Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:SwisterTwister reported by User:Northamerica1000 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page #1: Germaine Guex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SwisterTwister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff (Edit summary: "Invalid given publications") – The article still did not have a claim of significance, so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
  2. diff (Edit summary: "Anyone except the author can contest the speedy and I have. Do not restore") – The article still lacked a valid claim of significance, so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
  3. diff (Edit summary: "Enough now: " creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may") – I did not create this page, and the article still had no valid claim of significance
  4. diff (Edit summary: "Anyone including me can contest this, do not restore.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – The user has stated more than once in the past that they do not want to communicate with me (example diff), so it's futile to attempt to do so. I have tried before, leaving messages on talk pages to discuss matters when disagreements occur, but a response is never provided. Messages regarding the matter above were provided by me in edit summaries.

Page #2: Johan Magnus Almqvist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SwisterTwister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff (Edit summary: "Invalid given age of subject") – The article still did not have a claim of significance, and the age of a subject does not exempt speedy deletion nominations so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
  2. diff (Edit summary: "Do not restore once an uninvolved user has contested it, basic WP:CSD") – The article still lacked a valid claim of significance, and this is not a WP:CSD policy, so the speedy deletion nomination was still valid
  3. diff (Edit summary: " creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it." – Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may") – I did not create this page, and the article still had no valid claim of significance
  4. diff (Edit summary: "Enough, this is disruptive vandalism. Anyone can contest the page and I did now. Do not restore.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – The user has stated more than once in the past that they do not want to communicate with me (example diff), so it's futile to attempt to do so. I have tried before, leaving messages on talk pages to discuss matters when disagreements occur, but a response is never provided. Messages regarding the matter above were provided by me in edit summaries.

Comments:
The user has violated WP:3RR and is casting aspersions against me in edit summaries, and all the while did nothing to actually add a valid claim of significance to the article to disqualify the speedy deletion nomination. North America1000 17:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment--Na1000, you seem to have been horribly wrong.And, the sole way out looks like a possible boomerang.Damn anybody save the creator can remove CSD tags.Winged Blades Godric 17:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Winged Blades Godric 17:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware about policy regarding removal of CSD tags, and that anyone except the creator can remove them. This report is about edit warring performed by the reported user. It was proper to restore the WP:A7 sd tags, because both the articles still lacked a valid claim of significance. CSD tags are not like the one-time-use Prod templates, and can be restored, particularly when an article still qualifies for speedy deletion despite the tag being removed. For example, if an article had copyvio and was tagged speedy for this, and then the tag was removed without any changes being made, it would be appropriate to restore the tag. It's the same case here: both articles entirely lacked even the simplest of statements asserting importance of the subjects. If such assertions were added, I would have gladly withdrew the speedy nominations, but this did not occur. This is certainly not "horribly wrong". Furthermore, I have not engaged in violating WP:3RR, but the user who continued to revert did. You seem very eager to blame me for some reason, even adding bold to your comment above stating that I am "wrong", but I have violated no policies, and you have provided no analysis of the actual report above. North America1000 17:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It was always my understanding that if you added a CSD tag and someone else removed it; that's that- you certainly don't edit war over it so ST's view is understandable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not a policy at WP:CSD. This only applies toward WP:PRODs. See my rationale above regarding template restoration when the article still fully qualifies for deletion. This is not edit warring. Violating WP:3RR and knee-jerk reversions is edit warring (e.g. making up their own CSD criteria that does not exist at WP:CSD ["Do not restore once an uninvolved user has contested it, basic WP:CSD"]; asserting multiple times, which occurred in edit summaries for both articles that I was the creator of the articles, when I was not). The user did not even bother to actually research who the creator of the respective articles was, instead just writing some arbitrary information and pressing the revert button. North America1000 18:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • CSDs are only meant for those cases which are uncontroversial to everybody but the article creator.That's the founding principles except in a few cases like G12. And my eagerness was a reflection of a tremendous surprise to see an editor who is pretty visible in the deletion arena, edit warring over a subjective CSD tag!And by the way, af no point of time, he was asserting that you were the creator.I mean given that he wad the tag-remover, why shall he ever do so?!He straight-quoted the policy because you choose to revert a CSD removal by a non-creator (which is an abnormal occurence) and probably thought that either you had missed the part where anybody but the creator can revert a tagging or that you have thought him to be the creator.I would have done the same things had I been in his place.Whilst I heavily dislike SisTwister's inabilty/apathy to communicate via t/p and have criticized him on numerous occasions, this is not such a case by a mile. Winged Blades Godric 18:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think both users are ripe for a 24 hour block. SwisterTwister broke WP:3RR and Northamerica1000 was edit warring with the other user. I'll however leave that decision to a more experienced admin.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • My edits were based upon accuracy, not edit warring whatsoever. I was not edit warring at all, nor was this my intent, and I did not violate WP:3RR. Again, the template was restored because it was just and accurate to do so. The removal of the template with made-up WP:CSD rationales and stating that the creator cannot remove the template, when I was not the creator, constitutes vandalism in my opinion. Also, I provided very clear rationales for the restoration of the csd template in each and every edit summary. Furthermore, normally I would be more than happy to discuss matters, but the user has stated more than once in the past that they do not want to communicate with me (example diff). North America1000 18:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Both users need to be temporarily blocked. This seems to be a pattern for both of them, which (unless I'm missing something) is extremely alarming given their user privileges (one is an admin and another is a rollbacker). cnzx (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have disengaged from editing the articles before I filed this report, was not engaging in edit warring, and am not engaging in edit warring. North America1000 18:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Cyberpower, I think admonishments would prove sufficient unless some long term behaviour could be discovered esp. given that both users are fairly in good standing in the community.And I would disagree with any sort of block/admonishment on STwister on the individual merit of this report.Additionally, see Boing's generalised response over User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Sanity check prior to taking any administrative actions.Also, I will re-assert that NA100's actions in the articles and at this thread have been highly sub-optimal and below community expectations.But, as I roll through t/ps et al and find editing intersections, I believe this report to be the manifestation of a long drawn edit-warring cum battleground attitude (and breakdown of minimal communication) between the duo across multiple articles.Winged Blades Godric 18:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Restoring CSDs is not a valid exemption to 3RR. You may claim you believe this is vandalism, but it's definitely not obvious vandalism (described as edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 18:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is part of a pattern of the 2 editors in question nominating articles the other has created or cares about for deletion, and it has become disruptive to the deletion process in my opinion. I suggest one of two options: either a 2-way IBAN or a TBAN unique to both of them. If we go the TBAN route TBAN NA1K from nominating academics for deletion and ban ST from nominating articles NA1K has created or restored for deletion. This feud has gone on long enough and needs to end. The disparity I suggest in the TBAN is because the CSDing of academics in general seems to be a way that NA1K is interacting with ST in this, while ST does seem to have a general interest in dealing with corporations beyond the dispute they are having with NA1K. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree with being topic banned for filing this report. I have edited articles about a diverse variety of topics for years, including academia topics. I nominated the two articles listed above for speedy deletion because they lacked a valid claim of significance, as per WP:A7. That's it. There is no "feud", and the user reported here did not create the articles. Fact is, the user only began editing these articles after I edited them. North America1000 19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Hey, I like you too. As a short note, I don't edit articles based upon what others like or care about. I edit articles that I like and care about. North America1000 20:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I just think that it looks really bad when according to your AfD log you've only nominated academic and related articles for deletion in clusters, and both times that you did it was after ST nominated an article you were involved with or created for deletion. Today you also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haworth Press in addition to the CSD edit war that this is about. You haven't touched academic AfDs since August, when you also had an article you were involved with at AfD because of ST. Whether or not this is your intent, it is very bad optics. This CSD edit war also seems to fit with that. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Short note: I contribute in a variety of areas in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware that working in specific topic areas for a bit of time is somehow verboten; it's not, and gnomish edits are just fine. I edit all kinds of diverse areas all the time. Perhaps you should consider contributing to the AfD discussions I created if you're interested in those topics. They are active right now. My work is based upon improving the encyclopedia, and I resent my motives being challenged based upon these rather bizarre personal theories. Perhaps consider editing some articles instead. North America1000 21:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I understand how restoration of the A7 template could be seen as warring, but this was not the intention at all. The articles literally still lacked even the most bare of assertions of significance, with nothing added at all to them to qualify removal of the template (see the diffs above). Also note that I did not violate WP:3RR, whereas the reported user did. I will keep all of the commentary here from users in mind into the future. Essentially, this equates to simply taking an article to WP:AFD if a user removes a speedy deletion template when the article still qualifies for speedy deletion. In this manner, a wider community discussion can occur to establish consensus regarding such matters. Relative to this ideation, and as a side note, however, in matters regarding copyright infringement, it would be a farce to allow significant copyvio to remain in place out of a fear of being accused of edit warring for restoring a speedy deletion template relative to said copyvio. Also note that I chose to tag the articles for A7 speedy deletion, for another administrator to review, rather than unilaterally deleting the articles myself. I state this to denote that I was acting cautiously regarding the potential deletion of the articles, rather than hastily. Also, tagging for another admin to review, rather than unilaterally deleting, is considered by some to be a best practice. However, in cases of severe copyvio when there is no non-infringing content to revert to, and in attack pages with the same situation, it is typically a good move to immediately delete. North America1000 19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that the question here is related to the precise interpretation of policy statements. policy stipulates that a CSD speedy tag may be removed by any editor other than the author, either if it is inappropriate or for the purpose of improving the article. Removing the tag for any other reason, and more particularly, as in this case, without giving a reason, appears to me to be vandalism and, when repeated, also becomes edit warring and/or 3RR violation. It also follows that if it is vandalism incorrectly to remove a CSD speedy tag it cannot be seen as either vandalism or edit warring to replace it. My understanding is that it is only vandalism to replace a once-removed CSD speedy tag in a situation where the tag was removed in accordance with accepted policy. I know that the article has now been added to - not by the editor who removed the CSD speedy tag - but at the time of the initial tagging the articles very clearly qualified for speedy deletion, and the tag should not have been removed. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • NA1000 was correct in adding the CSD first time (this is A7 material!) however after the first or second revert they should've gone to STs talkpage and started a discussion and got him to either source it accordingly or move it to their userspace (if they did neither then re-CSD and state all of this in the edit summary), IMHO NA should've discussed first and ST shouldn't of kept reverting (ST should've had the sense to either source or move) so technically both are at fault however at this point in time blocking would only be punitive so I would recommend both editors are formally warned, Discussion is key as they say. –Davey2010Talk 22:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The valid reasons for removing a speedy tag are either to improve the article or because the tag is invalid. ST should, as Davey says, either have improved the article or given a rationale for tag removal; he did neither, and is thereby at fault. I can agree that ideally NA1000 could have discussed after, as Davey says, the first or second revert. but I nevertheless maintain that the actions of NA1000, which are a perceived communication failure, are more readily excusable than those of ST, which are demonstrably incorrect.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Anthony.bradbury - I do agree, thinking about it it would've been silly for ST to start a discussion because he's not the one adding the tag, NA should've gone to his talkpage first, If ST chose to ignore both options then re-CSD'ing would've been the next best step, My best advice to both would be to just either try and put past differences behind them and focus purely on our readers etc or just stay away from each other, –Davey2010Talk 23:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Its a long accepted principle that any experienced editor can remove a CSD tag. If a CSD tag is removed, it means the deletion is not uncontroversial, and that an AfD is the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It has also been my understand since I came here that once a csd tag has been removed by anyone other than the originating editor it ay not be replaced. This has frequently been a nuisance to me, in forcing articles to afd which should have been deleted immediately, but it does also benefit the encyclopedia by making sure everything that might possibly need consideration by the community gets such consideration--the principle of consensus underlies everything we do here. (and there is a work-around--one can nominate the article for AfD and request a Speedy or Snow close at the afd--I have done that a few times, and I have deleted articles others have listed that way. And of course if the material is actually harmful, it would fall under our general exception for reverting vandalism, though I cannot recall a case where it was relevant--such articles are always deleted just as soon as they are tagged. And even here , one could simply ask an admin to delete or rev del the contents. ). I have not yet looked at any of the items involved in today's discussion. (If people have difficulty understanding this, we may need to consider makign thd wording more explicit) DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
DGG has summed it up nicely.And, sincr the specific prohibitionary wording against re-tagging de-CSDed articles for CSD seems to be not written explicitly, a RFC could be drawn to codify the common practice.Winged Blades Godric 03:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Godric, no need for an RfC: [1]. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – The article is now at AfD, and lengthy discussion of whether the speedy tag can be restored is unlikely to be fruitful. Personally I had the impression that TonyBallioni's recent change to the policy was the usual understanding. The article on Germaine Guex was not an attack page or a copyvio so there was no emergency that called for the article to be immediately deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:JohnnyBlood2 reported by User:32.218.40.247 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: New Glarus, Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JohnnyBlood2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:New Glarus, Wisconsin#Knee-jerk editing

Comments:

Editor has been edit warring about this content for over 4 years (see article talk page), as both an IP and a registered user. Above edits are only the most recent ones. 32.218.40.247 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: User:JohnnyBlood2 is warned they may be blocked if they restore the John Kennedy material again, unless they have obtained a prior consensus in its favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Why must I be the one gets consent? The item has appeared on that page for years. Why shouldn't it be the responsibility of the person making the change who did NOT engage on the Talk page? No wonder Wikipedia is going to shit. All of you naricissistic morons throwing you weight around like you are god.

User:Crawiki reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Page: Talk:Political midlife crisis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [8]
  2. [9]
  3. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11] Also, [12]

Comments:

I have not placed a 3-RR warning on the user's Talk page (but will place a notification of filing this complaint immediately after posting here).

I am not looking for a block, nor am I seeking any other type of sanction against Crawiki. I am looking only for an administrator to drop by the article's Talk page and let Crawiki know that repeatedly removing Talk page comments is inappropriate. Also, that if Crawiki truly believes that the discussion had dipped into personal attacks, then there are appropriate remedies other than deleting the discussion themselves.

Because this is not a content dispute, I recognize that this might not be the correct forum for filing this complaint. If so, please let me know and I'll be happy to re-file elsewhere.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk page notice of this complaint given here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I have suggested a compromise on the Talk page [13], but maybe another "voice" will be helpful. Rwood128 (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked The bulk of Crawiki's removal was unjustified and they definitely should not have edit warred to enforce the removal. There was some unneeded sarcasm on the part of Nihil novi but that could have been dealt with by asking the editor to redact/adjust their comments. NeilN talk to me 13:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I must correct a misapprehension. I was not being sarcastic about Crawiki's work. On the contrary, I was being extremely complimentary; so much so, that Crawiki, who had received criticisms from other editors, reflexly misinterpreted my comments as sarcastic. Nihil novi (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:‎Drmargi reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )[edit]

Page: The Sinner (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14] (example; see report)

Diffs of the user's reverts: (using the timestamps of my timezone)

  1. [15] November 20, 2017‎
  2. [16] November 21, 2017‎
  3. [17] November 30, 2017‎
  4. [18] November 30, 2017‎
  5. [19] November 30, 2017‎
  6. [20] December 11, 2017‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Sinner (TV series)‎#"Close-ended"

Comments:

This report is for long-term edit-warring, rather than 3RR; the editor reported has a long record of edit-warring (see their block log of five entries so far).

The case here is that there is disputed content in the article in the form of unclear terms used in the lead. The editor here is forcing the term into the article while ignoring any discussion on the talk page, even after being requested to leave the content removed and to discuss it. The reverts listed are against multiple editors, in different formats where the other editors (myself included) have either removed the content, or attempted a compromise and rephrased or moved the content. All have been reverted. Anything the editor has added to the discussion is short and abrupt; "No. The term is sourced, and is the network's preferred descriptor." and "The term is accurate, used by the network and sourced. No justification to remove." are their only two posts. Per their latest revert, they summarized it with "Nothing to discuss."

This is a classic case of one wanting their opinion in the article and ignoring any dispute against it, responding only with revert and edit-warring. It's interesting how they accuse others of edit-warring constantly, and yet, it's necessary for this report to be filed. -- AlexTW 08:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Alex is not wrong. The editor being reported does have a long history of aggressive reverts as well as over-time edit warring in order to WP:WIN, all the while ignoring WP:BRD. Along with this is the tendency to not even attempt talk page discussion after demanding in edit summaries that the editor being reverted take their concerns to the article talk page. It does appear to be a form of gaming the system and is, ultimately, disruptive. [22], [23], [24]. -- ψλ 14:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

After going on an editing hiatus for about 24 hours after this report was filed (which they are aware of, and during which I was thinking that this would end up being reported as stale), their first edit coming back into the fray is yet another revert on a different page, against an editor that they seem to have a vendetta against; see User talk:Robberey1705#Edit summary and User talk:Robberey1705#WP:NLT. The reported editor does not seem to have learnt any lesson. -- AlexTW 13:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to concur with Winkelvi's comment about gaming the system, as the editor appears to have stopped any major editing since this report was filed, and they know that if they don't edit, then no action can be taken against them, as blocks are "preventative not punitive". Especially since, at the time of this post, every one of the 16 other reports here have been acted upon, meaning that this report is more than likely going to end up being closed as "stale", allowing the editor to go back to their warring ways. -- AlexTW 02:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:643:8101:6340:F50B:D937:BB9D:E062 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Huser (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:643:8101:6340:F50B:D937:BB9D:E062 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "An All American Name"
  2. 16:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "An All American Name"
  3. 16:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "An All American Name"
  4. 16:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "An All American Name"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Huser (surname). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Anon repeatedly vandalizing the page and violating 3RR in the process. Anon refuses to discuss. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you're better off reporting the user at WP:AIV since there is no content dispute here and, as you said, the anon's edits are very clearly vandalism. --TL22 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours by User:Widr for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Getrobbed reported by User:Strawberry4Ever (Result:24 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]
  5. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:

Edit warring over whether the Beatles' White Album should be referred to as "The Beatles" throughout or as "the White Album" after the first mention. Per WP:BRD after Getrobbed's initial edit was reverted he/she should have discussed it on the talk page instead of reverting the reversions. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours only (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bujang temawai reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page
2018 Asian Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bujang temawai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814888861 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
  2. 07:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 814824008 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
  3. 01:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on 2018 Asian Games. (TW)"
  2. 14:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */"
Comments:

Repeatedly reinserting a passage that is copied and close paraphrased from the source. Editor clearly misunderstands copyright. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Until they indicate they understand copyright. NeilN talk to me 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:189.105.52.69 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 189.105.52.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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
  5. diff

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

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

Comments:
Kintetsubuffalo Where's the discussion of why the IP is being reverted? Where are your edit summaries? --NeilN talk to me 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Moroni Hinckley reported by User:ChristensenMJ (Result: Declined – malformed report)[edit]

Over the last 10 days, Moroni Hinckley has continued to include information about the YFZ Ranch in the article regarding Finances of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). This ranch has nothing to do with the LDS Church, but rather is a holding of another religion within the Latter Day Saint movement. In addition to being clear in the edit summaries, I also left a message on the new users, newly-created talk page regarding these edits. Beyond the letter of the policy, I should have reported this sooner to assist in maintaining the intent, or feeling, of the 3RR guidelines. As this is a new user, with no other real focus than this article - and which honestly includes a user name that is not in harmony with the intent of names either - I request review of the ongoing edits. Thank you! ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:172.97.177.167 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Rommel myth
User being reported: User:Beyond My Ken

Previous version reverted to: [33]

User's reverts:

  1. 1 [34]
  2. 2 [35]
  3. 3 [36]
  4. 4 [37]

Attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [38]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
I began asking for clarification on the page Rommel myth regarding a sentence in the Lead Section, using the [citation needed] function and explaining why. On 12 December 2017, specifically at 00:19, 23:03, 21:53 and 21:32, the user in question reverted my edits four times.
Revert #1 In their revert summary the user accused me of a "severe POV edit" - I am presuming they misconstrued my edit summary which was emotional, as weasel wording grinds my gears and I'm dealing with a dealine. On my user page they complained of a different problem entirely (not POV) and left a directive for me not to write in the edit summary for the citation requested. I politely obliged their request and placed the [citation needed] in the way that they wanted - without an edit summary.
Revert #2 After I obliged them, they shifted the goalposts. Now they claimed that the problem is not that my edit summary was lengthy, the problem was now that [citation needed] can't be put in the lead section. Again, for a second time, I obliged them and instead placed a [who?] tag for the "researchers claim" weasel wording and the [not verified in body] for the claim.
Revert #3 In the revert summary they claimed the specific citation needed for the lead of the article (citation needed lead), was not acceptable in the lead of the article. On my talk page they accused me of having a POV and something else I'm not sure of (they used veiled language I can't figure out). As the "citation needed lead" is designed for the lead, and is appropriate, I replaced it and on my talk page asked them to explain their actions.
Revert #4 They reverted again threatened to report me if I did not discuss with them whether or not I can ask for a citation or footnote to supporting documentation. I have attempted to discuss on the talk page, but honestly I didn't know a huge discussion had to be made over a request for a footnote.
After repeatedly obliging this user, after attempts to resolve it by discussing the issue on my user page and on the talk page, and as I don't want to revert user A D Monroe's subsequent edits, I thought it best to appeal to the authorities before this escalates any further than it has. I will note that this user's behavior is very similar to harassment. Observe how he titled the Talk Page section, and the last paragraph in the lead of WP:HARRASMENT. It is quote mining, designed to bellitle me. In any case I can't tell if I'm being unreasonable so I submit this for a community judgement. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussions:
The purpose of my comments to the IP was to explain to him that tagging the lede section was not appropriate, as information in the lede section is not required to be sourced as long as the material in the body of the article which the lede is summarizing was itself properly sourced, and it was therefore better for the IP to either (1) tag the statements in the body of he article which he thought needed improvement, or (2) comment on his perceived problem with the article on the article's talk page. The first option he's adamantly refused to do, and the second I got him to do only by setting up a section on the talk page for him to use to comment in. Instead of availing himself of this section to expand on his previous comments (in an edit summary, and a comment added to an inappropriate CN tag), he accused me of harassment both on his talk page and on the article talk page. I've pointed him to WP:HARASSMENT to no avail. His allegation of harassment is unwarranted and unsupported by evidence, and this complaint is meritless, in that I was simply trying to get him to go to the talk page per WP:BRD instead of inappropriately tagging the lede. If he had simply done so, there would have been no need for additional edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)