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 the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Shortcuts:
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.
  • 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:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: declined)[edit]

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 · edit 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 [[1]], Aug 17th [[2]]) 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:[[3]] Reinsertions:[[4]][[5]] - Removed by two different editors

American Petroleum Institute Initial:[[6]] Reinsertions:(This insertion by IP address[[7]])[[8]][[9]] - Removed by two editors

ExxonMobil Initial:[[10]] Reinsertions:[[11]][[12]] - Removed by one editor

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Initial:[[13]] Reinsertion:[[14]][[15]] - Removed by one editor

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Initial:[[16]] Reinsertions[[17]][[18]] - One editor modified the entry, two removed it.

The Heartland Institute Initial:[[19]] Reinsertions: [[20]][[21]] - Removed by two editors.

FreedomWorks Initial:[[22]] Reinsertions:[[23]][[24]] - Removed by one editor

A warning about edit warring was placed on HughD's talk page Aug 19th [[25]] 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 [[26]]) and The Heartland Insititute (Aug 17th [[27]]) 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 [[28]] 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) [[29]][[30]][[31]][[32]][[33]][[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]]

Link to warning

[[38]]

Link to notices [[39]] [[40]] [[41]]

  • 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 - [[42]] and [[43]]
user:Capitalistmojo - [[44]], [[45]], [[46]]
user:Arthur Rubin - [[47]]

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

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)
@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)
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)
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)
(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)
Who are these supporters following me around? From my point of view most days Wikipedia feels like me and a few other editors. Hugh (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 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 ([[48]] 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)
Of course I never recommended forum shopping to anyone. At a noticeboard you repeated pleaded in vain for administrator attention to what you insisted was a "general" question about policy that was independent of current events, and I suggested a policy talk page. Once at the policy talk page, you could not help yourself but to re-iterate your grief illustrated with copious detail from your noticeboard posting. Hugh (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: Thank you for your support in improving our encyclopedia through summarizing significant points of view. Like you, I too was disappointed to see the repeated deletion of RfC notices and updates by an involved administrator of our project; please see WP:AE. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

I agree, the conflict surrounding Hugh, Arthur and others is clearly getting out of hand here. Hugh's been reported to ANI three times in the last month or so (twice by Springee), and Hugh just filed another AE filing against Arthur (his second in about the same time frame). There's a long history of animosity and not-so-great behavior on both sides here. FWIW, though, I think there is clear evidence of Hugh being followed around by other editors here, and that may be relevant to how this particular report is handled. Just taking Springee as an example:
* He followed Hugh to The Heartland Institute, where he has reverted one of Hugh's edits. (as have you, Arthur).
* He followed Hugh to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, where he reverted him twice: [49][50].
* He followed Hugh to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, where he reverted Hugh (and Arthur reverted Hugh twice: [51][52], after also having followed him there).
* He's followed Hugh to various other talk pages: [53].
* He's complained about HughD at ANI [54][55] twice within a very short space of time, and made the edit warring complaint that we're discussing right now.
* He even showed up at a GA review that Hugh was working on, on an article he's never edited or shown any interest in before, to blame Hugh for article issues and say that the article shouldn't even be "B" class.
All that just over the past couple of weeks. This seems like excessive overlap & following to me - and that's just one the least active of several editors who seem to be following Hugh around after the recent unpleasantness at Americans for Prosperity (perhaps for longer, I don't know). I'm not defending any edit warring that Hugh may or may not have done, but the way some editors seem to be targeting Hugh's edits and working together to revert him makes me quite uncomfortable here, particularly given the open animosity which some of these editors have shown towards Hugh in the past. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • All but one of those are related to the same MJ article HughD was inserting into a number of articles. The result of the previous ANI was a topic block[[56]]. In that ANI you said, "I have slowly come around to the view that he is indeed editing disruptively." and "I suggest a formal warning - for HughD (disruptive editing, page ownership), with a block to follow if his problematic behavior does not improve." After the associated RfC was closed he WP:BLUDGEONed the editor who ruled against his proposal [[57]] Springee (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
As my post there made very clear, my comment at ANI was motivated solely by Hugh's insistence on replying to damn near every comment made on a specific RFC. That he was topic banned (not blocked) for two weeks for that does not give you license to follow him around from article to article, reverting edits which are clearly not vandalism (often with the help of other editors who also appear to be following him), or to take pot shots at him when a GA he worked on comes up for review. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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.[[58]][[59]] 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 [[60]] 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)
  • Editor Collet quested the insertion on the Christopher Monckton talk page.[[61]]. Editor Dmcq was initially in favor of inclusion but was, I believe, persuaded against inclusion as was being attempted and commented to HughD once engaged in discussion on The Heartland Institute's talk page. He stated, "I am getting to agree more and more with the idea that you are simply spamming a page of little content. "[[62]] This is in addition to objections and counter arguments by myself, Arthur Rubin, and Capitalistmojo. This does not prove those who objected are correct or that the arguments put forth for inclusion are flawed. It does say that there was not a consensus for inclusion and thus the reinsertions starting on August 22nd were done after a cycle of insertion, removal and failed consensus. (Please note this bullet point was added subsequent to the previous points) Springee (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee 08:53 21 August 2015 I asked you on your talk page, "Thank you for your recent contributions to The Heartland Institute and FreedomWorks and their respective talk pages. These two articles were created in late 2005. May I respectfully ask, what brought you to these articles for the first time, 18 August 2015? Thank you." with edit summary "question for colleague." Two hours later you deleted the question from a colleague from your talk page, without reply. May I please ask again? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee "nine times" Two weeks ago, you successfully wrote me up for not being perfectly even-handed in notifying all of an article's WikiProjects of an RfC, this week it's for conscientiously WP:SOURCEMINE-ing a "dirty dozen" article. No doubt had I not, you would have wrote me up for that, too. Hugh (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • You were given a two week topic block for a variety of reasons including my pair of ANIs.[[64]] Springee (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee Thank you for providing an exhaustive listing of my edits this past week. I am an active editor! I understand you do not like my edits. I understand you do not like the source, Mother Jones (magazine). May I ask, could I trouble you to please categorize the edits in terms of 1RR, 2RR, and 3RR, if any, for the convenience of our colleagues reading this report here on this noticeboard? In the interest of fairness, might it be relevant to note the dates of the edits in your report, how many days intervened, and which had intervening talk page discussion, which if any were straight reverts and which demonstrated refinement through collaboration in talk page discussion and responding to edit summary comments? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC) "Removed by two different editors" etc. May I ask, again in the interest of fairness, and completeness, might it be useful to readers of your report to note the identities of the participants? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Your previous requests to have editors jump through hoops of your making resulted in a stern warning from an admin. [[65]] Springee (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Question for HughD: It appears you felt you were adding the MJ reference via a BRD cycle. Your insertions around the 17th and 18th on the various articles would be the BOLD change. Other editors objected and reverted the changes (sometimes more than once). The issues were moved to the talk page where you joined the discussions. Why did you reinsert the disputed material on the 22nd when consensus was clearly not reached? Were those insertions supported by the BRD cycle you cited when inserting the material nine times that day (including the reinsertions when the disputed material was removed by other editors)? I see this as the critical issue because adding that material when there is clear disagreement looks like an edit war to me. Springee (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand you believe all my edits look like edit warring to you. I understand that once you remove a contribution from a colleague, you expect it to stay removed. I understand that I make edits with which you disagree at risk of block or ban. Your report above has no dates, has identified no 1RR, no 2RR, no 3RR, names no counter parties to the edit warring you allege, and makes no distinction between reverts and refinement through collaboration. In the interest of fairness and completeness, please put some more time in on your report. If you would be so kind as to ask after a specific edit I would share my thoughts. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting Administrative Input The edit warring listed above is part of a wider pattern of disruptive editing by HughD. The editor has 3 recent blocks plus the recent 2 week topic edit ban.

  • He is currently abusing the ANI system to attack another editor [[66]]
  • Disruptive behavior on the Donors Trust talk page (insulting/being condescending to other editors)[[67]] and the replies of other editors: [[68]][[69]]
  • He appears to be engaged in disruptive editing and warring on Fred C. Koch. On Aug 19th he proposed a draft RfC to insert some contested material [[70]]. Nearly a week later he arbitraily decides to not issue the RfC [[71]] and inserts the disputed material without gaining consensus [[72]]. Editor Comatmebro removed the material [[73]] which HughD reinserted 11 minutes later [[74]]. HughD did not (as of this writing) address Comatmebro's concerns posted on the article talk page [[75]][[76]].

This editor has shown a clear pattern of disruptive editing and waring. I would ask that the administrators please address this problem. Springee (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also be sure to address the wikihounding done by editors listed above.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The first time you made this claim, administrator Arthur Rubin wrote
"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."
I agree with him on this. There is no evidence of wikihounding. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You and him need to both read WP policies relating to wikihounding because it explicitly forbids the harassment HughD has been receiving. Also, you're agreeing to a red herring argument. Yes, wikihounding doesn't forbid "checking" other user's edits, but it does forbid and address following editors and reverting their content on multiple articles. There is ample evidence of this not to mention the multiple frivolous reversions, and warnings given to Hugh, which is also a separate part of Wikihounding with ample evidence.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please consider the possibility that it isn't the administrator and the editor with nine years experience who don't understand policy, but rather it is you who need to "read WP policies relating to wikihounding". That policy does not say what you think it says. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined — this is largely an arbitration or AE issue that's been brought to a largely inappropriate venue. Multiple people seem to disagree on both sides of this set of edits, whether or not the revert history demonstrates so on each page, and there's clearly some advocacy (and/or WP:COI) going on from several of the editors involved in this discussion—and this makes sense, considering the articles at hand cover, what, 3 ARB topics? I've added a couple DS/alerts to the some other people involved in the dispute, while it looks like others already have received one in the last year, so my guess is the next step are 1RRs or topic bans for anyone who continues to edit war or so much as thinks about participating in one. The current report is otherwise relatively stale. --slakrtalk / 22:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

User:83.77.136.150 reported by User:Wumpus12 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Joint Matriculation Board (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.77.136.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [78]
  2. [79]
  3. [80]
  4. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83] and [84]

Comments:

This user keeps on taking the dates out of the Joint Matriculation Board article. He/she has now broken the 3RR in just over an hour.

This user appears to post from many different IP addresses, including User:83.77.136.150, User:46.127.136.172 and User:92.23.28.246. The user seems to be systematically taking the dates out of many articles about qualifications (example, example, example). Often, these removals are 'buried' within other edits to the article, though sometimes they occur on their own. They are never referred to in the edit summaries, which are sometimes entirely misleading (or just rearrange the content being referred to as a front to remove the dates).

I have tried to discuss this with the user on the Joint Matriculation Board's talk page (links above) and draw the user's attention to this (here), but the user has ignored this.

Reverting back is made complicated by the other edits the user does at the same time as removing the dates. To rectify this, my most recent revert was for the dates (and their references) and nothing else (link). This was reverted nine minutes later.

This sort of tiresome behaviour is reminding me why I barely bother with Wikipedia. I only got dragged into this because I saw the Joint Matriculation Board article linked to elsewhere and wondered why all the dates had been taken out since I'd read it (I'd never edited the article until now).

Wumpus12 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Thanks for the support. I'm only just discovering the scale of this user's destruction. He/she has, over the last year (and under many different IP addresses), destroyed all the historical information in any articles about British and Irish qualifications and the exam boards that offer them. This deletion is usually buried within other edits (often of dubious quality). Dates are often replaced by phrases like 'recently' or not at (meaning changes happening decades apart appear to be co-current. The user ignores all attempts to discuss the issue, but often says 'you need to provide a solid, credible source for every single statement and number/figure you write'. Despite this, he/she often removes referenced dates (along with much other information). Right now, none of the pages for any of the qualifications have basic information like when they were introduced or the dates of major changes. Similarly, exam board articles have no foundation dates. I have tried to fix a few articles tonight (notably, Joint Matriculation Board, WJEC (exam board), NEAB, Midland Examining Group and Associated Examining Board). The dates I have added back in have been heavily (over)referenced. Time will tell whether they will be reverted right back anyway (that does appear to be this user's usual style). Is there anyway of flagging up this vandalism elsewhere? Right now, there's a whole area of Wikipedia that is of limited use. - Wumpus12 (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Help! The user has now created a brand new account, User:Supervisor635. His/her contributions show that he/she has just gone round and removed all the referenced dates I just added back into the articles (JMB, AEB, MEG, NEAB, SEB and WJEC). All edits have misleading summaries.
To add insult to injury, he/she then gave me a 'formal warning' for edit warring on my talk page. He/she accuses me of editing warring on NEAB – an article I have edited twice ever (with the second edit correcting typos in the first). Supervisor365 has done the same to another user because they restored the 3,000 characters Supervisor365 removed without justification.
I do not know what to do. How does one report a sockpuppet. More to the point, how does one stop this destructive and bullying behaviour, especially as it is coming from multiple IP addresses and accounts. I have replied on my own talk page, but do not feel able to do anything else.
I cannot put up with this. – Wumpus12 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI - User:83.77.136.150 attempted to contact me yesterday after, I asked him not to remove the dates / alter (vandalise) the statistics I was trying to add to the GCSE, CSE and O-Level (UK) pages, he left an email address in this post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:83.104.51.74&oldid=677977939 83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Page: General Certificate of Secondary Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


A couple more example reversions:
Page: Certificate of Secondary Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2015-08-26
  1. [85]
  2. [86]
  3. [87]
  4. [88]
Page: GCE Ordinary Level (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2015-08-26
  1. [89]
  2. [90]
  3. [91]
  4. [92]
  5. [93]
Also a fake formal warning, and another
Alternatively if a responsible adult has a few min's to spare, and fancies starting their own revertion war, could they please address any of the following issues with the qualification pages, I've left a partial lists on the relevant talk pages.

83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He's back as : User:Supervisor635

Page: Certificate of Secondary Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2015-08-28
  1. [94]
  2. [95]
  3. [96]

83.104.51.74 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: no action)[edit]

Page: Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 18:47, 26 August 2015
  2. Revision as of 18:50, 26 August 2015
  3. Revision as of 20:17, 26 August 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:
The page are currently subject to active community sanctions (1RR restriction). See WP:GS/SCW Erlbaeko (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was a 1RR restriction on the article. Now that I am aware of it, I self-reverted [100]. Note that the "3RR warning" that Erlbaeko claims he posted on my talk page is from June, it is for a dispute on another article (where I didn't break any rules) and which does not mention the 1RR restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I also feel compelled to point out that Erlbaeko is being dishonest here (that's in addition to his false claim that he made a "3RR warning"). He links to three versions of the page trying to make it seem like I reverted 3 times. This is false. Two of the edits were consecutive. I reverted twice, not three times as Erlbaeko is pretending.
The revert itself was a no-brainer as the sources being used are clearly non-reliable, and include the Berliner-umschau, which is a far-right blog run by Gerhoch Reisegger, "an Austrian right-wing journalist and conspiracy theorists" who "openly associates with Neo-Nazis" and a buddy of Horst_Mahler. So, um, hell yeah I removed that junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has self reverted his most recent revert and seems to intend to abide by the 1RR restrictions on this article. I also note that there's no way for an editor not previously involved in this area to know that this article was even under sanctions - there is no edit notice upon editing the page, or even a notice of any kind on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the page was lacking any kind of notice or warning, so I went ahead and added the appropriate notices (edit/talk page) to help prevent the confusion for other editors, as well, in the future. --slakrtalk / 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Slakr, I like to make wikignomish edits on multiple pages. Is there a convenient way of listing all pages with 1RR restrictions so I can go through the list and make sure they all have notices? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be quite useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @Guy Macon: WP:AWB would be the way to go. As long as you're manually supervising the edits one by one, you don't need to file a WP:BRFA. You'd probably want to cross the category listing with the transclusion / included-in listing for the talk pages. You can grab either an admin or template editor to help with adding edit notices on the pages themselves (obviously anyone can add the talk page notice). My guess, though, is that someone already ran through and did this when the arb case was closed, so likely only pages created since the ARB close are going to need it. *shrug* --slakrtalk / 23:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Benjil reported by User:Debresser (Result: declined)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [102]
  2. [103]
  3. [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105] [106] Proof warning was acknowledged and willfully ignored: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mizrahi_Jews#Ovadia_Yosef

Comments: Please note that I am not reporting a violation of the 3RR rule here. I am reporting an edit warrior, who made an edit which I contest, and who has specifically stated his intent to continue editing despite my warning that his edit goes against previously established consensus. Not to mention WP:BRD. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. A picture was changed on the page in September and I saw it only now. The discussion to change it involved two people, when one asked to change the picture based on false and unsourced information. I reverted the change when I saw it (only now, sorry) and provided a source to prove that Ovadia Yosef, being one o the most important figure in the Jewish world over the last century and the most important Mizrahi Jew of the period had to be on the pictures gallery, in particular when he is by far the most influent and well known figure among all the people who appear on this gallery. Debresser opposed for the sake of opposing, providing no argument, no source, and insulting me without trying to resolve the issue. Benjil (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Was that talkpage section not there to solve the issue?
  2. The discussion involved Mr. Sort It Out, me, Off-shell and ran over a month, from September 28, 2014 till October 31, 2014. So if Benjil comes now, he is close to a year too late, and he will have to show a change of consensus before he has the right to undo my revert of his edit.
  3. Just saying that his edit is incontestable is not enough, and shows he is simply pushing his POV.
  4. I infer from the Hebrew on his talkpage that he is a staunch supporter of this rabbi whom he is adding to this collage, however, he must come to terms with the fact that not all are of that same opinion.
Please notice that it is Benjil's behavior I am reporting here, while I am perfectly willing to continue the discussion on the talkpage, but Benjil must be made to understand that while that discussion is ongoing, he must not repeat his edit. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You "infer from the Hebrew on his talkpage that he is a staunch supporter of this rabbi", that's the most interesting I must admit. Speaking Hebrew means being a supporter of Shas now ? Since I specifically said in the talk page that I do not particularly like this rabbi (nor dislike him), it proves once again that you are not reading. And you omit any discussion about sources, a very interesting point also. By the way an important point I forgot: before I made any change, I made a call for discussion and waited almost a week before implementing the change. Debresser did not answer then but only after I reverted to the previous situation. He also did not try to solve the situation in the discussion, just opposing any change for the sake of opposing and a fake consensus of two people, and in fact only one since Mr. Sort It Out is the only one who had any opinion on the subject. I gave a sources (and can provide as much as needed) and no counter-argument was made, I was in my right to proceed with the change, or more exactly, reverting to the previous situation. Benjil (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Even though 3 editors is not much, it is still consensus. Not to mention that the edit stood unchallenged for almost a year. Even at this moment, after you raised the issue almost a year later, you are the only editor who wants this rabbi in the collage.
In any case, you have no right to insist on the edit after you see it is being opposed. Again, it is your behavior in the face of opposition and the not unfounded claim of a lack of consensus, that brings me here. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
And still not a word about sources and no argument. "Consensus", you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. There was no consensus. There was one editor who wanted Ovadia removed, you who had no clue on the subject and believed what he told you, and a third who did not discuss the issue. So no, no consensus. And a consensus based on false information and in contradiction to sources has no value. It seems this is just an issue of your pride here and nothing to do with improving the article. Benjil (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You should hear yourself: I had no clue on the subject and believe whatever editors tell me, false information. Why don't you throw a conspiracy claim in for good measure, or say that I am a nitwit? I have a clear opinion on the subject, and it is the same as the consensus opinion. My pride is no more involved than yours, so let's not go there (WP:NPA). Anyways, your arguments are typical of POV editors, sorry to say.
What was that about sources? Man, we are talking about adding a picture to a collage. What do sources have to do with that? Debresser (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cakeane reported by User:Jcmcc450 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Major League Lacrosse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Cakeane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC) "Changed to professional league and deleted salaries as that information is no longer current or accurate."
  2. 16:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) "MADE IT CORRECT - STOP CHANGING IT BACK"
  3. 19:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677989748 by Jcmcc450 (talk) The source you are siting is from 5 years ago, please find a new relevant source"
  4. 23:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678015866 by Jcmcc450 (talk) The Source you are citing is invalid and not accurate per a League Source, change to premier outdoor professional League if you wish and no salaries"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Semi-pro or Pro? */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Semi-pro or Pro? */ minor grammer fix"
Comments:

There is a general consensus among editors at Major League Lacrosse that it is Semi-Professional. This is because the sportsmen are not paid enough to go full-time according to a well-cited source. Oftentimes passerbye want to change it to "Professional" for POV reasons ("this is offensive to lacrosse players", "It's definitely professional" etc.) I tried to encourage the user to use the talk page to talk it out with the editors, but he keeps reverting changes despite the ongoing discussion.

Please see article http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323716304578483290272596484 which was updated proving every "passerby" was in fact correct and that the outdated source being cited was incorrect as it was attempted to be explained multiple times to the editor. Source cites "professional league" "professional team" and professional players and is a more current issue from WSJ than was previously used to explain reasoning of incorrect terminology. In fact, the other editor involved thanked me for the new contribution to the correct change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakeane (talkcontribs) 18:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I submitted this, not because of the content, rather the way of going about it. Instead of waiting for consensus from editors, you took it into your own hands to continually revert 3 separate editors to push your own (previously uncited) information through, despite my attempt to encourage you to wait for general consensus. I personally have no care one way or the other on if they are actually semi-pro or professional. What I do care about is an accurate encyclopedia designed by a community that works together; not using the undo button like an "im right, you are all wrong" button. If you had presented your citations in the talk page first and talked it through like I had encouraged you to, I would not have put this notice through. Jcmcc (Talk) 21:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

User:JordanGero reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Talk:European colonization of the Americas (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JordanGero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678086902 by Maunus (talk) Your Rfc was utterly inaccurate; reverted to form that almost all of the editors have already responded to."
  2. 07:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678073934 by Maunus (talk) The conversation has begun there; please do not relocate needlessly- it only adds confusion."
  3. 19:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC) "/* RfC: Should the word "seize" or "acquire" be used to describe the process through which colonists came to control the Americas? */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "/* RFC */ do not change other people's text, threatening to edit war not good"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

See also the warning on August 15th and the discussion on the editor's talk page. There's discussion on the article talk page but he's still changing the RfC to his preferred wording. The earliest diff is one of a series of edits changing the text of the RfC. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The user ·maunus worded the Rfc inaccurately after having entered an ongoing conversation between myself and another editor about the issue. All but one of the responses to the Rfc came after my edit of it, and all but my own have sided with ·maunus. This is not necessarily evidence that my version was "better" or more neutral, but it does contradict ·maunus's contention that the Rfc was changed after most editors had already responded. JordanGero (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that your RfC asks an entirely different question, and hence makes it impossible for the closer to know what the consensus is actually about. The other thing is that you hjave blatantly disregarded all guidelines for talkpage behavior, RfC behavior and editwarring - even after having been courteously pointed towards them by another user and an admin.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well this is embarrassing, I seem to have miscounted. You did however say "if you change it again, I will revert it." You've been reverted as you really can't change someone else's RfC. If you agree not to change it again I'm happy to have this dropped. But you can't go around revising other people's posts, even if you think they are wrong. You've compared your changing the RfC to editors changing text in articles and don't seem to see it as a problem. Oh, and if I've made an error on a subpage of mine, please let me know but don't go around changing my subpages. As for your statement that the RfC was changed after most editors had responded, everyone but you has agreed with Maunus that the word 'seize' should be used - they've all answered no, you're the only 'yes', so it appears they understood the issues. Doug Weller (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I am aware now that changing the Rfc after it has been posed is not to be done, along with that which you mentioned about your subpages, and will not modify or revert it again. And in regards to most editors who participated in the survey siding with the editor Maunus, I mentioned this to him when he first reverted my reverts of his original Rfc so as to communicate to him that whatever substantive change there may have been, it was not to the detriment of his position (or at least not apparently so). JordanGero (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It has nothing to with being detrimental to my position, the point is that your question is completely different and hence does not reflect my position. My RfC is a GENERAL question about the appropriateness of the word seize which you contended was inherently too loaded to neutrally describe aspects of the colonization. Your RfC is a specific question about whether to use the word seize in a specific sentence. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The question, from the beginning, was whether the use of the word "seize" was appropriate in a specific sentence, not whether it is an appropriate descriptor for an abstract concept. This is what I meant about you "jumping in the middle" of a conversation between me and Rjensen. The edit of the word "seize" did not happen in some abstract realm; it happened in a specific sentence in a specific paragraph in a specific section of the article in question. Anyways, the issue is resolved. Edit: Or apparently not resolved, given that a suggestion has been made by User:KoshVorlon that the current Rfc, given the disagreement over its content, be closed and a new one be opened that better reflects the issue at hand. JordanGero (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: User:JordanGero is warned for edit warring on the text of an RfC. Per the above, he has now agreed he "will not modify or revert it again." This editor created his account on July 9. New accounts that are very aggressive run the risk of being considered socks, and this suspicion is not always wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DN-boards1 reported by User:Ashill (Result: warned)[edit]

Page: Pluto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DN-boards1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [108]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [109] And subsequent three edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, since this single editor has been reverted by four different editors without time to bring to talk.

Comments:

  • After I submitted this, the editor has ceased edit warring and brought the issue to talk. I suggest a block is not necessary, assuming no further reverts. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't get the 3RR warning until after the last revert. Apologies. DN-boards1 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I saw in the history that the last revert was after I issued the warning so I brought it here, but it may have only been by seconds; the timestamp on both is 19:43. Easy to believe that the editor didn't see the warning. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned (so long as DN-boards1 (talk · contribs) does not continue to revert; if so, either re-open or grab an admin and point to this thread). Also, DN-boards1, be warned that WP:3RR isn't a permit to revert; several editors are in opposition to your change, so you should seek dispute resolution before re-introducing the text or you can still be blocked for general edit warring. @Ashill: Indeed; the exact timestamps, in case you're interested, were 2015-08-27T19:43:20Z and 2015-08-27T19:43:50Z (literally 30 seconds difference :P). --slakrtalk / 00:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Robin Lakritz reported by User:UnequivocalAmbivalence (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: In the Beginning There Was Light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robin Lakritz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [112]
  2. [113]
  3. [114]
  4. [115]
  5. [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments: I am currently at an impasse as I wish to refrain from edit warring but I have been able to make to headway in my discussions and my arguments seem to go ignored, while the other party seems to have no problem breaking he 3RR, leaving me with few options. As I am relatively new here I do not know of another way to handle this, if I have done anything wrong please inform me and I will do my best to correct the behavior, and if I am wrong about policy please inform me as I think the main dispute here is over policy understanding

UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for my 3RR mistake. UnequicoalAmbivalence made a bold edit and deleted valuable information with reputable sources. I think he is not being neutral and trying push an agenda. I also feel my arguments are being ignored by him. He should bring additional information from reputable sources but not blanking relevant one because he does not like it or the film. So mediation of a third party would be helpful. Robin Lakritz (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you are accusing me of pushing a bias when it seems that you started your wikipedia account with the sole purpose of adding heavily biased information to a single article, which to me seems like a clear violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Please see WP:ADVOCACY, from which I quote "Wikipedia is not a venue to Right Great Wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World, or to be an adjunct web presence for an organization. Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia"(Emphasis added). Also, in WP:FRINGELEVEL "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community....Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources."(Emphasis added) Breatharianism, the subject of this documentary, is clearly established by a vast consensus of the scientific community to be a pseudoscience. All CURRENT scientific studies categorically refute the claims being made. There is no debate about this. The section you added presents material as if this were not the case. It presents controversial studies as if they were widely accepted, and omits all mention of said controversies (For instance labeling of the non-peer reviewed and widely criticized Prahlad Jani Case Study as "Exceptional" in Wikipedia's voice). The policy is very, very clear on this point. Also, the directory stating on the webpage for his film that he received an email from someone is NOT reliable sourcing for proof to state the supposed contents of that email as a fact and then to directly attribute it to the claimed sender. This is not verifiable information from a reliable source by any means.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg 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. Though if you both continue edit warring, you risk being blocked. Please seek dispute resolution. --slakrtalk / 21:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I will pursue Dispute Resolution as you suggested. However, would you help clarify for me what counts as a revert so that I do not make this mistake in the future, as I was under the impression from my reading of the 3RR that what I reported was 5 reverts in less than 3 hours, but I have no desire to raise issues when policy has not been broken.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:122.56.208.164 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Pearl Going (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.56.208.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 122.56.209.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) [Incident includes IP-hopping]


Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [120]
  2. [121]
  3. [122]
  4. [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments: Repeated insertion of inappropriate material into a BLP, repeated over a long period of time; four reverts tonight in three hours. No substantive discussion by the IP, just accusations of vandalism. Article subject is involved in several public controversies; among other problems, article reports her accusations against others as established facts, misrepresenting sources to do so. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected (semi) by someone else --slakrtalk / 21:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Alvandria reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 7 days)[edit]

Page
Justin Bieber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Alvandria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "That's absolutely not what it says, if you click through it says even for commercial purposes"
  2. 08:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "im not in an edit war look at the source its creative commons thank you very much"
  3. 08:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678255732 by Dr.K. (talk) Nowhere on that page does it say Getty Images" - Please note: It did, but Alvandria's sock at Commons changed it within minutes.
  4. 07:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "It's not an inlicensed photo, it's by author Kevin Winter who is known to publish photographs for public use under the Commons code"
  5. 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) "More recent picture (LS)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Justin Bieber. (TWTW)"
  2. 08:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Justin Bieber. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit-warring adding copyvio image of Bieber using a sockpuppet at Commons. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Image license was changed multiple times during the edit-war, including modifying the flicr license to remove the dollar sign with the diagonal line through it, signifying a restriction for commercial distribution. It seems the edit-warring editor has connections to the photographer at flickr as well as the uploader at Commons. Please see also my message at Diannaa's talkpage. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like a case of Flickr washing, as the image is tagged as Getty Images here and other places online. I have nominated it for deletion on the Commons. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Diannaa. Here is an additional link to gossipcop.com of the same image in a double image format also indicating it as a Getty image. Another link calls it getty.jpg as part of its url. Meanwhile the flickr account has uploaded only this image. Looks like Flickr laundering indeed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )[edit]

Page: Genetically modified food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prokaryotes (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. 00:43, 26 August 2015 diff First edits, adding block of content about glyphosate (which is not GM food per se; was reverted and under discussion on Talk.
  2. 05:51, 26 August 2015 diff This series of edits aggressively edited contested content about the "scientific consensus" on GM food which has been under discussion for a long time now
  3. 00:14, 27 August 2015 diff This series of edits edit-warred back in content about glyphosate that was still under discussion and made other changes to "consensus statment" section
  4. 11:58, 28 August 2015‎ diff This series of edits introduced incorrect content (about broccoli that is not GMO but created by traditional breeding, and health content sourced from non-MEDRS source) and aggressively edited the "consensus statement" which is highly contested, and included this dif that removed significant sources with a very misrepresentative edit summary included additional dif info via REDACT Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC))
  5. 12:45, 28 August 2015‎ dif restored controversial edits to "consensus statement"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see this section on editor's talk page where i asked them to please slow down. There are many long discussions on talk page trying to address their edits including here on the Glyphosate edits, yet another RfC and this new, strangely titled section: Talk:Genetically_modified_food#Readding_of_OR_reference.

Comments:

This is a highly controversial article. We have so far successfully avoided arbcom and to a great extent, drama boards, but Prokaryotes has been editing very aggressively (and often adding incorrect content), without regard for discussion on the Talk page. There were two mega-RfCs recently and as mentioned above, there is sprawling talk page discussion. Prokaryotes aggressive editing is destabilizing the article - especially their edits to the "consensus" statement which was the subject of one of the mega-RfCs. If everyone who cared about this article edited like Prokaryotes we would have been at arbcom ages ago. Please lock the article to force discussion and please consider a short block for Prokaryotes.

As an aside, if you check their contribs, Prokaryotes has gone on a tear since August 26, aggressively editing other, related articles, raising risks about glyphosate and GMOs or "pro" organic, and arguing vehemently on article talk pages. Each bullet is an edit to a different article (not cluttering this with their Talk comments):

I understand that people get passionate about GMOs etc but that is all the more reason for people to exercise restraint, per WP:Controversial articles. This is very clear advocacy editing.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Jytdog's claim i broke 3RR is in error. Yesterday, Jytdog claimed i broke 3RR. When I and another uninvolved editor(SageRad) asked about his 3RR claim and Difs, he did not replied but later retracted his claim. But then another editor(Kingofaces43) came to my talk page and claimed i broke 3RR, in this edit. Then both continued, Kingofaces started to make various claims, that i do advocacy or edit with an agenda. Then another uninvolved editor(Jusdafax) mentioned that Jytdog and Kingofaces are bullying me for my edits. Then Jytdog claimed i do advocacy. When I then asked Jytdog on his talk page to provide Difs for his accusations he made more claims, i would "promoting the goodness of organic or emphasized the risks of GMO stuff", as he put it. It appears to me that Jytdog is acting to much like WP:OWN, and is intimidating other editors who do not agree with his edits. Actually Jytdog did like 6-8 reverts since August 26 at Genetically modified food, some of them questionable and currently discussed on the talk page, examples:
  • Jytdog is removing content without consensus, and without discussion
  • Here he reverts to what can be described per WP:OR
  • Here he removes content which had been part of the article for month. (Discussion)
  • Here he removes something, again without discussion.

The various discussions on the talk page at Genetically modified food all involve Jytdog, and most of the time he argues with other editors about his reverts.prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will add here, that I have functioned as a steward of this and related articles for a while now. Some consider me a whore of Monsanto etc. They consider as they will - I try to keep POV-pushing from all sides tamped down, and as mentioned, so far have helped keep these articles clear of arbcom and from wasting the community's time with too much drama board action. I am not happy to be here but Prokaryotes has not heeded the requests of me and others to slow down.
That said, here are all of my own edits on that page after Prokaryotes started editing. This shows what I mean by the article "destabilizing" - so many strange edits...
* 10:31, 26 August 2015‎ series of diffs didn't fully revert Prokaryotes's change to "scientific consensus" statement but used compromise language that had been worked out on talk after a looooong discussion. Also removed old content made redundant due to new adjacent content added by a third party (sagerad)
* 15:09, 27 August 2015 diff removed inaccurate and redundant content added by yet another editor (drchrissy)
* 01:14, 28 August 2015 diff removed off topic and POV content about patenting of biopharmaceuticals and methods to make them using transgenic animals (??) added by yet another editor (praeceptorIP) - nobody on anyside of the debate has objected to reversion of this strange edit to this article. Also removed pre-existing off topic content on use of GM animals to produce drugs which was hook for that strange edit. others on talk page had noted that this was off topic.
* 12:37, 28 August 2015 diff reverted Prokaryotes 2nd change to "consensus" statement
* 13:11, 28 August 2015 diff fixed broken link in source.
there you go.
My primary "ask" here is that the article be locked to drive discussion and stop the recent streak of just weird edits, and secondarily that Prokaryotes be blocked for aggressive editing on this and related controversial articles -again, if everybody edited like Prokaryotes has been doing, we would have been at arbcom ages ago. What ~seems~ to have gotten Prokaryotes all fired up, is that he/she just learned about the IARC re-classifying glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen" back in March and just freaked. (see here - it was right after that, the aggressive editing began. We dealt with the IARC reclassification across the suite of articles back in March) In any case, if a reviewing admin thinks I should be also blocked, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog's claim my edits are weird or aggressive are in stark contrast to what actually has been done to the page by me (added WHO authority link, removed OR, added study per RS), and how i done it (After his revert went to discuss and RFC, how it should be). Additionally there are several editors who welcomed my edits(1,2, or here in response to Kingsofaces43 editing my addition 3). This self proclaimed steward of Wikipedia has trouble with almost any other editor who tries to improve the page (here, here or here). Jytdog is to attached to the topic of GMO's and Monsanto articles in particular and should be blocked from editing these articles.prokaryotes (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
You are showing no self restraint, Prokaryotes. I and others keep saying to you that if everyone edited with your aggressiveness we would have been at arbcom ages ago, which you keep not replying to and you just keep on going, as though you are the only editor in WP. I did not call your edits weird - I called some of the other edits weird. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
In a related discussion which begun first at GMF article, GregJackP stated, "Jytdog, please focus on the content, not the creator. Stating that PraeceptorIP is abusing WP falls close to a personal attack". And later "You have three different editors saying that it belongs in the article, while you are the sole editor opposing its inclusion. Please stop edit warring the article to your preferred version. If their is an opposing POV, please provide sources, as Praeceptor has done, so the community can properly evaluate this. Second, this is nowhere near COI editing." - -Hence, recent problems with editor Jytdog are very common. Maybe the editor should make a break from Wikipedia and ask himself why he has so many issues with others. Jytdog also writes "I am too angry to write more now." This guy clearly need to make a break, not pick fights with everyone. prokaryotes (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── entirely separate (and yes very frustrating) issue related to the edit about patenting biopharmaceuticals and methods to make them using transgenic animals) and one that was ongoing before your disruptions. Nice reference to your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior though. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I feel strongly that an admin looking at this Jytdog-filed case needs to take a wide view. As Prokaryotes notes, this filing is strongly slanted, leaving out anything that reflects poorly on Jytdog. I urge a thorough reading of the article in question's talk page, at Talk:Genetically modified food which includes my warnings to Jytdog to stop his bullying behavior, along with concerns regarding Jytdog expressed by other editors. The short version: Jytdog has de facto claimed ownership of the page, and many other related pages including Pharming (genetics) where he is at this moment involved in an edit war, and Glyphosate and other Monsanto-related articles. My history with Jytdog has been such that I banned him from my personal Talk page several years ago, and I have largely made an effort to avoid him since that time, but his recent edit history calls for a preventative block, as I see it, as he is a self-admittedly angry editor lashing out in a number of areas, and clearly in violation of WP:TEND. Thanks. Jusdafax 05:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've had occasion to wonder about Prokaryotes' self-centred edit behaviour. Here he adds material previously removed as controversial, in the middle of an RfC on this material, long before any sign of consensus or closure. As he was participating in the RfC discussion at the time, he can hardly have been unaware of the due process taking place. In discussion about his unilateral adding of disputed content he gave no indication of regret at ignoring procedure, apparently feeling that his own opinion was reason enough to over-ride a spirited RfC. Perhaps he could count to ten or something before jumping into edit-warrior mode. --Pete (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:N0n3up reported by User:Calidum (Result: )[edit]

Page
British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
N0n3up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678390672 by Calidum (talk) Reverted to original version. Lets take this to the talk page"
  2. 02:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678376362 by Calidum (talk) Not redundant, less specific as a matter of fact. Please explain why it's so"
  3. 23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 678363821 by JuanRiley (talk) I don't see anything wrog with it.. why delete it?"
  4. 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 677361960 by JuanRiley (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See Talk:British_Empire#Eroded.

Comments:

N0n3up also attempted to WP:CANVASS two other editors to join in the edit war [126] [127] and ascribed a hidden agenda to the attempt by myself and JuanRiley (talk · contribs) to remove redundant phrasing. Calidum 04:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to vex you to the point that you had to take it to the notice board. But if you reffered to my actions and my summoning of other users.. I summoned Sitush and Twobells since Sitush was familiar with me in a previous discussion in the same article and Twobells just happened to be the last person to edit the talk page to get an outside opinion, not to "canvass" or use backup to my advantage as you accused of doing. And saying: And don't get me wrong if you are one of those staunchly patriots whose edit was patriotic-oriented is not a personal attack whatsoever, I was trying to give a figurative concept of someone who edits out of patriotic purpose and there is nothing of a personal attack in that, and notice the And don't get me wrong part which would make your claim of a personal attack more invalid than it already is. And also, I'm not denying that America was catching up to Britain economically, I simply stated that removing the some of part of the sentence would be too general, that's all. And to think it would all be a short talk. (N0n3up (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC))