Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:181.140.233.215 reported by User:AdamDeanHall
Pages: Dan vs. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and List of Dan Vs. episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 181.140.233.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user keeps reverting both the Dan Vs. page and the List of Dan Vs. episodes page by adding some nonsense about a 4th season coming to the Cartoon Network when there isn't a reliable source about it found anywhere on the Internet. Please help us have a discussion about it so we can reach some kind of consensus. I already added that on the talk pages of both Dan Vs. and List of Dan Vs. episodes. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
User:A4ay reported by User:mrehanms (Result: )
Page: Yesudas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A4ay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [2]
- [3]
- [4]
- [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrehanms (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
Edits only related to one person, appears to be social media manager trying to avoid inclusion of negative news and controversies. Mrehanms (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
User:NeilN reported by User:FelixRosch (Result: No violation)
Page: Artificial intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: This report is of long-term edit warring currently shown by sequential reverts on the Talk page for Artificial Intelligence without explanation.
(Please note that this report is made on the basis on long-term edit warring which recognizes edit warring outside of conventional and sequential 4 reverts following the policy quotation "although edit warring has no such strict rule.)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]
User:NeilN has declined all Talk participation in preference for automatic posting of Standard Notice without elaboration.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]
Comments:
Several months ago prior to summer another editor had warned me of User:NeilN as being associated with his edit friend as involved in baiting and edit warring with new editors for the purposes of having them blocked or reprimanded here [14]. At that time, I accepted the advice to drop the matter not knowing that the baiting and edit warring by User:NeilN would become long term and persistent. The baiting and edit warring by User:NeilN has been protracted over at least 3 separate Wikipedia pages and for several months. The edit baiting and edit warring has been apparently associated with nothing more than the private gain NeilN appears to get from baiting new editors for the purposes of getting them reprimanded or blocked. The three pages demonstrating this counterproductive and maladjusted edit behavior by User:NeilN occurred on the three (3) articles for Artificial intelligence, Ukraine, and Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles, as baiting and edit warring against my edits.
In the case or Artificial intelligence, the Talk page of the article has been troubled with a number of poorly formed RfCs, where one editor appears to wish to place material not adequately covered in the main body of the article into the Lede of the article. NeilN had nothing to do with the discussion of the page but nonetheless began multiple reverts without explaining any of his edits on the Talk page there against Wikipedia policy which asks editors to post their reasons for reverts on Talk. To further inflame the matter, User:NeilN then went straight to posting an automatic edit warring message, again apparently for no other reason than to bait another editor. This is done by NeilN, an otherwise experienced editor, with all the appearance of following Wikipedia rules superficially when examined as an isolated case. My hope is that by collecting the edit baiting and edit warring for several different pages, however, that this appearance of following Wikipedia rules is merely superficial and that the private gain or pleasure which User:NeilN appears to get from baiting and edit warring against new editors is really part of larger pattern of maladapted editing practices which are counter-productive to collaborative editing and unwelcoming to new editors against Wikipedia policy.
The maladapted baiting and edit warring by NeilN was more counter-productive and aggressive at the page for Ukraine where his conduct resulted in a protracted and chilling edit environment for all editors trying to update the current civil war issues taking place there. After my leaving the page temporarily for the summer, I discovered that the hostile and counter-productive atmosphere of intimidation by NeilN had frozen the editing of the page to the point of no updates at all to the section after the New president election of Poroshenko from last Spring (four months ago) for the entire summer. I then posted at least one edit to update this section of the page for Ukraine after its neglect for the entire summer (with Talk page additions and explanation) following the atmosphere of intimidation of that Page which had been fostered and associated with User:NeilN and his history of baiting and edit warring against new editors for his private purposes. User NeilN has also expressed contempt for the opinion of admin User:Fuzheado (Andrew Lih, the author of a famous book on Wikipedia) and the ability of an on-line encyclopedia to keep up with geopolitical events in ways which were previously unavailable in print encyclopedias. I expressed support for Andrew Lih, but was further ridiculed by User:NeilN for my support of Andrew Lih on this diff [15]. User:NeilN appeared to express that the only criteria to satisfy him would be the news of "millions" of dead people in the Ukraine which would satisfy his requirement for adequate notability in his view of Wikipedia on this diff [16].
This pattern of behavior again repeated itself another time at the Talk page for the "2014 Olympics Ladies Figure Skating" page here [17], where once again the pattern of baiting and edit warring was repeated by User:NeilN for his personal purposes. The brief history of the discussion was that of distinguishing and separating a paparazzi controversy from an Official controversy which a separate editor does not appear to be able to grasp, and the article page was beginning to resemble a fan site of unofficial opinions quoted from the rich and famous which in the end had nothing to do with the Official judging of Gold medals at the 2014 Olympics. Although unrelated to the discussion, User:NeilN again felt it incumbent upon himself to use the opportunity for baiting and edit warring in the pursuit of his version of counter-productive edit warring.
At this point, my own position was that he would simply tire of his maladapted baiting and edit warring practices, and perhaps with time adjust his unproductive and unwelcoming edit behavior normally seen as destructive to the purposes of collaborative editing at Wikipedia. However, his maladapted behavior appears to be endemic to his long-term conduct, and his history appears to show an unwillingness to adjust his desire to bait and edit war with new editors on a continuing basis. Edit baiting/bullying is usually read as WP:Harrassment at first reading, and when coupled with his long standing and repeated desire for WP:Edit-warring, I am requesting that this matter be reviewed by a more experienced editor to evaluate the matter. User:NeilN has accumulated a number of Wikipedia privileges, and appears to seek further privileges to expand his domain over other new editors. The length of this report I have significantly shortened because relating all of the edit baiting and edit warring by User:NeilN would require too much space. Could some instructions or other measures be left for User:NeilN to somehow curtail his long-term proclivity for baiting and edit warring with new editors. FelixRosch (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is at least the third malformed report by FelixRosch (diffs supplied upon request). Also, unsurprisingly, no notification. In all cases above my edits were supported by other experienced editors. If an admin would like more detail from me, please ask. --NeilN talk to me 16:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- No violation. The only recent history I see of reverts is on the talk page of Artificial intelligence, and there were only two, as well as two by FelixRosch. I also looked at the article itself and the other two articles and their talk pages, and anything there was incredibly stale. Felix, don't toss around personal accusations on this board. If you want to accuse another editor of a long-term pattern of misconduct, then go to WP:ANI or start an RfC/U. You might, though, consider the possibiility of WP:BOOMERANG, though, before you go any further. You've been editing using this account for about a year and have very few edits during that time, and even fewer to article space. I'm not sure what your problem is except you apparently suspect there's a conspiracy afoot.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am cautiously optimistic that this is stable now, but Felix's diffs don't show you how many times Felix has edit warred to place that particular text in that location. NeilN is not the only editor who has been trying to keep the RFC page working despite Felix's efforts. Felix has been replacing the RFC question with his own "disclosure" ("Disclosure: The format and bias of this RfC is currently challenged and is currently being discussed. Any participation should be informed by pending changes or deletion of this RfC. FelixRosch (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)") for over a week: [18][19][20][21] These diffs are in addition to the diffs above. Felix continued doing this despite repeated explanations from multiple editors that his actions would prevent the actual RFC question (which is, "Should the phrase "human-like" be included in the first paragraph of the lede of this article as describing the purpose of the study of artificial intelligence? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)") from appearing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology.
He's finally stopped screwing up the RFC page, but it's really very disruptive to have the central RFC pages showing one editor's bold-face warnings about the RFC question instead of (i.e., not merely in addition to) the RFC question. I am posting this here so that, if Felix continues this pattern of disrupting the central RFC notice pages, we won't have to find all the diffs later. However, as he's not tried to do this for over 24 hours now, I think we are justified in believing this incident to be resolved, with no need for admin intervention of any kind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- FelixRosch really needs to find a WP:mentor - I suggest he looks for help at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. -- Moxy (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Supreme Deliciousness reported by User:Legacypac (Result: No action)
Page: Ayn al-Arab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [not applicable, page move revert and other reverts shown are interspersed with other editors work]
Diffs of the user's reverts (note same page, two different names due to two moves):
- [22]
- [23]
- [24]
- [25] and
- general disruptive editing on the talk page including being cited by User:Jeppiz as ["https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_al-Arab&diff=628790224&oldid=628789243%7Cfor having] "a strong and biased WP:POV that makes it very hard to take your arguments seriously."
- [[26]] Dismissing Middle_East_Research_and_Information_Project as "not a reliable source" which appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead other editors voting on a name change. Our article says "According to JSTOR, The Middle East Report "is the foremost U.S. magazine of critical analysis on the Middle East", with 25,000 US and global readers and more than 700 educational and institutional subscriptions." and a review of [[27]] shows an editorial board filled with professors at leading universities and an equally impressive list of contributers. The actual article is co-authored by aPhD candidate at Prinction University. He prefers to cite Google maps as a RS.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion with many editors Talk:Ayn_al-Arab#Requested_move, and related article Talk:Siege_of_Kobanê about the same POV pushing. Note I have not reverted this editor today, but yesterday he hauled me in for 1RR reverting so he really can't plead he does not know about Syrian Civil War sanctions 1RR.
Comments:
Requested Move Close: I'd also request that an uninvolved Admin look at the proposed page move and consider closing it immediately (3 days in),on a policy and vote basis and to end the pointless arguing and edit warring. Effectively this move request is an extension of a discussion started 7 days ago here and given this city is in the news worldwide right now, seems reasonable. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hihi. Legacypac brings us 4 diffs. Nr 1 and nr 4 is the exact same edit. Number 2 and nr 3 are two different edits that I made right after each other at a different article. I suggest Legacypac to be topic banned for this frivolous report. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note. This is a move dispute and it should play out until it is closed, which is normally 7 days after it is begun. I don't see any violation of 3RR by Supreme Deliciousness. As for disruptive editing, I'm not going to get into that here - take it somewhere else - but it appears there are hot-tempered editors on both sides of the dispute. As for the Syrian civil war sanctions, I'm not going to apply it in this case. And the only way I could impose a topic ban unilaterally would be under the sanctions; I'm not going to do that, either. Another administrator is welcome to take a different view.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Did the closing admin Bbb23 notice I said "note same page, two different names due to two moves" - which Supreme Deliciousness incorrectly denied here? I mistakenly provided the same ref twice (instead of but scrolling through or looking down the list of changes shows the story better than a list of diffs can. Anyway, no matter. Hopefully this user will be more careful in the future. Legacypac (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
User:technopat reported by User:75.162.179.246 (Result: No action)
- Page
- Acronym (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- technopat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
22:43, 10 October 2014 (diff | hist) Acronym (Undid revision 629111122 by 75.162.179.246 (talk) User now reverting editions of two more users...) 10:23, 10 October 2014 (diff | hist) Acronym (Reverted 3 edits by 75.162.179.246 (talk) to last revision by Technopat. (TW)) 22:12, 9 October 2014 (diff | hist) m Acronym (Reverted edits by 2600:100E:B122:5589:0:0:0:103 (talk) to last version by Technopat) 07:34, 9 October 2014 (diff | hist) m Acronym (Reverted edits by 75.162.179.246 (talk) to last version by Three-quarter-ten) 14:36, 4 October 2014 (diff | hist) Acronym (Reverted to revision 628126786 by 23.252.53.30 (talk): Most recent "stable" version. (TW))
Was this not against 3RR because the more than 3 were across longer than a day's worth of time? Why was it not at least considered "edit warring back," then, just because I went first between us two? Why doesn't technopat get warned for edit warring too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.179.246 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You breached 3RR. You're lucky I didn't block you. Technopat did not breach 3RR, although it's true he edit-warred. If you're talking about the warning on your talk page, it was left by an administrator who also responded to a message you left on his talk page. You may have constructive contributions to make to this project, but if you can't stop yourself from violating policy and then having the chutzpah to complain about it, I suggest you stop editing. You've already been told that, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Heh, "chutzpah"? Good grief. And who said that asking about the differences between something was supposedly a "complaint"? How did technopat's reversions "not count as" breaking 3RR but mine somehow "did"? Also, if he was edit-warring too (even somehow without breaking 3RR, if so), then why didn't he get the same kind of warning, about at least the edit-warring part, like I did?
75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Objective3000 reported by User:Andyvphil (Result: No violation)
Page: Neil deGrasse Tyson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Objective3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [29]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]
- No violation. Andyvphil, there is no 1RR restriction as a result of WP:NEWBLPBAN, only discretionary sanctions. Moreover, when you attempted to alert the user to those sanctions, you did it incorrectly and pointed to a completely different arbitration decision. You also didn't sign the alert. You also didn't notify the user of this thread (I've done so). All I see is a whole bunch of yelling, mostly by you, on the user's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming my impression that admin bits get awarded on Wikipedia with great disregard for whether the persons receiving them are suitable for the tasks they then take upon themselves. The gratuitous assertion that "All [you] see is a whole bunch of yelling, mostly by [me], on the user's talk page." is simply false. If you saw something from me that was remotely at the "volume" of Objective300's, "Shame on you. This is one of the most disgusting edits I have ever seen.", I'd appreciate your pointing it out. And the word count also goes against the assertion that the the "yelling" was mostly by me, even had it been "yelling", which in my case I deny.
- I was of course relying on Vinditas' post, both to my page and Objective300's, for the assertion that WP:NEWBLPBAN implied 1RR. For the life of me I can't quite make out what WP:NEWBLPBAN does imply, except greater discretion for the current batch of admins, which, given who you are, how you behave, and the rationality-hostile editing environment you have fostered on Wikipedia, is indubitably a bad thing. WP:NEWBLPBAN does clearly call for "the standard template message – currently { {Ds/alert} } – [to be] placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted", which is what I did, after figuring out the appropriate switch for BLP. Amazingly, you took it upon yourself to remove it. Is there something in WP:NEWBLPBAN which says it is inappropriate for me to expand on Virditas' notification with the appropriate template? If not, I suggest you revert yourself.
- You also err in stating that I did not notify Objective300 of this thread. I did.[34]. You added your own notice after that. A less careless and arrogant administrator would have noticed. Andyvphil (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll ignore the tirade and respond to some of the points you make. First, the removal of the alert was my error; I've restored it. Next time, though, please sign it. Second, the way you "notified" the user of this discussion was not helpful as it was buried; in the future, I suggest you use the template in the instructions at the top of this page. Third, if you knew more about arbitration decisions, many of them call for discretionary sanctions but not for a 1RR restriction, just as this one does. You shouldn't rely on other editors; you should research it yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
various IPs reported by User:211.28.146.128 (Result: Declined)
Page: North West Rail Link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: various IPs.
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
- Declined. The page has already been reported to WP:RFPP. If an admin there declines it, I suppose the article may have to be fully protected because of the edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
User:AsceticRose and User:Fauzan reported by User:Calcula2 (Result: All editors warned)
- Page: Battle of Badr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Users being reported:
- AsceticRose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Fauzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- AsceticRose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
These guys are acting in bad faith and are accusing people of sock puppetry even though they have been proven innocent.
There is an extensive talk at Talk:Battle of Badr about some dispute with data. THere was a general agreement that some data has been added back. The main concern of these 2 users is the following data:
According to the Muslim scholar Safiur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri the purpose and reason for this battle was to raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further the Muslim political, economic and military position.[13]
According to the Muslim scholar Dr. Mosab Hawarey the goal was to take the Quraysh caravan and its camels, he wrote the target was "initially Quraysh camels, then fight erupted"[6]
The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir also said the purpose of this Battle was to capture Quraysh war booty/spoils by raiding the Quraysh Caravan, he claimed Muhammad encouraged the Muslims by saying: “This is the caravan of Quraysh carrying their property, so march forth to intercept it, Allah might make it as war spoils for you”, and like Mubarakpuri he also stated that the purpose was to make Islam dominant, he also claimed Muhammad said “so that He makes you prevail above them and gain victory over them, making His religion apparent and Islam victorious and dominant above all religions”.[14].
They want to suppress this data and even one of then has claimed this is a Fringe view or a minor viewpoint here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#New_evidence.2C_deleting_data_though_5_people_disagree_with_him._REMOVE_HIS_ROLLBACK_rights
Some of their comments of the edits are also in my opinion very unhelpful:
[35]
[36]
[37] (The concerns raised have not been solved. Also, it has not been explained how this version is better than the previous. So, I'm resorting to the previous)
It has been explained in talk page why the version which was added is better. Mainly because its well references and has data the first article was missing.
[38] (Reverted to revision 625903026 by A. Parrot (talk): Please discuss on the talk page why this should be included.)
This is a useless comment meant to annoy people in my opinion as it has been discussed extensively in talk page why this data should be added, even Fauzan participated in that discussion.
To summarize i think these people are apologists who are trying to present this article from the viewpoint that is was defensive military expeditions even though Muslim sources like this clearly say otherwise: [39] See #9--Calcula2 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- User:Calcula2, where is the edit-warring or violation of WP:3RR - nothing above seems related to the purpose of this noticeboard the panda ₯’ 11:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You should keep a watch on this as it looks like its going to turn into an edit war. These users keep removing vital data about the reasons for this military campaigns. 5 people on talk page disagree with them--Calcula2 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The purpose of this board is to deal with violations that are occurring. Otherwise, all editors need to follow WP:DR the panda ₯’ 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- You should keep a watch on this as it looks like its going to turn into an edit war. These users keep removing vital data about the reasons for this military campaigns. 5 people on talk page disagree with them--Calcula2 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've put a new header on this report that's in the usual format for AN3. A review of the edit history shows a lot of impassioned reverting since 6 October. The submitter, User:Calcula2, is one of the people who reverted today (11 October). I'm leaving a ping for User:Nick who has tried giving advice to the combatants on the talk page. I'd vote for (at least) a period of full protection for the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Result: All editors are warned. Anyone who makes a further revert at Battle of Badr that is not backed up by a talk page consensus may be blocked without notice. If you find that you can't reach agreement on the article Talk, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Another report of the same dispute has been made at ANI (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:46.200.32.235 reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: IP and Prisonermonkeys blocked)
Page: 2014 Russian Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.200.32.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- and at least half a dozen more since then.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Ridiculous edit war over the caption in a photograph, and a wikilink. The IP and User:Prisonermonkeys have reverted at least ten times each. Prisonermonkeys has not covered himself in glory, but the IP has also resorted to name calling [46]. I have not templated Prisonermonkeys, but I have spoken to him on his talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- All my edits are correct. Prisonermonkeys try to pipe two links to same (!) article (instead of one, as always). Also he removed one key (!) foreground man from the photo description, leaving two others. Also he removed Category:Current sports events many times, but it's a current. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is a vision for the final version of that article. The edits that keep removing that content are removing some of the scaffolding that will build that final version of the article. So, while there may be two links piped to one article, that other article is going to be expanded with tables to the point where it is justified—I just haven't had a chance to build that article up yet. As for the "key foreground man", there is no information available as to who he is or what role he played in the process. Ideally, the article would include a picture without him, but none are available. And as he is nowhere near as important as the commercial rights holder to the sport and the president of a sovereign nation, his presence is best explained with a footnote rather than included in a caption giving him equal weight to the others. Now, I have tried to explain this to the user in question, but he has spent the best part of an hour sitting on the article and reverting edits on sight, to the point where he is preventing content from being added. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- When the second article will be written then we will give the second link. Very simply: one article = one link, two articles = two links. The thing with the other guy in the foreground of photo is a reasonable question to ask "Who is the other guy?" As we can see on photo, he signed agreements with Bernie, not background president. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The focus on that entire section is on the relationship between Ecclestone and Putin. There is no information available on who Kapirulin is. All we can see from the photo is that he is looking at the contract; for all we know, he's Putin's proof-reader. A footnote is the most appropriate way to explain his presence, since he is only related to the issue by virtue of appearing in the photo. If people really are interested in who he is, they can look at the footnote; they don't need to know who he is to understand the issue, and as such, he does not need to—and should not be—mentioned in the caption.
- As for the other article, how about you stop sitting on this page and constantly revert edits, and instead be a part of the solution and start helping out with the other page? Because right now, all you are doing is disrupting things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am open for discuss always. Secondly, it was no any "disrupting things" from me. Only your personal vision against standard rules. Mikhail Kapirulin is the head of the company that is building the F1 race track in Sochi. [47] Not only "Putin's proof-reader". And last, I will resolve what I must to do/edit without your advice. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- And you're telling me that it never occurred to you to add that detail on Kapirulin into the caption? All you ever did was move the footnote to the caption. You never elaborated.
- Even then, the focus of that section is on the relationship between sport and politics. Kapirulin isn't a part of that, is describing his role is best left to a footnote. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not a reason to remove (from description) a person who signing the document on the photo. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am open for discuss always. Secondly, it was no any "disrupting things" from me. Only your personal vision against standard rules. Mikhail Kapirulin is the head of the company that is building the F1 race track in Sochi. [47] Not only "Putin's proof-reader". And last, I will resolve what I must to do/edit without your advice. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- As for the other article, how about you stop sitting on this page and constantly revert edits, and instead be a part of the solution and start helping out with the other page? Because right now, all you are doing is disrupting things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, he is not being removed from the description. He is being moved to a more appropriate place. And secondly, there is absolutely a reason to remove him - he has nothing to do with the issue of the role of sport and politics. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- What is the problem to leave him in the main description? Footnotes alongside with reference link is bad choice for newbie readers, for example. And section named "Controversy", but not "the role of sport and politics". 46.200.32.235 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Because he is not related to the controversy of whether the sport should accept money from the Russian government, given Russia's role in eastern Ukraine and alleged role in MH17. The picture was chosen to show that there is a relationship between the sport (Ecclestone) and the government (Putin). Kapirulin was there, but he has nothing to do with the controversy, and so should not be mentioned in the same context. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good argument, but then we have reasonable questions "Who is the other guy?" "Why government office-holder (Putin) is on the background only?" "Who has signed document?" "What is the document?" 46.200.32.235 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Which can be explained in the footnote, because it is not required to understand the controversy. The more information you put into the caption, the further the picture and caption get from their intended purpose, which is not good. That's why a footnote was used - it's a case of "here's a bit more on the picture; you don't need to know it, but it might help with unanswered questions". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good argument, but then we have reasonable questions "Who is the other guy?" "Why government office-holder (Putin) is on the background only?" "Who has signed document?" "What is the document?" 46.200.32.235 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Because he is not related to the controversy of whether the sport should accept money from the Russian government, given Russia's role in eastern Ukraine and alleged role in MH17. The picture was chosen to show that there is a relationship between the sport (Ecclestone) and the government (Putin). Kapirulin was there, but he has nothing to do with the controversy, and so should not be mentioned in the same context. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Isn't anyone actually going to look at this? It's been going on all day and it's still continuing. Or maybe I missed the 20RR rule? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've tried to start discussion on the article talk page. So far, there's been little progress - the IP editor in question is simply copy-pasting his arguments in from elsewhere, namely here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have reply at the talk page to all posts with logic arguments. His edits without any logic. He removed Bianchi crash from article lead although it's a key event for this stage. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked 46.200.32.235 and Prisonermonkeys for 31 hours. Bretonbanquet, you tried very hard to get the two users to stop, which does you credit, but both editors misbehaved, both called each other's edits vandalism (not true), and neither showed any insight into their behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can't argue with that; the talk page discussion came way too late. Sorry it had to come to this. Thanks for your attention, Bbb23. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Rtc reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Rtc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Tests */"
- 09:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629155083 by TenOfAllTrades (talk) Mentioning shortly at this place is okay. Discussion page was about prominent mentioning in the intro with lots of uncritical claims"
- 10:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629160374 by TenOfAllTrades (talk). Removing unreliable source again, please don't add it back. See discussion"
- 16:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC) "sigh. See discussion. I completely agree that it's a fraud. But that doesn't mean censorship is allowed. that paragraph is merely mentioning undisputed facts: existence of the report. same as preceding paragraph"
- 01:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629206253 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) There is a dispute going on. Use the discussion page if you want to join the debate."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Energy Catalyzer. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
See also Talk:Energy Catalyzer#New Peer-reviewed paper. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Very obviously a dishonest attempt to mob me out of the article. Don't fall for it. Take two out of the equation and it's a lot less than it now looks: Look closely at what 10:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC) actually is. It's undoing an edit someone made accidentally. In the same way, look at 01:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC), which was about the dispute template. I already stopped reverting the actual paragraph as a concession. Now someone tries to prevent even the template notifying readers about the ongoing debate. That's just so obviously an attempt to provoke further reverts to get me blocked and to prevent new users reading the article and seeing the template from joining the debate... Block the others, they are violating WP:DICK. --rtc (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Time to drop the stick, Rtc. You presented your proposal, and it failed to get traction. And I don't see any sign of bad faith on the other three editors that are disagreeing with you, so cut the persecution spiel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- You already missed the opportunity to accept the compromise version with the template warning about the dispute. So we have to fight this through. --rtc (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the disputed edit included a link to a document of unknown copyright status (there is no evidence that it has been released to the public domain), not hosted by the authors. Rtc has chosen to dismiss concerns about this claiming that supposed "tacit consent" (for which no evidence has actually been provided) is sufficient reason to ignore WP:LINKVIO [48] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- "unknown copyright status (there is no evidence that it has been released to the public domain), not hosted by the authors" does not constitute in any way "know or reasonably suspect" as required by WP:LINKVIO. There is no copyright issue here. You made this up as a fallback because you were losing the argument. --rtc (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Losing the argument by having more people agree with me than with you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- "unknown copyright status (there is no evidence that it has been released to the public domain), not hosted by the authors" does not constitute in any way "know or reasonably suspect" as required by WP:LINKVIO. There is no copyright issue here. You made this up as a fallback because you were losing the argument. --rtc (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the disputed edit included a link to a document of unknown copyright status (there is no evidence that it has been released to the public domain), not hosted by the authors. Rtc has chosen to dismiss concerns about this claiming that supposed "tacit consent" (for which no evidence has actually been provided) is sufficient reason to ignore WP:LINKVIO [48] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- You already missed the opportunity to accept the compromise version with the template warning about the dispute. So we have to fight this through. --rtc (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Time to drop the stick, Rtc. You presented your proposal, and it failed to get traction. And I don't see any sign of bad faith on the other three editors that are disagreeing with you, so cut the persecution spiel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Rob984 reported by User:GhostlyLegend (Result: Voluntary restriction)
Page: List of military special forces units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rob984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [49]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]
Comments:
It's pretty clear that Rob984 has no interest in engaging with a discussion over sourcing, and now appears to be randomly deleting content in response to being challenged of this. GhostlyLegend (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note. GhostlyLegend, have you edited the article without logging in to your account?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- GhostlyLegend failed to notify Rob984, done here by myself. Murry1975 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not me. Given that the other user had already warned Rob984, who then removed the warning, then I figured it wasn't required to do it again. He already knew. GhostlyLegend (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't notify me that you reported me. The IP placed a edit warring template on my talk. They did not notify me of that you reported me. I'm curious how you are aware that the IP templated me considering I removed it one minute later? Rob984 (talk)18:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Edit history. Given the abrasive nature of your edit summaries I was checking to see if you had form.
- GhostlyLegend (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Policy is clear. You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. I attempted to remove the disputed content pending a discussion. I was fully engaged in discussing the content and the sources provided. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I should also note, the discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing. Rob984 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Rob984, you're wrong about policy. There is no exemption to WP:3RR for WP:NOR (as you stated in one of your edit summaries). See WP:3RRNO. You've clearly breached 3RR, and the only reason I haven't blocked you is because your views seem to be misguided but possibly held in good faith. That said, you can avoid a block if you promise not to edit the article for seven days. You would still be able to edit the talk page. GhostlyLegend, if you're going strictly by the book, you first give a warning of edit-warring. Then, if the editor persists, you file a report here and use the notice template at the top of this page to inform them of this discussion. I didn't bother doing it for you because I saw that Murry1975 had effectively done so, although without the template.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- All noted, the first time I've had to do this and the process is a bit laborious.
- GhostlyLegend (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I realised it isn't an exception, I was just giving an explanation for surpassing 3 reverts. I reverted because as far as I am aware, the material on that article is unsourced and included on the basis of editors conclusions drawn from the sources provided. You don't seem to fully understand the situation. Nonetheless, I won't argue. Rob984 (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Rob984, you must respond to the 7-day condition. BTW, this is a quote from your edit summary: "Removing original research per WP:NOR. WP:NOR is an exception to the WP:3RR."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and I was wrong, but I realised that before I commented here. It's also irrelevant to the fact that WP:NOR is a policy that should be enforced. I don't have a choice, so yes, I will abide by the 7-day condition. Rob984 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's really not unreasonable to want unsourced material removed, pending a discussion. I'm not sure how I'm 'misguided' and only 'possibly' acting in good faith. I've contributed all of the sources to the article section in question. Clearly I'm edit warring to be disruptive... Rob984 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me and the intersection of policies. In this instance, the edit warring policy trumps the content policies. You have no idea how many times users edit-war and say it's justified because they were "right" and the other party was "wrong". I'm not commenting on the content or the relative positions of the different editors here, just on the conduct policy itself. When I said you were "misguided", it had nothing to do with your content dispute, but with your understanding of policy. Anyway, with your acceptance of the condition, I consider the matter closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Rob984, you must respond to the 7-day condition. BTW, this is a quote from your edit summary: "Removing original research per WP:NOR. WP:NOR is an exception to the WP:3RR."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Result: I'm marking this as closed per agreement to a voluntary restriction. User:Rob984 will not edit the article again for seven days. The restriction expires on 19 October at 18:23 UTC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Rob984, you're wrong about policy. There is no exemption to WP:3RR for WP:NOR (as you stated in one of your edit summaries). See WP:3RRNO. You've clearly breached 3RR, and the only reason I haven't blocked you is because your views seem to be misguided but possibly held in good faith. That said, you can avoid a block if you promise not to edit the article for seven days. You would still be able to edit the talk page. GhostlyLegend, if you're going strictly by the book, you first give a warning of edit-warring. Then, if the editor persists, you file a report here and use the notice template at the top of this page to inform them of this discussion. I didn't bother doing it for you because I saw that Murry1975 had effectively done so, although without the template.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Crim000 reported by User:Amortias (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Adam Gray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Crim000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 21:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC) "fixed poorly reference sections"
- Consecutive edits made from 03:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC) to 03:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- 03:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "removed poorly referenced materials"
- 03:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
- 17:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
- 17:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- Warned. Crim000, the only reason I'm not blocking you for violating WP:3RR is because part of what you removed from the article was a violation of WP:BLP, which is an exemption from edit warring. Frankly, I don't think that was your intention as you removed material that should not have been removed, and if you attempt to do so again, you will be blocked without notice. I've cleaned up the article (an unusual step for me) because of the BLP issues, which means that principally I removed the material about whether he was a lecturer, etc. That material was sourced to two places. First, to a blog, which is not acceptable for negative BLP material, and the other to a source that is now a dead link. It's possible to re-add that material but only if it is reliably sourced and also passes muster under our policies.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Wikicorrected reported by User:Amortias (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Adam Gray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Wikicorrected (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629223630. Previous information was not poorly sourced and is initially being removed."
- Consecutive edits made from 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC) to 14:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629259036 by Crim000 (talk)"
- 14:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "Crim000 should be reported for removing well-sourced information that conforms to rules of living persons. Undid revision 629258997 by Crim000 (talk)"
- 17:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629327493 by Crim000 (talk)"
- 17:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "A talk has been started with Crim000 regarding disruptive practices of edit warring and guidelines regarding living persons. Undid revision 629330192 by Crim000 (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
User:99.227.245.147 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: )
Page: Luke Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.227.245.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64] (user talk page); [65] (another editor on the article talk page)
Comments: There are WP:BLP issues involved, and as far as I can tell, putting this problem aside, the user has not constructively edited in other areas of the project and been warned about it. Although the article could be semi-protected, the user should be sanctioned because of the problematic edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
User:107.204.173.9 reported by User:Stickee (Result: Semi)
- Page
- Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 107.204.173.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC) ""
- 00:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
- 04:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
- 17:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
- 23:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 06:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (TW)"
- Comments:
172.56.17.100 (talk) is the same person. Warring with no less than 3 others (not including myself; I haven't participated). Stickee (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Semi'd by HJ Mitchell. Stickee (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Goblinshark17 reported by User:Juno (Result: 24 hours)
Page: United States pro-life movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goblinshark17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [66]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]
User has been warned a few times, has been warned specifically about this page and has warned others against edit warring on this article. User was given a chance to self-revert [70].
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]
Comments:
Article is subject to 1RR Community Sanctions per WP:ARBAB. User has been warned about this on this page specifically and has warned other people against edit warring on this page. User chose to make 2 reverts in 20 minutes and chose to not self-revert. Juno (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not edit-warring against them; they're edit warring aginst me! I inserted the word "occasionally"; it was taken out several times by user Juno. I inserted the related word "occasional"; this was taken out as well. There is no question that the word is appropriate in the article. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Juno reported by User:GoblinShark17 (Result: )
User:Juno has edit warred against me, removing my edit several times despite my repeated warnings that doing so would be EDIT WARRING.
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts, similar to same violation on 10/11. Editor was warned explicitly and given a chance to revert. Kuru (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Juno reported by User:Goblinshark17 (Result: no violation)
Page: United States pro-life movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Juno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
<Talk:United States pro-life movement> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See the TALK page, the header: "RTLs are subject to violence and criminal intimidation, but only occasionally"
Comments:
User Juno is editwarring aginst me, taking out my edits repeatedly. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have not violated 1RR, in spirit or in letter. I was not warned of edit warring, nor was I notified of this report. Juno (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User Juno was warned on the TALK page that I would report edit warring if she/he removed the word "occasionally" from the article, which has been removed several times. Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1. To be fair, other users may be involved with the repeated reversions of my edits. In particular, USER:Cloonmore may be involved. Can two users engage in coordinated "edit-warring"???
2. What does "Diff" mean??? Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- 2. Its the "difference" between revisions. You can seem more at WP:Diff. Juno (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- No violation. I don't see the necessary two reverts, and no other information has been provided. No, multiple users reverting you does not count as a "group revert". This appears to also be a retalitatory report that is likely to lead to a topic ban if you continue to edit this way on articles with discretionary sanctions activated. Kuru (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Herzen reported by User:Stickee (Result: No action)
- Page
- Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Herzen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- [76] (and the ~140 comments in the talk in the last 24hrs)
- Comments:
4 reverts in 7 hours. Stickee (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I am confused. 20:20, 12 October 2014 is claimed to be a revert. But placing a POV tag on the article was a new edit I made in response to the discussion in Talk. Just because someone had placed a POV tag on this article before, does that mean that anytime someone places a POV tag on the article again, that counts as a revert? If so, that is a very strange policy. And one can see that I had no idea that such a policy exists from this comment, in which I say that "I only made two reverts", in response to the accusation that I had made three. – Herzen (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think that we can assume good faith and believe that Herzen did not know that this would be counted as a revert. Still, this seems like a bit of gaming, and revert counting, trying to tip-toe right up to the bright line. The sensible suggestion here is for Herzen to self revert. Volunteer Marek 04:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Still, I would like clarification from administrators on whether putting a POV tag on an article counts as a revert just because someone had placed a POV tag on the article earlier, no matter how long before. If it does, I think that policy should be changed. Someone can put a POV tag on an article when the article is completely different from the previous time a POV tag was placed on it, so it makes little sense to count the new placement of a POV tag as a revert, since the context would be completely different. – Herzen (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'd guess that some of this would depend on how recent the previous edit war was, whether the POV tag is placed for the same or different reason (nb, you didn't actually justify the tag on talk as required) and whether or not the person can be reasonably believed to be aware of previous issues. Volunteer Marek 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Still, I would like clarification from administrators on whether putting a POV tag on an article counts as a revert just because someone had placed a POV tag on the article earlier, no matter how long before. If it does, I think that policy should be changed. Someone can put a POV tag on an article when the article is completely different from the previous time a POV tag was placed on it, so it makes little sense to count the new placement of a POV tag as a revert, since the context would be completely different. – Herzen (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note. Closed with no action. Herzen, I think most admins would look at the context of the tag addition and whether it's a continuation of something or brand new. They would also look at your explanation. I'm taking into account the fact that you self-reverted, but you should be aware that even if one doesn't count the first edit as a revert, you reverted three times, meaning you edit-warred over the tag. You can be blocked for edit warring even without a breach of 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Janagewen reported by User:Janagewen (Result: Blocked)
Page: Template:.NET Framework version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User talk:Codename Lisa (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), User talk:FleetCommand (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Janagewen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user changed the date format of Template:.NET Framework version history, said lots of improper or dirty words on other users' talk page.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
For Jeh's "Huh? What?" in [80]
For FleetCommand's "Reverted 2 edits by Janagewen: WP:DATESNO says don't touch this. Let me remind you: You once got blocked here. Continuing to refuse to get the point on your part is not to anyone's benefit" in [81]
I report this user, Janagewen, I, myself. Because I feel myself a shit after knowing them on earth.
User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked; warned)
Page: M. S. Golwalkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [82]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- diff 01:34, 10 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (12,917 bytes) (-846) . . (There is no discussion that says SG, or "The Hindu" is not reliable. Making consensus on the article talk page BeforE such significant edits will be highly appreciated. New section already made.) ]
- diff 05:36, 10 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (11,463 bytes) (-2,266) . . ("also known as 'Shri Guruji remains as per talk page consensus. Jaff is indeed informative, thanks Kautilya! "Forgotten" was an opinion piece which was shown as inaccurate subsequently in the same newspaper.) ]
- diff 05:55, 10 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (12,513 bytes) (+1,049) . . (There are two reference here. It provides a view differeing from Jaff. It was there in the article from long and there is no express reason to purge these two reference without discussion. SG is neither follower of Glowalkar nor RSS member.)]
- diff 13:16, 12 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (14,964 bytes) (-410) . . (Remove opinion piece. Put back TOI -- it is WP:RS.) (undo | thank)]
- diff 10:27, 13 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (15,000 bytes) (-374) . . (Undid revision 629420475 WP:BRD and WP:3RR says when contentious addition is reverted reverted, a consensus on article talk page has to be obtained "before" reinserting it. Not the other way round.)]
- diff 10:38, 13 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (15,000 bytes) (-374) . . (Undid revision 629421165 by Kautilya3 (talk) Kindly restrain from edit war, there is discussion on talk page. I was improving the reference by adding date while you nuked it yet again. Please.)]
- diff 11:14, 13 October 2014 AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs) . . (16,186 bytes) (+812) . . (→Leadership of RSS: S. Gurumurthy is reliable. This reference was in the article at least since June 2014 and is discussed in the talk page also. There are four other independent publsiher mentioned on talk page.)]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The subject seems to believe that the version before the edit [1] was "stable" and any changes to it must be somehow approved by him!
There was also a related discussion on my talk page [84], which was opened by the subject after he did his first revert. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I recommend full protection for 2 weeks. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have not 'reverted' Kautilya3's content after his warning and have not breached WP:3RR, I stepped back. Kautilya3 has reverted me thrice just now after explicitly stating he will be reverting me every time on the article talk page and on my talk page. He reverted thrice just now without leaving any response on article talk page discussion or edit summary. (1, 2, 3). Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 12:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Edit 1, was first edit where I undid the contentious deletion of long standing referenced content with exactly opposite meaning content from a dubious reference and posted on editor talk page and article talk page about my concerns in a neutral manner immediately.
- Edit 2, it can be clearly checked that I was editing as per talk page consensus and it was repeated after me by another admin too, this is noted in the edit summary too. I even thanked kautilya3 for it in the edit summary as well his talk page.
- Edit 7, is after a gap of 4 days and explicitly discussed on talk page and three other references also provided. It is by a reputed journalist S. Gurumurthy in a reliable source (The Hindu) which was in the article from several months. If that counts as a revert I am okay to self-revert it. --AmritasyaPutraT 12:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing changed in the career of S. Gurumurthy between 10 October and 13 October to make him suddenly reliable. The same reasons given for his unreliability on the 10th October still stand. Your 7th edit reinserts his material, completely ignoring all the points that have been given to you on the talk page. You knew that it was problematic revert and you did it anyway. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment by JJ: stop arguing now, and leave it to an admin. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Joshua Jonathan, I suggest you have a heart-to-heart with your mentee. The basis for the duration of the block is a fairly recent block for edit warring. The block itself is based on a breach of 3RR (yes, the fourth edit restoring material counts), for previous battling behavior on the article, and for a lack of insight into their conduct. Not that it matters, but what admin is the user referring to?
- Warned. Kautilya3, you are not blameless in this battle. Although you did not breach 3RR, you reverted three times, and I came within a hair's breadth of blocking you for it. Also, my block of AmritasyaPutra does not give you license to revert their latest edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Thank you for your decision. I know that I have pushed the user to the 3RR point (and breaching it was his own choice), but I felt that, as long as his version was sitting on the article talk page, AmritasyaPutra was not going to engage in a meaningful discussion on the talk page. He was merely rehashing the same arguments heard for the last 3 days. If you can tell me what I can do differently, I will be glad to adopt it. (As you know this particular user has this behaviour. He has been here twice already, and the first time he actually got saved because I helped him.) Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Stoney1976 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )
Page: Hydraulic fracturing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stoney1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
The three articles without the tag. Simple.
Diffs of the user's reverts: User has gone on a massive campaign tagging fracking articles, after I made a bunch of edits yesterday to deal with tagged issues in the articles and bring them into alignment.
- Hydraulic fracking
- added tag with no discussion on talk
- reverted to add tag back
- reverted to add tag back
- Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing
- Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States
This is all without any discussion of the issues on Talk. After repeated warnings user introduced nonspecific and WP:NPA discussion under header "Concerns about massive POV edits" that said "Believe fresh eyes could do this article some good, hence POV tag."
User is new but this behavior is bad. This is not an authentic effort to discuss concrete concerns.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
- just blew up this morning. hard to engage when user will not articulate clear issues. asked user to in edit notes!
- asked what issue is on article Talk
This kind of campaigning is just ugly behavior. User has not articulated any clear complaint. Clearly doesn't trust me! But that is dealing with contributor, not content. Suggest a block to teach Stoney that we talk about concrete concerns with content based on what WP:PAG actually say (and their spirit of course)
This discussion reported to user here
Comments:
User:Monart reported by User:NeilN (Result: )
- Page
- Aécio Neves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Monart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629392236 by 50.12.118.188 (talk) removing vandalism"
- 12:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629423889 by 212.243.10.250 (talk) vandalism removed"
- 14:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629431894 by 212.243.10.250 (talk)"
- 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
- 14:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629444556 by NeilN (talk) this is undoubtful reference"
- 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629444995 by NeilN (talk) this is mainstream news reference"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 14:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Aécio Neves. (TW)"
- 14:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Aécio Neves. (TW)"
- 14:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Read WP:BLP */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Edit warring to introduce highly controversial BLP info with poor sourcing. Note I will be reverting per BLP. NeilN talk to me 15:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)