reversions to contrevene WP:3RR, but whether they are disruptive tagging the article... that is unclear unless clear evidence can be shown by the reportee that the article has no POV issues with it. GUtt01 (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there is no serious content dispute presently - there was one over sourcing, but that has been resolved per this section. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not made any edits to the article Neuroticism so I cannot be accused of edit-warring. All I have done is to support Jazi Zilber's view that the heading "Sex differences" should not have been removed. The heading had been in the article since long before the Google memo affair so I don't see how the Google memo can be relevant. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=795062987"