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:Farhoudk reported by User:Viewfinder (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.)
Page: Mount Damavand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farhoudk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] and several subsequent edits
Comments:
Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.
I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)
User:Mthinkcpp reported by User:84.127.80.114 (Result: IP warned)
Page: Debian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mthinkcpp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]
Comments:
The user claims to be the target of personal attacks. I do question the neutrality of this user and I pointed to a precedent where content was removed despite an ongoing discussion.
The user requests help from the administrators to block my edits. JamesBWatson has warned me to not edit war. I am not edit warring. I am trying to resolve a disagreement by discussion, as can be seen in the Debian talk page. Users that revert my edits refuse to talk. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Warned. There's no violation by Mthinkcpp. To the extent anyone has edit-warred, it is 84.127.80.114, and that was a few days ago, for which they were properly warned by James, who also went to the trouble of explaining at great length how the policy works. As far as I can tell, 84 has no consensus for the changes they wish to make to the article. If they persist in being disruptive in the article, they risk being blocked without any further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached for the last changes I did. Besides, I marked that the sections are disputed, which obviously are. Is Bbb23 stating that these sections are not disputed? Does Bbb23 find mthinkcpp's refusal to talk an acceptable behavior? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Bdell555 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page: Edward Snowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bdell555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [13]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [14] 15:08, February 20, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..." New addition. Not a revert.
- [15] 00:33, February 21, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."
- [16] 07:56, February 22, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."
- [17] 08:13, February 22, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."
- [18] 08:20, February 22, 2014. "An anonymous Pentagon official told BuzzFeed..."
- [19] 18:05, February 22, 2014. Adds "Kucherena had also expressed his concern for Snowden's safety the previous August." New addition. Not a revert.
- [20] 00:45, February 23, 2014. "Kucherena had also expressed his concern for Snowden's safety the previous August."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21] 01:40, February 21, 2014
[22] 08:28, February 22, 2014
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]
Comments:
Bdell555 is quite active at the Snowden biography; he has been reverting various editors steadily for months, along with adding new material. In the last month he made 50 edits. He discusses issues on the talk page, but he does not wait until consensus emerges before making more changes to the article. The series of four reversions shown above is preceded by two edits, one where Bdell555 creates new text, another where he reverts to his preferred version, then three more reversions to his preferred version. Another edit is shown where he adds new text, then the fourth reversion within 24 hours is his restoration of his preferred version. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, no it isn't, since what you call #4 is not in any part a reversion to or "restoration of" #1, #2, or #3. I'd add that nothing in edit #4 has ever been disputed on the Talk page, my justification for it just sitting there unresponded to while you revert it without any Talk page response to me. One could argue that the fact you have been edit warring over #4 implies your opposition to all elements of #4, but given your well chronicled habit of reverting me without even looking at the content you are reverting, it's entirely possible you have no objection to the elements of your reversion that your edit summaries never address. Now no doubt someone somehow will find a technical violation here regardless (I see now the possibility of my being prosecuted over a single letter: my removing an "s" from "Pentagon official" in accordance with the fact that the source cited never refers to more than one Pentagon official) and see fit to educate me as to the finer points of 3RR, to which I say in advance I stand corrected. I would just refer this admonisher to what I have to say about this attitude on my user page, and ask Binksternet why he can't find the time to engage on the article Talk page but can find the time to put this little presentation together (complete with a "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" that is conveniently left undated since it would predate no less than 10 Talk page comments that I have made since that time. On the rare occasion when you have made one of your fleeting appearances on the Talk page, Binksternet, you've been known to make a comment that reveals that you never bothered to read the thread! It was only after repeatedly requesting on your user Talk page your participation on the article Talk page that you were inclined to engage even on that cursory level! When I once replied to you, Binksternet, to say that "I'm seeing a refusal to engage here on this Talk page," recall that another editor promptly followed up my comment to say "I agree wholeheartedly with Brian in this case. This is an excellent example of WP:IDHT. We must be able to engage in our fellow editors' arguments if we are to edit productively on contentious subjects." Have you come here expecting an endorsement of this refusal to engage?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Le Grand Bleu reported by User:NeilN (Result:Blocked 31hr )
- Page
- Sami Jauhojärvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Le Grand Bleu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "Go to talk page if you want to explain your vandalism."
- 23:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism."
- 03:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Still waiting for explanations on talk page. Until then you two are vandals removing sourced info."
- 06:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Yet another vandal, removing sourced information without proper discussion."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sami Jauhojärvi. using TW"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ new section"
- Comments:
Multiple editors reverted NeilN talk to me 06:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've asked ALL participants to go to talk page and explain WHY they're reverting my perfectly legitimate edit. The edit war instigator was a Finnish administrator Prolog who is in a conflict of interest since the article is about a Finnish Olympic athlete. I've asked him in the edit summary, I asked him on his page to stop the war and go to the talk page. I got no response other than threats of blocking. Same from NeilN - without any explanation he reverted my edit and went to complain here. MAYBE I'm wrong but isn't it more productive (and less time consuming) to go to the article's talk page and have a... talk? When done by an administrator, say, Prolog, it might even set a positive trend. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are reverting three different editors, classifying them as vandals. Clear edit summaries were provided and talk page discussion was opened. --NeilN talk to me 06:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are not for discussing opinions. The talk page discussion was opened barely 20 minutes ago while the edit war started yesterday. People who remove legitimate information or add rubbish are called vandals. Even if there are three of them, they still are just that - vandals. Threats of blocking by an administrator to another user in a situation of conflict of interest is severe abuse of administrator's rights. Are you ready to call off the war and start talking now? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Get consensus for your addition as you don't have it so far. Until then, leave the contentious material out. You might want to cool off a bit more as your edits still echo of this. --NeilN talk to me 06:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- No. It's not contentious material. It's sourced information included in another article where it was not contended. It's bare facts, nothing else as explained on the talk page. If you don't like it, that's YOUR problem. So far I haven't seen ONE good reason why it shouldn't be included. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Get consensus for your addition as you don't have it so far. Until then, leave the contentious material out. You might want to cool off a bit more as your edits still echo of this. --NeilN talk to me 06:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are not for discussing opinions. The talk page discussion was opened barely 20 minutes ago while the edit war started yesterday. People who remove legitimate information or add rubbish are called vandals. Even if there are three of them, they still are just that - vandals. Threats of blocking by an administrator to another user in a situation of conflict of interest is severe abuse of administrator's rights. Are you ready to call off the war and start talking now? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are reverting three different editors, classifying them as vandals. Clear edit summaries were provided and talk page discussion was opened. --NeilN talk to me 06:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Fifth revert on a BLP. --NeilN talk to me 06:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- NeilN chose to continue the war instead of having a proper discussion and listening to the opponent. I'm leaving this up to the admins. I refuse to deal with bullies. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've protected the page due to the edit war, and recommend that all the involved editors discuss the article on the talk page in the intervening 4 days to reach a consensus. I would also like to remind everyone to stay Civil and avoid Personal Attacks, vandalism is by definition a deliberate attempt to undermine Wikipedia, good faith edits (even in an edit war) are generally not vandalism and accusations such as that undermine discussion and make reaching a productive consensus considerably harder. Best, Mifter (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose reverting good faith and sourced edits just because someone doesn't like it doesn't undermine the discussion? Not going to talk to these two. They are hostile, selfish, counter productive and generally detrimental to WP. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- One would think Le Grand Bleu is speaking of himself. He has been calling other editors vandals, and he is the one edit-warring (he's been reverted by four other editors), he is the one refusing to discuss (see above), nonetheless he calls for people stop making ad hominem attacks, stop edit-warring, and start discussing, he is hostile, selfish, etc. I welcome anyone that might stray here to check LGB's contributions, especially to this discussions. Black is white, and white is black, it seems. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Update: I checked LGB's alternative account, BadaBoom, and it appears that he is Russian. Considering that he has accused one of the reverting editors, User:Prolog (who is Finnish), for having a conflict of interest (Jauhojärvi is also Finnish), it's no big surprise to note that the silver medalist in the race involving the controversy, and who was also affected by Jauyhojärvi's infraction, is – you guessed it – Russian. Fits the pattern above: LGB accuses others of doing exactly what he does himself. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- One would think Le Grand Bleu is speaking of himself. He has been calling other editors vandals, and he is the one edit-warring (he's been reverted by four other editors), he is the one refusing to discuss (see above), nonetheless he calls for people stop making ad hominem attacks, stop edit-warring, and start discussing, he is hostile, selfish, etc. I welcome anyone that might stray here to check LGB's contributions, especially to this discussions. Black is white, and white is black, it seems. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Given that there was a 3-1 consensus that LGB's edits were inappropriate, I think it would have been preferable to just deal with the problem editor. Someone might want to properly expand the article now while cross-country skiing and the Olympics are still in the news, and it's unlikely that anyone will join LGB's cause as the competition in question happened four days ago. Prolog (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose reverting good faith and sourced edits just because someone doesn't like it doesn't undermine the discussion? Not going to talk to these two. They are hostile, selfish, counter productive and generally detrimental to WP. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've protected the page due to the edit war, and recommend that all the involved editors discuss the article on the talk page in the intervening 4 days to reach a consensus. I would also like to remind everyone to stay Civil and avoid Personal Attacks, vandalism is by definition a deliberate attempt to undermine Wikipedia, good faith edits (even in an edit war) are generally not vandalism and accusations such as that undermine discussion and make reaching a productive consensus considerably harder. Best, Mifter (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours As they have a history of undisclosed accounts, please let me know if any such accounts show up to make similar edits DP 12:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- It would probably be prudent to keep an eye on BadaBoom, to see if that account becomes active again. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- A request for information about other accounts from the guy who, when asked by Jimbo to give up his admin tools, starting multi accounting to evade that request and then obscured the relationship between his accounts to the maximum extent he could get away with.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Can't keep a good ursid down! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
User:139.193.101.49 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- List of Columbia Pictures films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 139.193.101.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Add Disney films to Columbia Pictures film library"
- 07:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Columbia Pictures released Disney films since 1937"
- 07:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Columbia Pictures is the first Disney Distributor"
- 07:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
- 07:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
- 06:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
- 06:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
- 06:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Warned by User:Geraldo Perez and User:Crboyer, this IP is linked to a known vandal as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is block evasion by 139.194.86.250 (talk · contribs), who is currently serving a 10-day block for the same sort of edits. Deor (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- We may want a range block, but it looks to my barely-trained eye like it would have to be a very big one. The IPs are Indonesian, but I don't know if that helps with finding any history on the person behind these. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 10 days for block evasion, as well as the underlying problems with the edits themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Mar4d reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )
- Page
- Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 596772729 by Mar4d (talk): No, and use the talk page. And please do not abuse rollback. (TW)"
- 13:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 596772253 by Mar4d (talk): Wrong DS, there was long discussion on what constitutes WP:DUE for this article for months. Go through the archives, this is a violation. (TW)"
- 13:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 596618382 by Mar4d (talk): Revert, this was the original sentence; the new bit was added without consensus and is not factually correct. (TW)"
- 10:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC) "rmv distortion of old sentence and disputable fact"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 14:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 14:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Content removal */ new section"
- Comments:
Mar4d is removing a well sourced, and well known fact that the Taliban originated in Pakistan, the line itself has been in the article since at least 30 January 2014, as such that edit has consensus, and Mar4d is obviously not interested in using the talk page to get consensus Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, see here for consensus on the whole Taliban/Pakistan mess. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:3RR, for a series of edits to be considered an edit war, there must be 3 reverts in 24 hours. This legitimate removal of unsourced info that was added without consensus is not related to the edit war nor made on the same date. The edit war was started by DS, as seen in his first revert here where legitimately-removed and unsourced content was reinserted without consensus. Darkness Shines made 2 more reverts here and [24] (where rollback was also abused) so he is on 3RR. A talk page warning was also given. I have not crossed 3RR, but if an admin deems it as such, I can make the necessary adjustment. Darkness Shines must use the talk page and bring consensus for the article as sanctions can be applied on contentious edits to this article per a lengthy WP:NPOV discussion and per WP:ARBIPA. His edits are liable to a block. Mar4d (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's a fascinating interpretation of the policy. First, a violation of 3RR requires at least four reverts in a 24-hour window. Second, the edit you pick on was a revert. There is no exemption for your removal. That said, ironically, you did not violate 3RR because the four reverts were not within 24 hours. The first ended at 10:58 on February 22, and the last was at 14:05 on February 23.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- My bad, typo there. Yes, there are to be 4 reverts within a 24 hour time-frame for it to be considered crossing 3rr. And as the time stamp shows, there are not 4 reverts in 24 hours hence no 3RR. My first edit is not related and as the diffs show, the edit war was started by DS, who incidentally is sitting on 3RR btw. Mar4d (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The policy definition of a revert includes edits that are "unrelated". Both of you have edit warred. Your conduct, frankly, has been worse because you have made four reverts, regardless of the fact that the last occurred outside the 24-hour window. Nor do I think it's constructive to say that DS "started" the battle. I'm not delving into the previous discussions of the issue, but from what I can see, DS at least had a good-faith belief that your edit was against consensus. In any event, who "started" it sounds like something children say when they go to their parents for adjudication of a spat. One common parental response is, "I don't care who started it. I'm going to finish it." Think of me as the parent, although at this juncture I don't intend to take any action. I would just hope that content discussion will take the place of sniping.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- My bad, typo there. Yes, there are to be 4 reverts within a 24 hour time-frame for it to be considered crossing 3rr. And as the time stamp shows, there are not 4 reverts in 24 hours hence no 3RR. My first edit is not related and as the diffs show, the edit war was started by DS, who incidentally is sitting on 3RR btw. Mar4d (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Prasanthnnamboothiri reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Brahmin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 14:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverting as the administrators are deleting essential portions without reading or studying the content."
- 14:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Added citation needed tag as there is dispute."
- 13:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Reverted as the essential part got deleted."
- 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Kerala */ Other than Nampoothiris, there are so many Brahmin castes in Kerala. So many references are available. You may make a search. But, recent references will be practically difficult as now a days no body in Kerala writes about the Caste System."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 14:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Brahmin. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Reverted by 3 different editors Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:B. Fairbairn reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- User being reported
- B. Fairbairn (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
- Comments:
User was blocked for removing images appropriate to international relations from multiple pages. Editor has returned to doing so again. Editor is also making policy or guideline decisions such as Image depicting violence inappropriate. This is a large-scale edit war across multiple articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- On several of the page edits made today, others objected immediately. I removed a few others to leave in a pre-edit state until this dispute is resolved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- See
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#User:B._Fairbairn
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#User:B._Fairbairn_again, possibly part of the reason blocked.
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive235#User:B._Fairbairn_reported_by_User:Walter_G.C3.B6rlitz_.28Result:_Blocked.29, which is where the editor was blocked for 48 hours.
- That was more than two weeks ago. The editor took a break, made the dozen or so edits reported here, and then came to my talk page and told me to try to get over it after they were completed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Wdcraven reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result:Blocked )
Page: Global warming conspiracy theory
User being reported: Wdcraven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Pre edit war stable diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- First Revert (Section blanking) 02:48, 23 February 2014
- Second revert 12:18 and 12:20, 23 February 2014
- Third revert 12:28 and 12:32, 23 February 2014
- Fourth revert 12:50 and 12:53, 23 February 2014
- >>>>> 3RR warning at user's talk page 13:37, 23 February 2014
- Fifth revert 13:53, 23 February 2014
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]
- Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Haven't bothered, obvious POV vandalism
- Diff of notice about this complaint is here
Comments:
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, NewsAndEventsGuy, I like your report presentation, particularly the edit warring warning in the same list as the reverts. My only "complaint" is it would be better to use UTC.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- ThanksBbb23, I just set my pref to UTC; it used to be that way and I don't remember tweaking it. Oh well. Thanks again, carry on NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Turdunamaki reported by User:Mohsen1248 (Result: Indeffed)
Page: AVC Club Volleyball Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Turdunamaki (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]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This user a sockpupput of User:پارسا آملی, I have already reported him here but it's a long process and I don't know when they will consider it. and I'm already in edit war with him. you just can find it by checking the page history, there is no doubt he is the same person as he accepted it in his talk page by his usual personal attacks. Mohsen1248 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result:No violation )
- Page
- Arya (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 03:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* As actor */ no source no matter how reliable can verify an event as happening in the future"
- Consecutive edits made from 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC) to 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 596803697 by Editor 2050 (talk) WP:BURDEN"
- 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) "/* As actor */ replacement of same sources that dont appropriately verify claims WP:BURDEN the subject cannot be the one verifying state of project due to COI"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
He keeps removing well-sourced content about upcoming events, due to his obsession with WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. He also keeps fighting with experienced editors. Evidence of his actions are available on his contributions page. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- No violation here - Consecutive edits count as one, and there's only three lots. Removing unreferenced/poorly referenced information from a BLP is also an exemption from 3RR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Luke, how do you explain his wars with users Krimuk90, Editor 2050, Sriram Vikram and all? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- If we're talking about this article, then there is no 3RR violation, or even close. Two of those three editors had no involvement with the article you've linked to. Editor 2050 has tried to add poorly sourced, partially sourced, or completely unsourced information, some of which is OR; neither Meagamann nor Purampokku are confirmed as 2014 films, and WP:COMMONSENSE does not make including guesses a valid thing to do, least of all in a BLP. TRPOD should be commended for their fight against BLP violations (which adding improperly sourced information into a BLP classifies as), not dragged to AN3 for a clearly invalid case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can verify that he has started an edit war on Zombie, calling a serious phobia a "joke."23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Curiouscrab0 | talk | contribs - Please see [26] for Curiouscrab0's idea of a WP:MEDRS. TRPOD's talk page may be filled with complaints, but the other editors lack clue about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 23:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Luke, how do you explain his wars with users Krimuk90, Editor 2050, Sriram Vikram and all? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at the first diff cited by Kailash, TRPOD was removing claims from a BLP that weren't supported by the cited references. TRPOD's edits were therefore completely appropriate. The material removed was essentially speculation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- No violation DP 23:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Atotalstranger reported by User:Cassianto (Result:Page protected )
Page: Skyfall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Atotalstranger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]
Comments:
This user is reverting, despite being invited into a discussion on the talk page. He has clearly breached 3rr now and has deleted my warning asking him not to revert any more. Cassianto (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll comment that this user has been blocked for edit warring before (Sept 2013). Those notifications and warnings were also deleted from his talk page at the time. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- In lieu of blocking 3 different people who are horrifically edit-warring (Schro, Cass, Stranger), Page protected DP 23:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Massyparcer reported by User:IJBall (Result: )
Page: Seoul Metropolitan Subway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Massyparcer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 15:59, 23 February 2014
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 22:17, 23 February 2014
- Revision as of 22:38, 23 February 2014
- Revision as of 23:24, 23 February 2014
- Revision as of 23:45, 24 February 2014
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: at 23:42, 23 February 2014
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]
Yes - User:BsBsBs did attempt to resolve this issue at the Talk page of Seoul Metropolitan Subway.
Note: That I am an interested third-party, not directly involved in this current Edit War.
Comments:
The edit at Seoul Metropolitan Subway was reverted a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot. The user is gaming the system, especially considering that, at 03:04, 24 February 2014, three hours after the third revert, the editor had declared his intent to continue the edit war.
Previous to this edit warring, the account
- Massyparcer received an edit warring warning by an admin a just 5 days into the account existence
- The user received a temporary block for edit warring at List of metro systems. (Please see: [35]).
- The account is a Single Purpose Account, dedicated to portray the Seoul Metropolitan Subway as the world's greatest. See: contribution log.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. --IJBall (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I was about to file a report against this user as well based on IJBall's and BsBsBs's evidence (also as an uninvolved editor). Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well Epicgenius is an involved editor who has just reverted without giving any edit summaries. User:BsBsBs has not attempted to resolve this issue - He only posted inappropriate content on the talk page which were irrelevant to the issue at hand. Admin User:BrownHairedGirl has already punished BsBsBs and me for edit warring to a 1RR rule on her talk page, so this is just recycled stuff. Also, I have no interest in portraying anything in any light and simply wish this encyclopedia to reflect the truth. If anything User:BsBsBs could be accused of the same trait if you look at that editor's contributions. Massyparcer (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The only way in which I was involved is in the sense that I was the text's original writer. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not true. You are the one who reverted it in the latest revert: [36] Massyparcer (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was reverting to the version beforehand because it had one source. Epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- That source merely introduced Korail and had nothing to do with your claim of right-hand, left-hand track. You quoted Wikipedia articles as a source, which you shouldn't be doing as they're considered unreliable. Massyparcer (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then how come it was on Korean Wikipedia? Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The Korean Wiki articles you quoted have no sources to begin with. Massyparcer (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then how come it was on Korean Wikipedia? Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- That source merely introduced Korail and had nothing to do with your claim of right-hand, left-hand track. You quoted Wikipedia articles as a source, which you shouldn't be doing as they're considered unreliable. Massyparcer (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was reverting to the version beforehand because it had one source. Epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not true. You are the one who reverted it in the latest revert: [36] Massyparcer (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The only way in which I was involved is in the sense that I was the text's original writer. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well Epicgenius is an involved editor who has just reverted without giving any edit summaries. User:BsBsBs has not attempted to resolve this issue - He only posted inappropriate content on the talk page which were irrelevant to the issue at hand. Admin User:BrownHairedGirl has already punished BsBsBs and me for edit warring to a 1RR rule on her talk page, so this is just recycled stuff. Also, I have no interest in portraying anything in any light and simply wish this encyclopedia to reflect the truth. If anything User:BsBsBs could be accused of the same trait if you look at that editor's contributions. Massyparcer (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Srnec reported by User:EeuHP (Result:Stale)
Pages: Petronilla of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user Srnec violated the rule of three reversals. He started an edit war with me when he changed an image that had been there since 2011 in the article Peter III of Aragon. In total, he made five changes. Nobody realized this. So I present this complaint.
But this wasn't the first time. In the article Petronilla of Aragon, war started when I disapproved a change made by he a few months ago and Srnec also violated the rule.
And I'm not the only person who had a discussion with him for his idea of put only images or things made during the life of the person in the "image" section. [46][47][48].--EeuHP (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
- You know this went stale a month ago, right? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- And even worse, this was presented just two days after your block expired for your actions on these very articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I could not report it before because I was locked one month. But the complaint is true, you can see the links. More of three reversals = violation of the rule. If no one made the complaint (as I asked) is my duty to do it.--EeuHP (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- EeuHP, you should just stop and start being actually helpful to this encyclopedia. --Lecen (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, we're not talking about me now. And I haven't done anything wrong. I have returned the article to the previous version, before the discussion, and I have opened a space on the Talk Page to discuss and reach consensus. Nothing more. If that's bad, I don't know what is to be useful.--EeuHP (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Stale This is more stale than the slice of bread I found under the stove - and just as mouldy. User:EeuHP, you need to recognize that when you report someone, your actions also come under the microscope - and you were also failing to follow WP:DR. Please do not waste this board's time by posting month-old issues - this board is intend to stop current incidents of 3RR and EW violations DP 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Srnec reported by User:EeuHP by violation of the three reversals (Result:Stale, still)
Pages: Petronilla of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user Srnec violated the rule of three reversals. He started an edit war with me when he changed an image that had been there since 2011 in the article Peter III of Aragon. In total, he made five changes. Nobody realized this. So I present this complaint.
But this wasn't the first time. In the article Petronilla of Aragon, war started when I disapproved a change made by he a few months ago and Srnec also violated the rule.
And I'm not the only person who had a discussion with him for his idea of put only images or things made during the life of the person in the "image" section. [58][59][60].
And in the rules don't say that the infractions have date of expire.--EeuHP (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is becoming disruptive. See WP:ANI and my talkpage. Stop already. Forum-shopping in unacceptable, as is your personal edit warring DP 01:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closing this as stale. We don't block punitively for month-old disputes, end of story. Please don't report this again. It won't do you any good and will eventually (if not already) be viewed as disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
User: 70.50.217.198 reported by User: Hooperag (Result: )
Page: Abbas Babaei
User being reported: 70.50.217.198
Previous version reverted to: [61]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]
Comments:
The user; 70.50.217.198 is adding content to the article of Abbas Babaei which is deemed inappropriate for his article. The user is using strong opnion based passages from a book that label Mr. Abbas Babaei as "notorious" and "merciless" the user 70.50.217.198 claims this to be "factual" yet it is extremely objective and opinion based. Mr Abbas Babaei (of whom the article is written about) was killed roughly 25 years ago during the Iran-Iraq war he is considered a hero by many and deeply respected by many. His family is still alive including his wife, sons, and daughter. Such as passage as the one by 70.50.217.198 is not appropriate in the article of someone who has lived in the very recent past.
Additionally the user 70.50.217.198 has acted very impulsively and in an improper manner for a Wikipedia editor to do so. He has also added comments that reek of racism or annoyance based on my beliefs. This can be seen on ym talk page where at the end of his post to me he say ALLAHU AKBAER, this comment of his has hurt me and reeks of religious intolerance towards me.
I therefore request the user 70.50.217.198 be blocked from further engaging in Wikipedia or its articles.
Thank you,
Hooperag (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
User:94.46.3.195 reported by User:Tiller54 (Result:Blocked 24hr )
Page: Godfrey Bloom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.46.3.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [69]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74] [75]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]
Comments: