Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peezy1001 (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 23 August 2015 (→‎Revert war in America Discography page). 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

    Two users reported by User:CorporateM (Result: No violation)

    It came to my attention that there are some slow-rolling edit-wars on this page, over this edit being the most recent and previously it was over using Glassdoor as a source.[1]

    The edit-warring appears to be primarily between an SPA @Flaco1262: that keeps adding poorly-sourced negative material, and an IP 206.180.44.25 that keeps removing it. The IP is registered to the company network and is most likely a current employee, while knowing some context here, the SPA is likely a disgruntled former employee. I have a confirmed, disclosed COI, and each of the other accounts have a very probable COI.

    Not sure if anyone has passed 3RR, but it could use more eyeballs. I see @TaqPol: threw in a revert as well. Although I wouldn't have restored primary sources, blogs, etc. he/she is probably the only actual disinterested editor. Their edit summary seems to be encouraging discussion, but one never took place. CorporateM (Talk) 20:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    Well I definitely initiated a discussion at User_talk:206.180.44.25#Your edit on Reynolds and Reynolds and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_191#Reynolds_and_Reynolds but it didn't exactly go down well. I would assume good faith for now though I suppose the page and/or the user might be worth monitoring. — TaqPol talk contrib 23:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Slow rolling" is quite the understatement. The last edit by Flaco1262 was three months ago and their previous edit was two months before that. I'm slightly more concerned with 206.180.44.25 who seems to have a bias toward reverting, albeit at a pace that wouldn't trouble an ent. With all due respect to CorporateM, I'd say this falls more in the line of ordinary give-and-take rather than edit warring. The Glassdoor stuff, etc. is more in the bailiwick of WP:RSN than this board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Whatever's going on is too slow to count as edit warring. My guess is that User:CorporateM could be filing this here because he is hoping to improve the article but thinks there could be uninformed resistance to his changes. It's good to see that User:TaqPol is working on it and seems to be a long-term editor with no COI. My personal editorial opinion is that the article is boring, but it could be improved. It seems this is actually a large company and gets quite a bit of press coverage, so there should be scope for improving it. Material submitted online to glassdoor.com seems unlikely to qualify as a reliable source. There are two different IPs that may belong to Reynolds and Reynolds but their edits appear to reflect common sense. I'm going to notify the two IPs (206.180.38.20 and 206.180.44.25) as well as User:Flaco1262 that they've been mentioned here before attempting to close this report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I saw the IPs associated with Reynolds and I figured I should report it "somewhere" (maybe COIN would have been better). I don't want anyone thinking this is "the company" editing inappropriately. But their edits look reasonable and I suspect they are just a random employee editing out of their own personal interest (which use to be allowed). I wouldn't sanction anyone personally, but there are a lot of reverts in the edit history between only two editors. Maybe posting it here was a bit excessive. CorporateM (Talk) 04:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation – EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:216.177.129.238 reported by User:Sakimonk (Result: protected + rangeblocked)

    Page: Salafi Theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User talk:216.177.129.238


    Previous version reverted to: original version

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]
    5. [6]
    6. [7]
    7. [8]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several users left the same comment on the reason for edit pointing out that this article was totally WP:OR and lacked any reliable sources and moreover contradicted heavily everything on Salafi movement and Athari articles. Also the talk page seems to have been lost in this haze of edits.

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of 6 months (its /24), as it's clear that that range had extensive issues with edit warring and harassment in the past and been blocked for it, and Page protected (semi) for a few days. --slakr\ talk / 20:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation)

    Page
    Shaun King (activist) (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
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 01:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC) to 01:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      1. 01:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "As per WP:BLP, you are removing King's own statement about his ethnicity from the lede, which is simply not on. You are the one edit-warring out well-sourced information."
      2. 01:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Questions regarding race */ Note that he has understood this since childhood."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 01:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC) to 01:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      1. 01:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC) ""Faced questions" is not a neutral way of stating the issue."
      2. 01:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ He is biracial, as per his statement."
      3. 01:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ This is entirely WP:UNDUE and inflammatory in its false inference."
    3. Consecutive edits made from 23:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC) to 00:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      1. 23:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Family history */ And this is why we don't write biographies based on 24 hours' worth of partisan-fueled news-cycle stories that don't turn out to be accurate or fair. Stripping down."
      2. 23:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "This disputed claim by a partisan outlet should not dominate the lede of the article about King."
      3. 23:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "Nor should we include this inflammatory (and apparently false) comparison."
      4. 23:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Family history */ Improve"
      5. 23:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Family history */ He is biracial, as per his own statements, and there is no proof or significant evidence to the contrary."
      6. 00:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Add Washington Post reference"
    4. 19:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "rm inappropriate non-reliable source and material sourced to it."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Shaun King (activist). (TW)"
    2. 01:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on [[10]]. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 00:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Utterly terrible biography */ comment"
    2. 01:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Utterly terrible biography */ comment"
    3. 01:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Utterly terrible biography */ indent"
    Comments:

    Editor is not discussing effectively, rather, is choosing to gut the article of anything mentioning the current controversy over the article subject, editing disruptively, and edit warring over same. I understand that it is a sensitive subject, but there is quite a bit of coverage on this from very reliable sources, and a number of them to boot. To completely leave out the controversy from the lede is, in my opinion, dishonest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The article in question is a recently-created biography of a living person which serves as a WP:COATRACK for recent highly-partisan attacks on that living person which have been directly refuted in reliable sources. My edits have been an attempt to make the article comply with the Biographies of Living Persons policy in removing inappropriate sources (non-RS personal blogs, The Daily Caller, The Daily Mail, etc.) and to bring some semblance of balance to the highly-negative and inflammatory tone which the article took, as it originally gave all credence to the negative attacks. Frankly, the article should be simply deleted until such time as we can write an actual balanced article based on long-term reliable sources which have viewed the event from a distance and with sufficient time to investigate all angles. This article is a textbook example of the wrong reason to write a Wikipedia biography. Until it is deleted, we have a moral, ethical and policy-based responsibility to treat the article subject fairly, and the reporting editor has been clearly opposed to doing so, having removed the article subject's own response to the claims from the article lede via revert.

    This is not merely a "sensitive subject," this is a "biography" which entirely revolves around unsupported, scurrilous, jump-to-conclusions and, by all appearances, false claims about the article subject's personal ancestry. These claims were spread rapidly via the 24-hour news cycle, but have been directly and substantively refuted by the article subject, who has both published his refutation personally and has been reported on by an unimpeachable reliable source, The Washington Post. We can, should and must do better when we write biographies of living people, and running off to the 3RRNB when challenged to treat article subjects fairly and not give undue credence to scurrilous allegations evinces a lack of respect for the subject of the article and our role as encyclopedists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • NorthBySouthBaranof is correct that this edit by Winkelvi is not appropriate for a BLP because such articles should not be filled with claims-of-the-day (the ref given has today's date). The BLP approach is to wait until matters have been analyzed by reliable sources, not merely parroted. The issue is highly sensitive and the article can say nothing of substance because nothing is known other than that the subject has been attacked by dubious sources which has been reported as today's gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Winklevi claims as an acceptable lede for the biography of a living person is as follows: In August 2015, King faced public scrutiny regarding his claimed ethnicity due to the release of public records allegedly showing both his parents to be white. What we have are uncorroborated claims by third parties about a person's ancestry which have since been directly refuted by that person. The article lede now states that one of the most important things about this person is that some Breitbart writer questioned his ethnicity. This is undue weight on "claims-of-the-day" (as Johnuniq adroitly notes) in the extreme, and makes obvious the fact that the article was written and is trying to be used as a WP:COATRACK to push those "claims-of-the-day" made against the article subject less than 24 hours ago. Is this how Wikipedians write biographies of people today - based on little more than breathless repetition of uncorroborated scandalmongering which has fallen apart under scrutiny? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we here to attack Wikipedians, Winkelvi, and Winkelvi's edits and difference in opinion on what should be in the article or are we here to discuss your edit warring, NBSB? Funny how now you're all willing to discuss now when at the time you received two warnings for your disruptive, pointy editing and edit warring, you couldn't be bothered. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We're here to write an encyclopedia which treats its article subjects with fairness and sensitivity, as fundamental policy demands. As you should well know, when you bring something to a noticeboard, you invite scrutiny on your own edits and your own compliance with policy (or lack thereof). I am perfectly willing to discuss things on the article talk page, as I have done - so long as the article first complies with policy in treating its subject fairly and without undue scandalmongering. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I note that NorthBySouthBaranof continues to edit the article in the midst of the dispute without discussion and appears to be still pushing his own POV in regard to the article subject [11].
        • The edit you link to shows me inserting an impeccably-sourced directly-quoted statement by the article subject directly refuting the claims made against him. In what way is this "pushing (my) own POV" in regard to the article subject? Is it your position that the article subject's own well-sourced statement about the claims made about his own life should not be included in his own biography, or is somehow "POV"? On what policy grounds do you make this absurd demand that we should not quote a public statement made by a person addressing claims made by third parties about his own personal life? Are we in Narnia? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NorthBySouthBaranof's edits are in pursuit of accordance with WP:BLP, and so are exempt from the edit warring policy. I ask both parties at this point to return to the talk page or noticeboards and refrain from major edits to the article, which is on the verge of full protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Someguy1221: I've always been a stickler for following BLP guidelines - am currently dealing with an editor at another article over adhering to BLP policy. NBSB's "pursuit", however, was extremely aggressive - especially in light of little to no discussion, just disruptive editing. Such aggression with no discussion and the subsequent edit warring became the focus. Such focus = disruption to make a point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Someguy1221's assessment here. NorthBySouthBaranof appears to be working towards adherence with BLP; I'm not seeing any WP:POINT violations here. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    NorthBySouthBaranof made an interesting point that, when you file a complaint against someone, you invite greater scrutiny of yourself. Winkelvi, who has a rather colorful block history, seems to be regularly firing off notices against other editors that, as a general rule, result in no action taken but require a lot of time and energy for the accused to defend against. I would suggest someone might counsel him on this point, but it seems he's received extensive cautions and good-natured warnings already, interspersed with his many blocks. I'm not entirely sure what the most effective corrective action to deal with this type of disruption is. BlueSalix (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Red Echidna reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Stalin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Red Echidna (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. [12]
    2. [13]
    3. [14]
    4. [15]
    5. [16]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

    Note that the user was definitely aware of the 3RR rule even as they continued to edit war, as they removed the warning [18].

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

    Comments:

    Note that even though it's a red-linked username, this user has been here since 2010.

    Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Red Echidna reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Joseph Stalin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Red Echidna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "This was the original text dating from the original article, which is neutral in tone, as is the goal of this article. "Dictator" was not a title. It could be changed to "Premier" if preferred, but "Leader" is impartial and undisputed. Thank you."
    2. 05:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677110957 by WilliamThweatt (talk) Leadership style is distinctly defined in the introductory paragraph."
    3. 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677105366 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Your revision text is charged. The original text is neutral. Please refrain from further disruptive editing. Thank you."
    4. 04:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677086607 by Volunteer Marek (talk) This type of language is not encyclopedic. The rest of the article further explains his leadership style."
    5. 01:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 676342798 by Staberinde (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Joseph Stalin. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. [20]
    Comments:

    User continues to revert multiple editors even after 3RR warning, the above attempt by another user to open discussion on talk page was ignored and my invitation to discussion on talk page also went unanswered. William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the same user/edit war as my report above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Already blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beyers31 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Indef)

    Page: Brazil (1985 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Beyers31 (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
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Brazil_(1985_film)#Country_of_production diff]

    Comments:
    User continuously changes material being discussed on talk pages, removing tags and adding IMDb as a source. Which is against WP:RS/IMDb. Tried talking about it on the talk page with no luck too. here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Beyers31: I have constantly been trying to add my sources, but you just undo my changes before I am able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyers31 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyers31, please take the discussion to the talk page. It's not as simple as finding one source as I've stated earlier on the talk page. Removing sources because they are "old" or "obscure" (which isn't the case if you read the discussion) is not the way to handle editing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely – Edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. Per Andy Dingley, this newly-created account is part of a sock campaign to argue about the nationality of the production of Brazil (1985 film). The film is (at least for the moment) believed to be a joint British-American production. Beyers31 must have created his account to continue the war after the article was recently semiprotected. He's also edited other film articles such as Quantum of Solace to minimize their British connection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert war in America Discography page

    I seem to have gotten into a revert war with an unregisterd user.

    I am a longtime record collector and not-very-frequent Wikipedia contributor, and I noticed an error in the Discography page for the 70s rock group America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_discography

    I provided a cite to the discogs.com website, which is generally considered the definitive online database for such things. http://www.discogs.com/America-A-Horse-With-No-Name/release/1474176

    This user has now reverted my change three times. I've invited him to the Talk page but he hasn't joined my discussion thread there. His previous two reverts gave no cite. His most recent revert gives a cite to the wrong record (viz., a German pressing).

    Peezy1001 (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Will comment there with some additional perspective though. Swarm ♠ 06:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding was that any dispute, not just violations of the 3 Revert Rule, should be brought here. Peezy1001 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lootbrewed reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

    Page
    Jared Fogle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lootbrewed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC) to 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      1. 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation, criminal charges, plea agreement */ Restore to version prior to resolution of existing TP discussion that has no consensus; Winkelvi unilaterally made the changes after lobbying SNUGGUMS and Crobeel for their support on their TPs."
      2. 21:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Jared Foundation */ Minor grammar/punctuation. Also, previous edit summary s/b Cwobeel (typo)"
      3. 21:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */ simplify, remove redundancies; obviously his college graduation followed his h.s. grad, and if he graduated from NCHS and IU then he obviously attended them too."
      4. 22:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC) ""
      5. 22:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "cite fix"
      6. 22:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "rmv space"
      7. 22:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "fix cites"
      8. 22:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC) ""
      9. 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "fix cites"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 01:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC) to 03:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      1. 01:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Winkelvi unilaterally changed heading while participating in current talk page discussion where he's yet to receive any support for his postition about "Criminal investigation". If "plea agreement" used, then charges is redundant."
      2. 01:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Criminal investigation and plea agreement */ We include things that did happen, not those that didn't. Editor added this content in attempt to strengthen his position in TP discussion regarding section title. Subway's speculation is irrelevant."
      3. 03:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Restore section that has existed for two years; inexplicably blanked yesterday as "trivia". "In popular culture" is a standard, acceptable section used in many celebrity articles."
    3. 01:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Reword/condense. Indiana is indicated in first sentence so unnecessary to repeat it. If he graduated then it goes without saying that he attended."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 01:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jared Fogle. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 21:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
    2. 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
    3. 21:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
    4. 21:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
    5. 22:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
    6. 22:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
    7. 22:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ indent"
    8. 01:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ please show me how I am contradicting policy"
    9. 01:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ ce and clarify"
    10. 02:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ comment"
    11. 03:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Investigation and charges */ in popular culture"
    Comments:

    Refuses to discuss, follow policy, follow consensus. When he does comment, his comments are laden with hostility and insults and lots of WP:IDHT. WP:OWN is also beginning to be apparent based on edit summaries and reversion of any one who attempts to edit. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll ask whomever reviews this complaint to simply read this current talk page discussion in its entirety at Jared Fogle. You will see that Winkelvi (WV) received no support for his position, so he then went to the talk pages of two of his friends, SNUGGUMS and Cwobeel pleading for their help and insulting me in the processs.123 He chose only those two allies to write. Both of them then went to the talk page discussion, posting short replies of support for Winkelvi's position without addressing any of the issues presented by the original poster or me. Since then, Winkelvi has been proclaiming consensus for his position, such as this comment on Cwobeel's talk page. Since then, I just learned about the behavioral guideline WP:CANVASS, which I believe Winkelvi clearly violated. To summarize... another editor (Jospeh A. Spadaro) made a change in the Jared Fogle article and then appropriately started a talk page discussion about it. I agreed with his position. Winkelvi disagreed with both of us. After receiving no support for his position, Winkelvi violated WP:CANVASS by asking two of his friends to help him in the debate. They did, Winkelvi proclaimed victory, and he and his allies proceeded to make their desired changes in the article. I have restored the original edits until the talk page discussion is resolved. On a final note, it's interesting that Winkelvi described my comments as "laden with hostility and insults". Please read the TP discussion and decide for yourself who was being rude and condescending to whom. As well, please read this and this. Thank you. Lootbrewed (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a clarification. In the one talk page discussion I linked to above, where Winkelvi called an editor "A complete prick", he is apparently not referring to me, but rather another editor. I included it, however, to point out one of many examples of his hypocrisy with regard to my alleged "hostility and insults". Lootbrewed (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that Cwobeel has just reverted the section heading at Jared Fogle that is at the heart of this dilemma, even though he is fully aware that no consensus was reached on the matter, and that this noticeboard issue is currently under review. Lootbrewed (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Winkelvi and I are not "friends" and we find ourselves sometimes at odds with each other. There is nothing wrong in asking fellow editors to take a look. Much of a do about nothing. Wikipedia is not a battleground. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told you on the Fogle talk page, you are correct that there is nothing wrong asking for a second pair of eyes, but only if it's done in a way that does not violate any policies or guidelines. Fortunately, I later discovered WP:CANVASS and learned that Winkelvi indeed violated that behaviorial guideline in multiple ways. There are proper ways to seek input for a talk page debate, and Winkelvi's way certainly was not one of them. In terms of your relationship with Winkelvi on Wikipedia, I think your current and past discussions on your talk pages make it clear that you qualify as "wikifriends", if there's such a term. I should also mention, that Winkelvi's method of filing complaints and issuing warnings to users who disagree with his position and behavior, is counter-productive and wastes a lot of people's time. Lootbrewed (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it very interesting that as of yet, you have not addressed your edit warring and ownership behavior. All you have talked about is what do you think everyone else is doing wrong. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure whomever reviews this will look at my edits, as well as yours. They will also be able to read the Fogle talk page discussion in full. They can assess not only your behavior and continued avoidance of the objections raised by other editors, but more importantly the fact that you reverted (and changed) a lot of content directly related to the discussion (including the primary issue of the section heading) in the middle of the discussion, when there clearly was no consensus. Yet, you unilaterally proclaimed there was. Therefore, I reverted your edits as they were when the discussion began. And now, when a much more experienced editor, Beach drifter, comes along and offers very calm and reasonable input, you refuse to answer his very relevant questions, leaving him to tell you that your intransigence is "ridiculous".1 Your refusal to admit that, by default, a child pornography investigation is indeed a criminal investigation, or that the only thing the FBI investigates are crimes, is perplexing. Lootbrewed (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it really matters, but (you brought it up)... I have more than twice as many edits as Beach Drifter. Cwobeel has more than three times as many. SNUGGUMS has more than six times as many. But Beach Drifter is the more experienced editor, eh? The three of us disagree with you. That is what has made you edit war, throw around insults, have ownership issues, and treat Wikipedia like a battleground. Isn't that what you are saying? It would seem so, because you have yet to address your part in violating policy, only what those who disagree with you have done and how those with more experience don't know what they are doing. This must be the Twilight Zone or some sort of parallel universe where everything is backwards. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask that you please stay calm and civil. I pointed out Beach drifter's experience purely in terms of years, not number of edits, to show that you are not only ignoring the objections of a "newbie", as you've called me multiple times, but are also ignoring an editor who has been editing much longer than you. He's been editing since 2008, and you since 2012. And although I don't know where to look for number of edits, I would guess by a quick browse of his edits that Beach drifter has contributed several thousand edits. And, more importantly, I would venture to guess that most editors would much rather have a cooperative editor who makes 4,000 quality edits, than a difficult one who makes twice as many problematic ones. Lootbrewed (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He has a little over 7000, I have a little over 16000. Cwobeel has over 20000, Snuggums over 40000. You're under 300. Okay, now that is clear, when are you going to address your edit warring, ownership issues, and battleground mentality, rather than focusing on what others do? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed my point regarding the number of edits one contributes. In any case... with a job, activities, spouse, children and now a grandchild, I unfortunately don't have anywhere near the time to make 16,000 edits in a three year period, as you have. Apparently, you have much more time to spend here than I do. In terms of this complaint you've filed, I'm very comfortable with letting the powers that be review the matter and take whatever steps they feel are necessary. Lootbrewed (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:149.62.200.197 reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: 48h)

    Page: Principality of Ongal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 149.62.200.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&oldid=676994347

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&type=revision&diff=677096847&oldid=677070459
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&type=revision&diff=677114556&oldid=677106133
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&type=revision&diff=677117215&oldid=677116831
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&type=revision&diff=677118002&oldid=677117329

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A149.62.200.197&type=revision&diff=677235640&oldid=677235498

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I wasn't editing the article. I was asked for advice at WP:Teahouse/Questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. This edit war gone a bit stale but it appears the only reason it has done so is because the other editors exercised restraint from continuing it. Swarm ♠ 07:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Swans2012 reported by User:104.254.90.251 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJ WerlemanCJ Werleman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Swans2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [21]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJ_Werleman&diff=677264503&oldid=677201193
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJ_Werleman&diff=677264503&oldid=677202380
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJ_Werleman&diff=677264503&oldid=677202831
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJ_Werleman&diff=677264503&oldid=677205585

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swans2012

    Comments:

    Swans2012 states he/she is a "fan" of subject of the page and keeps reverting accurate but moderately embarassing information about the subject. See attempts to stop the revert war here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swans2012

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Swarm ♠ 07:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Strongman2014 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: )

    Page
    Marvel One-Shots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Strongman2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "That is factually incorrect because the source IS the ACTUAL FILM. Those credits come FROM Marvel. That SHOULD be the thing Wiki is about - TRUTH"
    2. 05:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "Here is a link to the actual short film. in the end in the credit roll you will see Music by Paul Oakenfold and Howard Drossin. https://vimeo.com/45964463 I'd think the actual film itself is a pretty reliable source."
    3. 23:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677230798 by Adamstom.97 (talk)"
    4. 20:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "RE: Marvel One Shots - Thor's Hammer and the consultant. Sorry if I'm responding in the wrong place, I'm not very adept at Wiki. If you need a source go to my IMDB page Howard Drossin. Do I need to dig up my contract? Do you work for Paul? Of yes then jus"
    5. 19:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677033080 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Marvel One-Shots */"
    2. 05:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "/* August 2015 */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. User talk:Favre1fan93#Marvel One Shots
    2. User talk:TriiipleThreat#Marvel One-Shots
    Comments:

    User also may have a WP:COI with the matter, given the comments on mine and TriiipleThreat's talk pages (linked above). Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Strongman2014 (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Hi there. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't know all of the protocols. But I came across a few shorts I scored with Paul Oakenfold for Marvel in 2011 and once I saw I was not credited, have tried to fix it. I am trying to provide definitive proof that I am a co composer by attaching a link to one of the One Shots where at the end credits you can clearly see Music by Paul Oakenfold and Howard Drossin. I just happened to find the One Shots on vimeo. They are many other such sites as well as on the Marvel Blu Rays. There is no conflict of interest, Sorry but I'm just a guy trying to make sure I get credited for my work properly. I would think that this would be welcomed on Wikipedia. If anyone reading this is interested in seeing the aforementioned credits, here is the link to one of the films (The Consultant - credits at the end): https://vimeo.com/45964463 If there is a more acceptable version for Wikipedia please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongman2014 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "I came across a few shorts I scored with Paul Oakenfold for Marvel in 2011 and once I saw I was not credited, have tried to fix it." is the definition of a conflict of interest on this site. And it didn't help matters that you got involved in an edit war too, after I told you about the COI policy and how to avoid this situation. And please also don't copy/paste the exact same answer you provided here to my talk page. I'm involved in this report, so I see what you wrote and will respond here to it. If you have an additional comment regarding the exact conversation we had on my talk, you can continue that there. But we want to keep all communication in one place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this report and just wanted to add my two cents. I am not involved in the matter in any way. Strongman2014 obviously edit-warred; there's no debating that fact. However, I believe his stubborness stems from an extremely faulty premise he's using to rationalize his inappropriate editing behavior. In his most recent revert, his edit summary was, "That is factually incorrect because the source IS the ACTUAL FILM. Those credits come FROM Marvel. That SHOULD be the thing Wiki is about - TRUTH." Clearly, he has it backwards and doesn't understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability, NOT truth. Strongman, you should familiarize yourself with the hugely important policy, WP:VERIFY, which says, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth." Having said all that, it is quite obvious that Howard Drossin (whom you claim to be) did indeed score the short in question. You even provided a Vimeo link to the full four-minute film, here and in an edit summary. I watched the video and the credits at the end (at 3:30) certainly do show "Music by PAUL OAKENFOLD AND HOWARD DROSSIN". However, the question then becomes: Is a Vimeo video allowed to be used as a reliable source? According to the guideline on identifying reliable sources, WP:RS, "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources" (bolding added). So, is a Vimeo video considered "a reputable party"? I'll let more experienced editors answer that question. In terms of conflict of interest, I see that Strongman is a major contributor to Howard Drossin, whom he claims to be. Although editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged, there are six instances, in which an editor with a COI is permitted to make some edits. You must ask yourself if your edits fall into one of those six categories. The bottom line, however, is that even if what you're saying is true, you still must always adhere to Wikipedia's polices and guidelines. You cannot edit war, especially as aggressively as you did it in this situation. Instead, you should start a discussion on the talk page of the article in question, or ask experienced editors for help in resolving the matter. Also, it would be nice if an experienced editor simply offered to help Strongman properly get his desired content into the article. In closing, I think that if Strongman/Howard will agree to follow my advice and not to edit war any more, he should be let go with a warning. But any violations after that should result in an immediate block. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, to answer your question, no the Vimeo source cannot be used. Any video used as a source must stem from a reliable source (ie Marvel's official channel) and this is not the case. See WP:VIDEOLINK. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info. So can you help Strongman/Drossin source the fact that he also did the music? I see the source for the guy who is credited with the music (Oakenfold) does not include Drossin's name. I realize the Vimeo video can't be used to source Drossin, but obviously both Oakenfold and Drossin did the music. It shouldn't be forgotten that although Strongman/Drossin stubbornly edit-warred, he isn't trying to inject opinion into the article, or slant it in any way. He just wants to be properly credited. Putting aside his clear editing violations, it's not difficult to emphathize with his frustration. Hopefully, a reliable source can be found. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused about something. How can all the listings in the Works section on Howard Drossin be allowed if there are no reliable sources for any of them? There are dozens, yet not one source. And the list of course includes the one we're discussing here, Marvel One-Shots/The Consultant. I realize that most IMDb pages cannot be used as a source because users can add content to it, but the entire list apparently comes directly from Drossin's IMDb page, which is linked in the External Links section. But what's most confounding is the fact that there are zero inline sources; only the two external links to his IMDb page and his own website. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nyanchoka reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Corazón indomable (telenovela) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Nyanchoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "Nyanchoka moved page Wild at Heart (telenovela) to Corazón indomable (telenovela) over redirect: Comply with title card"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 13:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC) to 13:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
      1. 13:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "Nyanchoka moved page Wild at Heart (telenovela) to Corazón indomable (telenovela) over redirect: Original name for the article please do not move again state reason in talk page."
      2. 13:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) ""
      3. 13:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC) ""
      4. 13:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Awards and nominations */Fixed typo"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 11:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC) to 11:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
      1. 11:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "Nyanchoka moved page Wild at Heart (telenovela) to Corazón indomable (telenovela) over redirect: Title card is in spanish"
      2. 11:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "fixed typo"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 10:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC) to 10:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
      1. 10:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "Nyanchoka moved page Wild at Heart (telenovela) to Corazón indomable (telenovela): Title card is in spanish."
      2. 10:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "Fixed typos"
      3. 10:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 06:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Desperate Housewives Africa. (TW)"
    2. 07:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Flavio Medina */ new section"
    3. 07:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Flavio Medina */"
    4. 14:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Flavio Medina */"
    5. 14:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Wild at Heart */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "Philip J Fry moved page Talk:Corazón indomable (telenovela) to Talk:Wild at Heart (telenovela) over redirect: This poster is in English."
    2. 11:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "Philip J Fry moved page Talk:Corazón indomable (telenovela) to Talk:Wild at Heart (telenovela) over redirect: Please stop"
    3. 13:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "Philip J Fry moved page Talk:Corazón indomable (telenovela) to Talk:Wild at Heart (telenovela) over redirect: It was not agreed for the current title."
    4. 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Current title */ new section"
    Comments:

    Although the user does not want to reach any concessive insists generate wars editions in other articles as The Stray Cat and The Color of Passion. Philip J Fry • (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 72 hours. Edit warring on the article text and move-warring on the article name. The user does not seem to listen to anyone else but is quick to revert. Here is their log of article moves since 1 July. This pattern of making changes without consensus may suggest the need for a longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LesVegas reported by User:Doc James (Result: no block)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25] attended to add content based on a journal with an impact factor of zero
    2. [26] added five tags
    3. [27] added the five tags again
    4. [28] and added the five tags once more

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

    Comments:

    Of course, I would like to point out there are only two reverts there, to Doc James's three. Doc James also failed to address anything on talk beyond one journal, yet the tags addressed many issues. Also, as I understand it, tags do not require consensus to be added as long as a talk page discussion is created (which I did), yet we do need consensus to remove them. Or a talk page section failed to be created, creating a drive-by tagging situation. Or talk page discussion must have stalled. None of those three happened. LesVegas (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Incredible claims require incredibly good evidence. This is an incredible claim "acupuncture ... a safe and effective treatment for supraventricular tachycardia" and what LasVegas provided was a Chinese language source with an impact factor of zero. One needs a very good source to say this sort of stuff.
    Getting it wrong can kill people. SVT is a very serious condition in many people. That LasVegas was trying to convince a 70 year old with a heart rate of 190 that they should go to an acupuncturist rather than the ER for adenosine / cardioversion does not make me happy. Adding this sort of stuff to Wikipedia degrades us as a reputable source.
    Yes your tagging was pointy. But more concerning is your addition was just plain dangerous. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern, but you also reverted a claim of adjunctive care (acupuncture plus Western medicine being superior to Western Medicine alone) which is not necessarily an exceptional claim, or a danger to readers. I tagged the article on many issues, only one of which was the source in dispute and had told other editors last week that I was going to do it. I just had to gather all the diffs to add to the talk page first. LesVegas (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated both on the talk page and on your user page, that source is not good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    (non admin observation) It appears the first diff of an edit by LesVegas is not a revert but an edit. The second diff is an addition and doesnt match the previous version. It appears LesVegas reverted 2 times but Doc James 3 times. Doc James reverts [31][32][33]. This appears to be edit warring by the proposer but not a 3RR violation. AlbinoFerret 18:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question has the policy been changed so that adding new content is considered a revert? It appears two of these diffs represents new content, which to my understanding does not count as a revert, while two of the diffs represent the re-addition of content previously deleted, which counts as a revert. It seems there may not be a violation of 3rr here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To add , Doc James has opened a section on AN/I here on the same edits. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:3RR says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." The tag-bombing was clearly retaliatory for reverting that edit (which was profoundly FRINGE) and edit-warring to keep the tags in, is block-able. AlbinoFerret and BoboMeowCat are reliable supporters of alt-med pushers and AlbinoFerret in particular is making a name for himself opposing mainstream medical editing and supporting FRINGE-pushers on various boards in WP - I cannot remember the last time he made a comment upholding mainstream science on a drama board, and he is getting increasingly clever with wiki-lawyering in support of that agenda. Whatever. All that said, Doc James fwiw i suggest that to keep things simple, that you withdraw this EWN and focus the discussion at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, I would hope your stance against alt-med wouldn't cause you to overlook that Les Vegas made 2 reverts, while Doc James made 3, yet Doc James reported Les Vegas for edit warring. This report seems problematic because admins, although technically just another editor, undeniably carry clout and respect within the community, and it should not be abused. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Jytdog, but No. Editors who are tag bombing do not go to the trouble Las Vegas did to explain the tags. Further I doubt it helps anything to make disparaging remarks about the editors here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)O)[reply]
    Your advocacy for alt med is also clear, Littleolive oil. LesVegas' behavior is way out of line. He has become way too strident. I am hoping he will wake up and see this; if not the community is very likely going to give him a break from editing. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that Doc James is more involved in edit warring and a WP:Boomerang should hit him for filing a bogus report and reverting 3 times on a controversial article under DS. Doc is an admin, and should know better. LesVegas's behaviour isnt the problem you are making it out to be, he placed tags and started a section to discuss the problem. AlbinoFerret 21:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LesVegas is editing disruptively for a FRINGE perspective at an article with DS about that FRINGE perspective. Adding content with zero chance of sticking and tag-bombing in retaliation is disruptive. Your effort to distract from that is really.... unfortunate. Yes, Doc James reverted the crap content and reverted the tag-bombing. The most likely outcomes of this EWN thread are, in this order: a) no action due to the ANI thread and the calm at the article now; b) lock the article and warn both of them; c) block LesVegas; and way, way distant d) block both of them. Your stance here is ridiculous. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A content disagreement and a percieved problem are not excuses to edit war, or to file a bogus report here. AlbinoFerret 22:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful of whom you accuse and of what Jytdog. Charging others with advocacy because they do not agree with you is rather low. And charging someone with advocacy of an entire and very general field is kind of silly. Further, I have been accused of all manner of things off and on Wikipedia. Most of it is silly, too.This can be handled by Doc and Les Vegas. I'm sure they have the maturity to deal with this themselves(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    I don't write anything I cannot back up with diffs. And if you care about LesVegas as an editor, you would be trying to talk him away from the cliff edge, not encouraging him. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs cannot determine motivation. Advocacy implies motivation. Assumption as to another editor's motivation is uncivil and personal. I am encouraging LesVegas and Doc do handle this in a peaceful way. Do you have a problem with that? In this case I have the sense that if there is a cliff for either editor they are not the ones creating it. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    I doubt any admin is going to block for edit warring here; what the definition of 3R is, I have no idea anymore. The matter is being discussed at ANI, and that's a better place for it. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gabby Merger reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 24h )

    Page: Jehovah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Gabby Merger (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:

    • dif content about Yehowah" added by GM 19 August 2015
    • dif restored 22 August after removal by Jeffro
    • dif and dif and dif restored and elaborated by GM now with SHOUTing, after removal by Jeffro
    • dif restored after removal by me Aug 22
    • dif restored after removal by me Aug 22

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section opened by Jeffro diff

    Comments:

    Blocked – 24 hours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: )

    Pages:

    Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    American Petroleum Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    ExxonMobil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    The Heartland Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Nature of edit warring User HughD is engaging in an edit war to add a particular Mother Jones citation to several climate change related pages. The entry was added nearly verbatim to several articles. It was removed or edited by 4 other editors who objected to the inclusion. The quality of the source is currently a discussion topic on two talk pages without consensus (Aug 19 [[34]], Aug 17th [[35]]) talk pages. Hugh has inserted/reinserted the questioned link 9 times just today (Aug 22).

    Previous insertions on various pages: Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change Initial:[[36]] Reinsertions:[[37]][[38]] - Removed by two different editors

    American Petroleum Institute Initial:[[39]] Reinsertions:(This insertion by IP address[[40]])[[41]][[42]] - Removed by two editors

    ExxonMobil Initial:[[43]] Reinsertions:[[44]][[45]] - Removed by one editor

    American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Initial:[[46]] Reinsertion:[[47]][[48]] - Removed by one editor

    Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Initial:[[49]] Reinsertions[[50]][[51]] - One editor modified the entry, two removed it.

    The Heartland Institute Initial:[[52]] Reinsertions: [[53]][[54]] - Removed by two editors.

    FreedomWorks Initial:[[55]] Reinsertions:[[56]][[57]] - Removed by one editor

    A warning about edit warring was placed on HughD's talk page Aug 19th [[58]] The reasons for objecting to the inclusion are basically the same for all the above articles. Talk page discussions were started on Freedomworks (Aug 19 [[59]]) and The Heartland Insititute (Aug 17th [[60]]) talk pages.

    Insertions after issue was raised on talk pages and without consensus Consensus has not been reached on either discussion page. HughD proposed an adition on the Heartland talk page on Aug 21st [[61]] whcih has not generated a consensus for insertion. As of Aug 22nd Hugh inserted the link 9 times (this list repeats all Aug 22nd insertions including those above) [[62]][[63]][[64]][[65]][[66]][[67]][[68]][[69]][[70]]

    Link to warning 

    [[71]]

    Link to notices [[72]] [[73]] [[74]]

    • Comment - There is very clear evidence of wikihounding by multiple editors on these articles. These editors have been stonewalling material they disagree with even when it's reliably sourced and stated by multiple sources. With 4 out of 6 of these articles, reverting editors have never had previous involvement until HughD added material, and then they promptly remove the material he adds. I recommend a serious consideration of boomerang for harassment violations pertaining to WP:Hound. Their reasons for reverting range from "looks like gossip to me", to citing false consensus, and then changing the reason to BLP violations. These editors are the ones who've repeatedly reverted Hugh's addition while having no prior involvement on the article over the last 500 edits, which in some cases extend to over a decade:
    user:Springee - [[75]] and [[76]]
    user:Capitalistmojo - [[77]], [[78]], [[79]]
    user:Arthur Rubin - [[80]]

    Scoobydunk (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsense. I agree that I am one of the many editors opposed to Hugh's addition of often completely irrelevant, and almost always undue weight addition of material sourced to opinions of biased sources, but it's not WP:HOUNDING to check edits of an editor similar to edits found to be improper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arthur Rubin:, where were the edits "found to be improper," exactly? I've zero desire to wade into this particular content dispute but the only actual discussion about this that I can find does not seem to suggest that the edits were "found to be improper." In fact, several other editors are making a pretty spirited defense of Hugh's edits there, and the only people arguing that the edits were "improper" are the same people who pretty obviously followed him there from previous dispute. Perhaps there's another discussion that I've missed? Fyddlestix (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some of his editing has been found to be improper, as he is topic-banned from a topic due to (IMO) tendentious editing. I believe some of his edits have been found improper, but it is not worth verifying at the present time. It would only be worth my time researching if there were to be a consequence. And the typo you reverted above has some truth to it; Hugh's supporters have followed him to articles to support him — what's the WP link for following an editor to support his edits? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, the elephant in the room is that this is part of the ongoing conflict between editors who accept the findings of the scientific community with regard to climate change and other editors who reject those findings. Each side thinks they're right and the other is wrong. I don't think we're going to resolve that here. I do suggest that accusations of tag-teaming and the like ("Hugh's supporters have followed him to articles to support him") are not helpful unless strong evidence to that effect can be provided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (That last comment, and much of this one, should be on a central discussion page, not here. However, I cannot find such a page.) The assertion that editors follow Hugh to support his edits is as well-supported as the allegation that editors follow Hugh to oppose his edits. And there should be no problem with this set of Hugh's edits once
    1. Enough of
      1. The importance of MJ's writers' opinions
      2. The expertise of MJ's writers (making them "expert" opinions)
      3. The reliability of the article in question
    2. and, the proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
    are established. The "truth" of the epithets, which is what Short Brigade Harvester Boris seems to be concerned with, is irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me point out this interchange by the OP against this same user. Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#What defines excessive notifications? This was clearly a WP:FORUMSHOP effort against HughD. No notification was given to Hugh until I gave it in my response. The only reason I noticed this effort was because I happen to watch that somewhat obscure page because of past proposals I have made there. I was aware of the situation because I was lured in to the RfC in question at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: .2444M of .24140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds, posted by HughD--a posting that was being hidden by Arthur Rubin. I obviously thought the invitation to the RfC was appropriate and elaborated to that effect. I think the act to hide it was quite improper. I say this primarily as an observer to this fact but there is a very easy to trace history showing the complaining "me too" group of users Arthur Rubin, capilitalismojo and collect act in concert to gang up on content in many articles. They all appear to be adept technicians at maintaining a certain WP:POV in all the articles they are involved in. That frequently involves trying to remove, alter or hide the kind of content HughD and a few others try to include. I consider that troika with a little help form a few others that can easily be identified from the history of a large group of articles (and probably their own editing histories) to be acting almost as Bill Cosby's lawyers trying to keep information under wraps. So they have come here again ganging up and forum shopping to plead their obviously non-neutral case to anyone who they might ensnare in helping their effort. I would discount any of the complaints of this group on a wholesale basis. Wikipedia is about reporting sourced facts. HughD generally is doing a good job of providing facts and sources. Those facts and sources do not necessarily agree with the WP:AGENDA; the POV this group is pushing. So they are using every trick in the book to go after their opposition. 10:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 10:34, 23 August 2015

    Your comment regarding forum shopping is incorrect. First, HughD was the editor who suggested I seek input from the Canvassing talk page ([[81]] Aug 3rd, "You don't need an ANI posting or an administrator to answer your question, please ask your question at WT:RFC, WT:CANVASS, or WT:Publicising discussions.") Second, it seems that HughD was the one who first suggested forum shopping after telling me I should post there.Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#What defines excessive notifications? Springee (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems this should be moved to WP:ANI for review re: all those involved as it is quite obviously not a simple edit warring problem. But, as I stuck my toe in the water on one of the articles, I ain't gonna move or close it. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Addressing some comments

    • This is not a simple case of editors disagreeing on the topic of climate change. The inserted text quotes the opinion portion of a Mother Jones article that lists what the magazine (or at least the author of the article) calls "the dirty dozen of climate change [disinformation]". The article does list some reasons why they picked each of the 12. Those reasons would be potentially valid additions to the various Wikipedia articles. However, the insertion in question was simply stating that the subject of each article was listed by Mother Jones as one of the dirty dozen of climate change disinformation. The inclusion of an organization on the Mother Jones list is an opinion of MJ alone. Mother Jones didn't set out standards for inclusion so we have no way to know if the list was generated objectively. Even if the list was generated via an objective method that doesn't mean the list is notable. Lists such as Oscar winners and US News' Best Colleges are notable because others make reference to them. That does not appear to be the case with the MJ list. Thus the issue with the insertion is that it is an opinion (WP:RS) and not a notable one (WP:UNDUE). Others may disagree with this argument and the proper place to settle the disagreement is on article talk pages before reinserting the removed references.
    • The discussion regarding the citation and insertion in question was started on two talk pages starting on August 17th and 19th.[[82]][[83]] HughD stopped the insertions/reinsertions on the 19th and joined in the talk page discussions. He setup a proposal on one talk page seeking consensus to add the reference here [[84]] on Aug 21st. On Aug 22nd, without consensus and against the objections of a number of editors added the link a total of nine times (listed in the original complaint). This is clearly disruptive editing, not a disagreement about whitewashing or blackwashing a topic.Springee (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anasaitis reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Anasaitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677202995 by Lr0^^k (talk) Restoring the infobox to what was agreed upon. There was no consensus to change the infobox."
    2. 19:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677156019 by Khestwol (talk) The country infobox is the consensus infobox."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Notice */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Despite being notified of the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions, this user continues to revert without discussion, ignoring the WP:1RR on these articles and the ongoing talk page discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 21:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not reverting without discussion. I have placed multiple comments into the talk page discussing the reasons for my edits. Furthermore, I was lied to and told my account was already blocked. Anasaitis (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The user known as Banak told me I was already blocked for gaming the system. Since Banak was one of the users who disagreed with me in the discussion, I have reason to suspect I was deliberately deceived for the purpose of removing me from said discussion, I normally avoid accusations, but this isn't the first time I have been lied to in regards to this discussion. I was told a consensus had already been reached when the discussion was ongoing, though I am not sure it was the same user. Regardless, I feel it appropriate to mention that here. Anasaitis (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 08:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record:

    1. I supported the template as Anasaitis did, but was condemning edit warring. I was not one of the users who disagreed with {Anasaitis} in the discussion
    2. I did not say he was blocked, and Anasaitis appears to have misunderstood at least 2 of my comments. This leaves me to question of whether Anasaitis is misunderstanding anything else, though it may just be my confusing way of phrasing things.
    3. He's not the only editor on the page who was edit warring (there were obviously those on the other side, at least four of them), but I believe they are the only one who broke the 1RR.
    4. The issue being argued about was in a RfC. If we could close it with any result, we can ensure there's no more edit warring over the issue. Banak (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:74.42.44.222 reported by User:Destiny Leo (Result: )

    Page: The End of All Things to Come (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 74.42.44.222 (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. 22:07, 23 May 2015
    2. 21:37, 21 August 2015
    3. 20:52, 22 August 2015 "NO, IT SAYS THE ALBUM IS PROG ROCK. STOP REMOVING SOURCES."
    4. 20:52, 22 August 2015
    5. 20:55, 22 August 2015
    6. 21:00, 22 August 2015
    7. 21:01, 22 August 2015‎
    8. 21:01, 22 August 2015‎
    9. 22:40, 22 August 2015‎
    10. 22:41, 22 August 2015‎

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

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

    Comments: First edit was 23 May, but three months later he/she edit again, and has been reverted by Andrzejbanas. However the next day, the IP edit once again and saying "NO, IT SAYS THE ALBUM IS PROG ROCK. STOP REMOVING SOURCES." and following edited another seven in a row.


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=677506047"