|
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
||
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so. |
||||
|
||||
Definition of edit warring | ||||
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. | ||||
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) | ||||
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. | ||||
Noticeboard archives |
Contents
- 1 User:Dillipan reported by User:220 of Borg (Result: Blocked)
- 2 User:BöriShad reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indef)
- 3 User:Butterley Engineering reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Username block)
- 4 User:Olehal09 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: User agreement)
- 5 User:Gunbirddriver reported by User:EyeTruth (Result: No violation)
- 6 User:MiztuhX reported by User:Maile66 (Result: Fully protected)
- 7 User:95.56.14.240 reported by User:Calvin999 (Result: Blocked)
- 8 User:Basically blogging reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked)
- 9 User:Lights N reported by User:CorporateM (Result: Warned)
- 10 User:24.23.146.196 reported by User:Agtx (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- 11 User:はぐれがらす reported by User:Miracle dream (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- 12 User:SimpsonsMan1234 reported by User:68.37.227.226 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- 13 Musiclover john reported by User:Defgirl12 (Result: Page protected)
User:Dillipan reported by User:220 of Borg (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Dillipan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 03:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
- 12:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
- 23:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
- 09:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
- 09:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
- 09:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
As stated below, thought I have left many help and warning templates on their talk page, the only response has been to revert, especially the removal of valid maintenance templates. 220 of Borg
- Comments:
Editor has made no attempts to communicate. Has not used any summaries to explain their action in any way. Note this is a new fairly new editor ~ 220 edits in 2 years.
I have added personal notes to the end of the warning templates. 220 of Borg 10:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. Dillipan removed maintenance tags on July 9, 10 and 11 and has done a similar removal at Kosapet. He has never left a message on a talk page, nor has he responded to this edit warring complaint. Something is needed to get his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
User:BöriShad reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indef)
Page: Avar Khaganate ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Baghatur ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Bogatyr ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Atabeg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BöriShad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: []
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]
User notified:[9]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10],[11]
Comments:
User:BöriShad has been edit warring over a multitude of articles, with an extremely pro-Turkic POV. Anyone that disagrees with said user is subjected to edit-warring, foaming-at-the-mouth racist rants,[12][13][14][15][16], accusations of sockpuppetry,[17][18] and accusations of supposed ethnicity(I think you also an iranianvery typical for an superior aryan-iranian I believe this "editor" suffers from battleground mentality(ie. the constant edit warring) and is not here to build an encyclopedia but to right great wrongs against Turkic peoples(Page was cristal clear until iranians ruined it.That page edited by pan-iranians, check former version of that page. These page was quiet clear until pan-iranians destroyed them.). --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely – per WP:NOTHERE. The above complaint provides an apt summary of this user's behavior and tone of voice. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Butterley Engineering reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Username block)
- Page
- Butterley Company ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Butterley Engineering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC) ""
- 00:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "/* 21st century */"
- 00:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "/* 21st century */"
- Consecutive edits made from 00:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) to 00:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- 00:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Butterley Engineering is back."
- 00:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC) ""
- 00:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC) ""
- 00:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC) ""
- 00:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "/* 21st century */"
- 00:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Butterley Engineering is back."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 00:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
- 00:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Butterley Company. (TW)"
- 00:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Butterley Company. (TW)"
- 00:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Butterley Company. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User is repeatedly adding unsourced content, despite multiple warnings to add reliable sources. Username is also a blatant violation of the username policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – for username by User:Orangemike. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Olehal09 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: User agreement)
- Page
- White genocide conspiracy theory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Olehal09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Adding "allocation of guilt"."
- 02:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Please stop. We should only use secondary sources on such subject, peer reviews, acording to the guide lines. Neither do the book support your claim that all of these conspiracy theorists think about jews."
- 02:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 671050504 by YnysPrydein (talk) It don't. Such dubius sources should have peer reviews, and from proper academics. We are not in a position to judge material."
- 02:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 671049059 by YnysPrydein (talk) Book no peer reviews, states a lot of things without evidence or footnotes. Write on about their people, jews. Why? Not satisfactory."
- 01:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "I removed feminism and the stuff about the jews. Of what I have read those people are not mentioned."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Now at 3RR at Aryan - I was going to give this editor a 3RR warning for that but noticed that a 3RR warning was given this morning at 3:45am.[19]. He's not the only one over 3RR at White genocide conspiracy theory. Just to clarify, his latest edit removed " Jewish-driven mass ", one of the phrases being edit-warred over. Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty clear edit warring despite warnings. User has a strong POV which they seem to think overrides RS (see Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory#.22Jewish_driven.22_in_lead and User_talk:EvergreenFir#White_genocide_conspiracy_theory. So far I'm losing hope this editor can manage their POV and remain constructive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- The person I'm warring with are claiming two articles made by sociologist from a University overrides the other articles and sources on the page. I just can't agree with him because you can't base an article on some elements of a broader movement. If you are doing that we would destroy the whole encyclopedia. But I have udnerstood your points and agree, I will stop editing the article and wait for a conculsion. Olehal09 (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- Result: User has agreed to 'stop editing the article and wait for a conclusion'. I assume this means, he will wait for a talk page consensus that supports his changes before editing again. Meanwhile, another admin has semiprotected the article, which should help. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Gunbirddriver reported by User:EyeTruth (Result: No violation)
Enough. If this discussion needs to continue, it should do so elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page: Battle of Prokhorovka ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gunbirddriver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [20]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [21]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Comments:
The user Gunbirddriver has done only one revert so far, but I'm reporting this now (even though 3RR has not yet been violated) because he has a history of very aggressive edit-warring in which he tends to exercise his opinion as superior to what sources say, for which he has been banned before. This user has dragged me into his edit-warring before, and even fabricated accusations that got me banned, but when the admin that issued the ban later realized that they were false, he apologized and did his best to correct it. So I'm trying to avoid going through that again with Gunbirddriver. EyeTruth (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
(Cont'd). Over the past week, I've been working on the article to eventually prepare it for FA nomination. I'm familiar with the subject, and I contributed in getting it to GA status. So recently, I've been adding citations to passages in the article that didn't have any, adding more information to bring the article to FA quality, and doing general copy-editing. But yesterday the user Gunbirddriver changed several things related to the edits I made. A number of the changes he made were distinctively wrong (although some of them were constructive). For example, in THIS EDIT he changed what the cited source says and replaced it with his own original research. And in THIS EDIT, asserting that the passage, which is almost as is in the cited source, is wrong, he changes it by removing specific names and generalizing it. I corrected those edits, thanked him for the constructive ones and continued with the general copyediting on the article. Then he returned a few hours ago and simply reverted everything including the copyedits, and instructed that I take it all to the talkpage. He is essentially telling me to go to the talkpage and get permission to correct hyphens and dashes, correct singular verbs to plural, add commanders and citations, rephrase sentences to fit the article's coherent narrative, and correct stuff that read contrary to their cited sources. The act reeks of spite, and I don't want to indulge it again. EyeTruth (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- l left a note for User:Gunbirddriver and asked them to respond here. Of course, a single revert isn't usually an edit war but you can introduce a long-term pattern of editing if you can document it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Response
My primary goal is to make sure the articles presented in wikipedia are accurate and readable, that they convey the essential information while providing citations and resources for the reader to go deeper if they would like. I find it very odd to be brought to the administrative board when there is no case to be made against me, but this is typical behavior for this editor.
To reveiw the current situation, EyeTruth has been making a number of changes to an article that is already at Good Article status. These edits obscured the articles narrative and confused the reader in unnecessary detail. I assumed he made these edits in good faith, allowed a number of them to stand and reverted the ones that obscurred the narative, giving reasons for the changes in the edit summary for each change here through here. As we know, the preference to limit edit warring is Bold Edit, Revert, Discuss. However, instead of going to the talk page as one would expect from an experienced editor, he reverted the changes. These were reverted back and a direct call was made for him to go to the talk page if he did not understand why these changes were being made as shown here. Instead, he reverted again, breaking the three revert rule and then submitted my name here at the Administrators Board for edit warring.
As to the specific details of his contention of bad faith editing on my part, a closer examination will reveal these claims to be false. For instance, regarding those forces involved in the battle, multiple sources indicate that the 2nd Guards Tank Army and 2nd Tank Army attacked Das Reich, and that the 1st Tank Army and the 3rd Rifle Corps were attacking Totenkopf. The armour of the 5th Guards Tank Army was involved primarily with the attack upon the 1SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte. Thus for EyeTruth to say the armour of the 5th Guards Tank Army composed one side of the battle and were opposed on the other side by the whole of the II SS Panzer Corps is to ignore those Russian units involved in attacking the two other divisions of the II SS Panzer Corps. The sentence I added followed his sentence and citation. It was not intended to be supported by his citation (of course), but plenty of citations could be found to do so. It's an apples to oranges comparison and an obvious correction, one that you would think would not lead to an argument or a trip to the Administrator's page. I am sure we could have worked it out on the talk page. Instead we are here.
As EyeTruth points out, the page we are discussing was indeeed nominated for Good Article status back at the end of August 2013, but had become bloated by the additions of EyeTruth with extraneous detail and with the unneccesary retalling of the Battle of Kursk article. With the impetous of a reveiw for GA status 260 edits followed and the article was cut down from 104K to 64K. I was heavily involved in these edits. During this time User EyeTruth did not participate in any significant way. He had been involved in multiple trips to the administrative board and had misled administrator Nick D into issuing the block shown above on my account. The end result of all the contention was that he disappeared as a wikipedia editor for over a year, and was not significantly involved in the edits from September through December 2013 that resulted in the article reaching GA status. I hate to bother them about this user again, but editors Irondome, Sturmvogel 66 and Diannaa (librarian support) are familiar with the issues with this editor, as is administrator Nick-D.
User Eyetruth has a long history of disruptive editing, making misleading statements and attacking the character of his fellow editors. All caps and bold are common features when he is trying to advance an argument. For my part, a review of my record will show there is no pattern of edit waring. In general, I attempt to look to encourage the other editors and will keep edits in if they can at all be justified. On the other hand, User Eyetruth in this instance has broken the three revert rule, is edit warring now, and has involved the administrators unnecessarily.
I believe the correct action would be to sanction User EyeTruth to discourage this kind of behavior. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- EyeTruth (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- (To keep this clear and readable, please don't respond next to each point. It’s better to do it in a separate paragraph below my whole response if needed, thanks).
- It's an outrageous lie that I broke the 3RR. But thankfully that's any easy lie to see through for anyone.
- The claim Gunbirddriver made above about 2nd Guards Tank Army and 2nd Tank Army is straight up wrong. In THIS EDIT to the article he changed what the CITED SOURCE says, replacing it with his own opinions; which the cited source, in fact, explicitly debunks: 5th Guards Tank Army attacked all three divisions of the SS Panzer Corps (it's blatantly right there in the cited source).
- Gunbirddriver has a history of forcing his opinion over information supported by cited sources. It was this aggressive manner of edit-warring during a content-dispute in the article Battle of Kursk that got him blocked by admin Nick-D.
- The content-dispute began in May 2013 when Gunbirddriver removed every mention of the term "Blitzkrieg" from the article because he believes it was wrong to have it in the article. I opposed this because, at that time, I had three written works by three different historians that used the term to characterize the German intention for the battle of Kursk. However, Gunbirddriver had the support of three other editors. So I took the issue to DRN, it ended in limbo with no decision being reached, but it succeeded in eventually attracting the attention of several other editors. Eventually many more editors ended up supporting the inclusion of the term because there were over a dozen sources supporting it, but NOT A SINGLE source could be brought forward to support it's exclusion.
- In fact, I offered for the most NPOV solution, which is to include in the article that several other historians did not mention anything about blitzkrieg in regards to Kursk. But Gunbirddriver had already let the content-dispute become his personal war, and he refused that option.
- In such a clear-cut dispute, there was no reasonable way it could have dragged out over several months as it did, but Gunbirdrvier was able to pull it off with his highly polarizing style of manipulating the dispute by fabricating accusations, exaggerating my actions and twisting statements. And initially I always fell for his devices and often overreacted with rude remarks, which only turned other editors against me, but I quickly learned. As more editors got involved, Gunbirddriver, still insisting on the correctness of his opinion, continued edit-warring, and he eventually got blocked.
- Gunbirddriver, your accusation that I misled Nick-D is very ridiculous. Nick-D moderated the content-dispute in Battle of Kursk for several weeks, and was thoroughly familiar with all the nitty-gritty of that dispute. To say that I was the one that made him block you sounds like an insult to his intelligence.
- I don't know how Gunbirddriver can claim with a straight face that I only contributed insignificantly to the article Battle of Prokhorovka. Last time I checked the X!s Tool two months ago, I was the number 1 content-contributor to the article. It was the huge overhaul I implemented in the article in the summer of 2013 that spurred the user Azx2 to nominate it for GA. Granted, the article still needed a lot of work at that point, but I eventually slacked out due to busy schedule.
- EyeTruth (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Result: No violation. A long list of past problems doesn't make an effective AN3 complaint. Use WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- Yes EdJohnston, as I mentioned in my first comment there hasn't been a violation yet. But given Gunbirddriver's history of aggressive edit-warring, he is clearly trying to start an edit war that is completely pointless, just like the one that got him banned. The fact is still that presently, he is trying to enforce his own personal opinion above that of cited sources. He did not even try to deny any claim I made about his current edits in my first comment because it is simply true. His response above, in summary says: I know this is how it happened, so I changed the passage in the article without bothering to back it up with cited sources (besides, it will be completely impossible for him to find reliable sources because he is confusing Tank Armies with Tank Corps). There is also the fact that he was making broad reversions, which included corrections of typos and bad grammar. This clearly shows he is already seeing this as his personal war. He will continue his edit warring. EyeTruth (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:MiztuhX reported by User:Maile66 (Result: Fully protected)
Page: Battle of the Alamo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MiztuhX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Prior to the edit warring
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire talk page for the last three months.
Comments:
No consensus was reached, so today the editor decided to act on his own.
This editor opened a Dispute resolution, and before any action has been taken has decided to act on his own. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to see Maile66, since the last time he responded to one of my posts on the Battle of the Alamo Talk Page was on 6 May 2015 with regards to a book that didn't meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP despite being vetted for FA. That's the last I heard of Maile66.
- Now, after waiting about a month for editors to contemplate the addition of the Santa Anna quote, I checked the The Battle of the Alamo Talk Page to find no activity, so I decided to open a dispute (as I had previously stated several times on the talk page, to settle the matter). Never before had I engaged in "edit warring" to settle differences.
- Later, when I checked the dispute page, I read Robert McClenon's notice that there needed to be additional recent discussion on the talk page to begin an investigation, so I restarted discussion on 9 July on the talk page.
- On that same day, Karanacs (an editor who disagreed with my manner of editing one word or one sentence at a time) advised that: "[I would] be a much more credible editor if [I'd] work to improve the article in general rather than spewing rants over one or two words at a time" and "You will get much further if you look at the big picture rather than try to argue one word at a time." Talk:Mexican Texas Since Karanacs was the main editor who disagreed with my one edit on the Battle of the Alamo, and Maile66 was nowhere to be found, I took Karanacs' words as consensus between Karanacs and I, as a tacit approval, to edit the article (not to "edit war").
- Furthermore, the charge of edit warring is unsubstantiated because: 1) my talk page contributions previous to this show undoubtedly that I discuss ideas on talk pages and do not resort to "edit warring", 2) I only began editing the page once I was advised by Karanacs to implement larger changes, and 3)Maile66 has no say in this matter because Maile66 dropped out of the discussion a long time ago for whatever reason... MiztuhX (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - User:TomStar81 fully protected the article for six months. Discussion will continue at DRN if the editors agree, but is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
User:95.56.14.240 reported by User:Calvin999 (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- FourFiveSeconds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 95.56.14.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC) ""
- 09:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC) ""
- 09:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC) ""
- 09:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 09:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
- 09:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on FourFiveSeconds. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has made 3 reverts and is edit warring. Also messing about with the genres. I've made two reverts but am now reporting him as he is not listening and I don't want to get into an edit war with an IP. — Calvin999 09:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC) IP has since made a fourth revert on the article. — Calvin999 11:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – 1 week. A brand-new IP is genre-warring across multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Basically blogging reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Solo family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Basically blogging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC) to 13:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "Added content"
- 13:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Fictional history */Added content."
- 13:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Fictional history */Fixed typo."
- 13:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Han Solo */Added co tent."
- 13:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Leia Organa Solo */Added content."
- 13:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Kira Solo */Added content."
- 13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "Added content by plot leaks."
- Consecutive edits made from 14:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC) to 14:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- 14:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "Added content."
- 14:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "Fixed typo."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Solo family. (TW)"
- 13:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */"
- 13:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
- 13:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion */ I withdrew the report since you have replied"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 13:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Addition of unsourced information */ new section"
- 18:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC) on User talk:331dot "reply"
- Comments:
User is adding spoiler information supposedly from the unreleased Star Wars: The Force Awakens but has so far declined to state where they are getting their information. I withdrew a prior report because they did make contact with me, but they have persisted in their edits. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator observation) Blocked for 24 hours. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing; I had done so before I saw this report. @331dot: Having looked more closely at the edit patterns at Solo family, I see that you also violated 3RR on that page. Reverting good faith edits is not an exception to 3RR, and you must take care to avoid edit warring in future. —Darkwind (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- I truly am not attempting to disagree with your warning in any way, I accept your warning; but is that the case even if the information is not sourced in any way and the user declines to put one? 331dot (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Reading about it more carefully I answered my own question(i.e. what you said). Again, I accept your warning, and thank you. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just for clarity's sake, yes, even unsourced information is not an exception to 3RR. The only valid exceptions are listed here. —Darkwind (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Reading about it more carefully I answered my own question(i.e. what you said). Again, I accept your warning, and thank you. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I truly am not attempting to disagree with your warning in any way, I accept your warning; but is that the case even if the information is not sourced in any way and the user declines to put one? 331dot (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Lights N reported by User:CorporateM (Result: Warned)
Page: Aethlon Medical ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lights N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Comments:
Edit-warring has not been resolved after discussion on my Talk page[28] and the article Talk page[29], where this editor makes repeated accusations of corporate malfeasance and whitewashing. I believe I am obligated to surpass 3RR as required by WP:BLP, WP:BLPGROUP and WP:COMMONSENSE. The Source provided for contentious material about a living person is a Wordpress blog called "Retraction Watch". The Journal of Immunology was eventually added, but once I got access to it, I saw that it was just a one-paragraph notice. CorporateM (Talk) 23:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Result: User:Lights N has been warned against making any further reverts at Aethlon Medical until a proper discussion of his material has occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
User:24.23.146.196 reported by User:Agtx (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
- Page
- Kamala Harris ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 24.23.146.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 00:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Shielding of Illegal Immigrants and The Death of Edwin Ramos */ Type"
- 03:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 671196167 by Agtx (talk) Playing politics with edits."
- 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 671129579 by Gobonobo (talk) Sourced via Wikipedia. Stop injecting politics and bias into articles."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 03:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Shielding of Ramos & The Murder of The Bologna Family */ new section"
- 00:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Shielding of Ramos & The Murder of The Bologna Family */"
- Comments:
Unfortunately after being warned, this user does not appear to be interested in consensus building. Attempts to resolve on the talk page were met with accusations of personal bias and no attempt to engage. This user has made a similar edit (with a similar edit summary) from 50.174.28.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([30]. Agtx (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN talk to me 01:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
User:はぐれがらす reported by User:Miracle dream (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Page: Second Sino-Japanese War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: はぐれがらす (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user got two warning of edit war in the same topic[31] Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [32] 02:41, 13 July 2015 (Reverted to 208.80.67.33 (talk) at 05:20, 10 July 2015's post due to inacurate edit and use of exaggeated Communist Chinese sourse.)
- [33] 14:47, 13 July 2015 (RVT to 208.80.67.33 (talk) at 05:20, 10 July 2015's edit. Guess is not enough reason to RVT.)
- [34] 15:04, 13 July 2015 (RVT to 208.80.67.33 (talk) at 05:20, 10 July 2015's edit. Sourse from China isn't problem. Exaggeration & one-sided view is problem.)
- [35] 16:34, 13 July 2015 '
- [36] 17:16, 13 July 2015 (→1937: Full-scale invasion of China: correction)
- [37] 17:41, 13 July 2015
- [38] 18:13, 13 July 2015
- [39] 23:12, 13 July 2015 (Undid revision 671287879 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) I thought and edited. But you just RVT it without thinking. Use talk page.)
The same thing happened in 26 June 2015
- [40]03:19, 26 June 2015 (Undid revision 668706066 by Rajmaan (talk) inaccurate.)
- [41]11:40, 26 June 2015 (→Around the Battle of Shanghai: added bombing of Shanghai International Settlement)
- [42] 13:08, 26 June 2015 (→Around the Battle of Shanghai: added brief course of battle on the ground)
- [43] 20:03, 26 June 2015 (→Jinan incident: added victims of incident)
- [44] 05:28, 27 June 2015 (→Jinan incident: re-added contents of damages. Simply discribing the facts is not POV.)
-
- Comments:This user got two warning of edit war in the same topic[45]. It seems this user is a single purpose editor. Most of his edition is about Second Sino Japanese war since he created his account[46]. Some edition in article Tungchow mutiny is also a part of Second sino Japanese war[47]. He is a strong POV editor and did not assume good faith to other users [48] [49],[50]. I think he is not being here to build an encyclopedia. Miracle dream (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015
User:SimpsonsMan1234 reported by User:68.37.227.226 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Rare Replay ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SimpsonsMan1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [51]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]
Comments:
Repeated revision of content regarding notation of certain releases in the Rare Replay compilation, usually without offering any argument or explanation behind his revision. Attempted to warn him and suggest taking it to the talk page, but the edit was removed almost immediately for being "nonsense". Talk page history indicates this is not the first time this has occurred. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
-I did not break any rules as I was correcting an article with accurate information. The response I received was indeed unnecessary for many reasons therefore I have broke no rules. The user I was reverting edits with provided inaccurate information. You did NOT post the same information on 136.181.195.25's talk page whereas you should have. I did not break any rules, I read your post and deleted it because there was no need to leave it on my wall. Posting it on edit warring was not a good move because you did not post a warning on my page where I would have read it. SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- The information being added was accurate as is; Kazooie, Tooie, and PD are XBLA ports of N64 games, just as the additions said. Heck, there was nothing contradictory about the way the page was already set up, using the list format instead of a table, and it lacked the console listing, hence negating this whole issue in the first place. Also, 136.181.195.25 only made two edits, thus not breaking the 3-revert rule, whereas you made four edits. And I did warn you first; you reverted and ignored it, remember? -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- As a compromise between the two sides, I've reverted the table back to its original three-column list format, thus removing the question of which platform to denote entirely. Most articles on video game compilations don't list version or original platform anyway, and the games' original platforms aren't listed in the compilation itself (for obvious reasons), only their original release dates, so it's inconsequential in the grand scheme. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- The information being added was accurate as is; Kazooie, Tooie, and PD are XBLA ports of N64 games, just as the additions said. Heck, there was nothing contradictory about the way the page was already set up, using the list format instead of a table, and it lacked the console listing, hence negating this whole issue in the first place. Also, 136.181.195.25 only made two edits, thus not breaking the 3-revert rule, whereas you made four edits. And I did warn you first; you reverted and ignored it, remember? -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
---So you're okay with providing misinformation? They are not the Nintendo 64 ports, they are the XBLA ports for the millionth time. I specifically wrote 'Platform Version' and writing Nintendo 64 is inaccurate. I also specified the release date being based on the Nintendo 64 version. My edit is fine so there's also no need to change it back to where it was. I'm going to change it back to a more presentable table but eliminating the platform versions despite what info I put is correct. I'm also going to suggest you to make an account too. SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It's not inaccurate, though; they're XBLA ports of N64 games, which is why everyone keeps saying they're XBLA ports of N64 games in the table. Also, how is the table "more appealing"? The alternative method was more condensed and didn't leave a bunch of empty space; compare to other compilation articles like Sonic Mega Collection, Mega Man X Collection, Pac-Man Museum, et al. (And making it means you're further violating 3RR in the middle of determining whether you violated 3RR...) -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
-
-
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for violating 3RR. @SimpsonsMan1234: Regardless of whether you think you were right, you were edit warring and did violate the three-revert rule. Your edits did not fall under any of the very limited exceptions to that rule. —Darkwind (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Musiclover john reported by User:Defgirl12 (Result: Page protected)
Page: Lucia Cole
User being reported: User:Musiclover john
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucia_Cole&oldid=671354787
There is just a ton. This individual has created this fake profile. Fake Wikipedia page and is just going overboard. Talk:Lucia Cole#Not an actual person
Comments:
Several individuals have attempted to remove the page of the user. They appear to be a catfish.
Yeah I've been following this and I don't think we should delete the page immediately based on these allegations, but all that's going on here is people constantly reverting each other, so something needs to make it stop. I contacted BBB23 about it here and basically explained the situation in as few words as possible. It's a complicated situation so I think judgment on who's "right" is subjective, but it's not subjective that somebody needs to step in and stop the war. poli 05:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Page protected: protection upgraded to full protection because editor(s) involved are autoconfirmed. @Defgirl12: Next time you file a report here, the admins who regularly patrol this board would appreciate if you could follow the template, including the requested diffs etc. It makes it easier to evaluate a situation. —Darkwind (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)