Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 116.14.128.14 (talk) at 09:07, 9 November 2015 (→RE: Someone is stalking and keeps editing my edits.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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 {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different 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.
    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 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.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:MYS77 reported by User:TonyStarks (Result: )

    Page
    Rachid Aït-Atmane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    MYS77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688937546 by TonyStarks (talk) No. They're still called Modric and Benzema while playing. RACHID is how he's called since he arrived in Spain, and thus, to football. Respect that"
    2. 20:51, 3 November 3 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688946429 by TonyStarks (talk) 1) Search: "Rachid Sporting Gijón" produces more results than "Rachid Ait-Atmane". 2) His SHIRT NAME is Rachid, RESPECT THAT."
    3. 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689262757 by TonyStarks (talk) Until you don't show some sources, I'll keep reverting. Learn to respect other people."
    4. 19:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688952070 by TonyStarks (talk) Sources were given to the user. No replies were made. So, I tend to conclude that's an agreement."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User reverted my changes four times in a 48-hour period (he waited until the 24 hour period was over to revert again). He used the revert function twice to revert my change and manually reverted the content twice to revert my changes (see page history). I won't touch the article anymore until an admin intervenes. TonyStarks (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply: User clearly lacks interpretation. I provided sources to back up my edits, while he had none even with me asking for it through edit summaries and through messages in his talk page (which I got nothing but another revert as a response) until today, which he started a WT:FOOTY discussion and was in an extreme rush to see me blocked. User clearly wants to WP:OWN the page only because he edits Algerian football-related pages. MYS77 ✉ 22:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny that you mention WP:OWN when your messages on my talk page are the following: "You edited the guy once or twice a year, while I was the one who bring all the info together. Show some respect, please." and "RESPECT, R-E-S-P-E-C-T other people's work. When he leaves Spain (and only WHEN), then you can call him whatever they'll call him in other countries. Until that, he's known as RACHID and will stay that way." To me, that sounds like you're the one that wants to own the page, as you put in the work so it's your way or the highway. TonyStarks (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange, isn't it? I asked for sources, and you only provided it when creating a discussion at WT:FOOTY. Why you didn't bring me the sources instead of doing unsourced reverts? You were the one asking for all of this. MYS77 ✉ 01:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposal, mainly to avoid this extremely unnecessary mess. What about this lead: Rachid Aït-Atmane (born 4 February 1993), simply known as Rachid, (with this reference) is an Algerian professional footballer who plays for Spanish side Sporting de Gijón as a central midfielder. and then the rest of the page will stay your way. Fine? MYS77 ✉ 02:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Winkelvi reported by User:Ariel. (Result: warned)

    Page: Ben Carson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Winkelvi (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:

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

    Comments:


    Winkelvi started an edit war and complained about Me performing one! Quite the hypocrisy! Ariel. (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nice try but not a valid report. The reporting editor has been violating WP:POINT by reinserting content irrelevant to the article and edit warring over it. This report is retaliation for removal of said content. Discussion has been attempted at the article talk page and two warnings regarding edit-warring behavior have been left at their talk page here and here. Looks like a candidate for WP:BOOMERANG to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you reverted 3 times I did not. The contribution is quite relevant and your removal is illogical, and completely unexplained. I attempted to talk with you on the talk page but you just talk about some edit war, and nothing about the actual text. Stay on point and don't make this into some personal war, your behavior is inappropriate. Ariel. (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you have a lack of understanding regarding WP:UNDUE. Please read policy on it so you can better see why the content you insist on inserting is not appropriate for the article. My comments at the article talk page are quite "on point". It's not my fault you are employing WP:IDHT. And yes, your behavior has shown an edit warring intent. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You seriously believe that the POV of the Jewish religion has an undue weight on the Bible? Ariel. (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you keep inserting the content into isn't about Judaism or the Bible. And that's precisely why said content is inappropriate and irrelevant to the article and simply doesn't belong there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not inserted an article into the content. What in the world are you talking about? I inserted two dates and referenced the first date with a link, and that link is about Judaism AND the Bible, and the second is referenced to the pyramids, which is what this section is about. You are seriously making no sense to me, I don't mean to be insulting, I really don't, but what you said really makes no sense. Ariel. (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that maybe there is a language barrier here? (if not, my apologies for assessing the situation incorrectly)
    • I said you keep inserting content into the Ben Carson article, not that you are inserting an article into the content.
    • The content you are adding is not pertinent to Ben Carson, the article subject. The article is about the man -- you keep trying to add content that is not about, nor directly related to, the current content or the man.
    • The section in the article is not about the pyramids, it is about Ben Carsons believe regarding the construction of the pyramids.
    • Because he has never said he bases his beliefs (either for or against) on what you keep inserting, said content is even more inappropriate for the article and equates undue weight. Please read that linked article for a better understanding.
    I can see what I have said makes no sense to you - as you pointed out. That said, hopefully this explanation will help you make sense of why the content you have been edit warring over should not be in the Carson article. If any other editors want to take a stab at explanation, feel free to jump in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you said now, but I very much disagree. The section (not article! Section) in question is about Ben Carson's beliefs. He is a Christian, and contrary to what you said he has mentioned his beliefs many times, so yes, he does believe in the dates I have listed. Therefor they are quite relevant to that section.

    You have violated the 3 reverts rule, how about instead of waiting to be blocked, you self revert your revert and self impose a ban on yourself on that page. Let other editors weigh in on the topic, and you stay out of it except on the talk page. Ariel. (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "yes, he does believe in the dates I have listed." Do you have a reliable source that supports he has a) talked about those dates and says he believe in them, b) supports the content you keep adding back in, and/or c) proves the content is relevant to the article and the section in the article? "You have violated the 3 reverts rule" No, I didn't violate it. I reverted three times. If I were to revert more than three times, then I would be in violation of 3RR. "how about instead of waiting to be blocked" I see no valid reason why I would be blocked over a non-violation. "self revert your revert and self impose a ban on yourself on that page." No, that's not going to happen. I know it would make you happy and be convenient for you, but there's nothing to justify such a suggestion. "Let other editors weigh in on the topic, and you stay out of it except on the talk page." That's really not how things work here. Especially not in this instance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Warned — Technically not a breach of the three-revert rule, but is certainly within the American Politics discretionary sanctions. I should also note that I find it odd that Winkelvi threw two different templated edit warring warnings at Ariel while still engaging in edit warring himself anyway. --slakr\ talk / 07:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it odd you would throw a DS warning at me while ignoring the obvious boomerang that should have been given to the filer and/or not putting the same DS warning on the filer's talk page. Not to mention this filing is stale, and you didn't notice that, either. Indeed, since the filer and myself have obviously been talking here, nothing more has happened at the article at the hands of the filer or myself, the warning on my talk page is not only strange and way after the fact, but seems more punitive (as a badge of shame) than preventative of anything. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scoobydunk reported by User:Springee (Result: Scoobydunk warned, Springee sanctioned)

    Page: Southern strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Scoobydunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [5]

    Diffs of the user's reverts, Nov 5th:

    1. [6]
    2. [7][8] - Pair of edits
    3. [9] - Direct edit reversion
    4. [10] Note this was not a reversion of a same day edit but a reversion of material I added on Oct 26th [11]

    The 4 reverts above are part of 10 over 4 days (3 active) of editing. 5 being direct "undo" reverts.

    1. [12]
    2. [13]
    3. [14] - Direct edit reversion
    4. [15] - Direct edit reversion
    5. [16] - Direct edit reversion
    6. [17] - Direct edit reversion

    Related reverts from Oct 26:

    Material I added: [18]
    And Scoobydunk removed: [19]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

    Notice of this discussion [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    I have made considerable efforts to discuss these changes and reverts as well as my concerns with Scoobydunk but I have found the discussions to be hostile, indicative of a [wp:battleground] behavior. Here is a talk section I started on Oct 28th, after some of Scoobydunk's earlier reverts without a talk page discussion [22]. An additional section on Nov 3rd [23]. Finally, an attempt smooth things over on Scoobydunk's talk page: [24]. On the talk page I asked that he revert his last edit as a show of good faith and because it was a 3RR violation. This request was refused.

    Comments:
    Scoobydunk has a [wp:battleground] attitude towards those he disagrees with. In August he was attacking an actual historian who was contributing to the article (not OR) [25] and the reaction [26]. He accused me of lying on the article talk page [Here is an example of the same battleground behavior with respect to an admin he disagreed with.[27] He has exhibited this same battleground attitude towards administrators [28],[29],[30]

    Overall his battleground mentality and edit warring and talk page WP:BLUDGEONing makes producting editing and consensus building virtually impossible. Springee (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to point out the dishonesty in how Springee presents his accusations. He first list 4 reverts, however, the 4th revert is actually a consecutive edit with the 3rd, and therefore count as a single revert as described by WP:3RR policy which says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I informed Springee of this on my talk page, yet he still intentionally misrepresents the information here.
    Next, his first diff in the next section is not a "revert" of a particular edit. I rewrote the introductory paragraph, adding in new sources and removing less reliable sources, which is something that was requested on the talk page. We had discussed improving introduction paragraphs for multiple sections, so I wrote a stronger introduction paragraph. That's not a revert, it's an original edit. The rest of his diffs do not show a violation of 3RR, and only speak to this arbitrary 4 day timeline. Now, I'm sure some people will my actions and Springee's as being "edit warring" and I think that's fair. However, i ask that you read the boomerang response below and see the the common factor in these reversions over the last 2 weeks is, indeed, Springee and see that he's the one who's engaged in edit warring when the DRN noticeboard and talk discussions didn't go his way.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Boomerang for Springee

    I think the fact that Springee has levied a variety of irrelevant personal attacks against me, speaks to the type of behavior I and others have had to endure as a result of his tendentious editing. I too could go on at length about Springee's tendentious editing and multiple instances of Wikihounding, but this is the edit warring noticeboard, so let's stick to the edit warring accusations.

    I have, at no point, violated Wikipedia's strict 3RR rule and have operated well within Wikipedia's explicitly stated policies. This is not true for Springee who has been edit warring and has violated WP's strict 3RR rule.

    1. Nov. 4 1:51[31] this was a partial revert of my November 2nd edit [32]
    2. Nov. 4 5:51[33]
    3. Nov. 4 7:26[34] and [35]
    4. Nov. 4 16:17[36]

    On top of Springee's violation of the 3RR rule, he's been reverting the edits of multiple users. He's reverted Mastcell[37], fyddlestix[38], and myself all in the period of the last 2 weeks, regarding the same subject matter. He's the common factor in all of the revisions. I'd also like to add that the content that Springee has been engaged in edit warring were originally posted to the article by me. He's been aggressively attempting to remove peer reviewed reliable sources and remove mention of "majority viewpoint" from the text, to push his own POV. We did go to the talk page to discuss the content and have gone through the DRN NOR noticeboard. When both of those didn't work out in Springee's favor, he said "We are clearly at the point of pointlessness."[39]. Notice how that's about 30 minutes before Springee began his most recent edit warring campaign. Springee is the originator of this edit war, trying to remove information from the article that doesn't fit his POV. I'd also like to emphasize another example. After I added in a new paragraph discussing the majority view in scholarship, Springee insisted on expanding a quote from Matthew Lassiter [40], then a few days later Springee removes the entire Lassiter quote and source from the paragraph for the reason of "reducing the length". So he intentionally made it longer, then removed it entirely because it was too long. I mean, come on.[41]. ThenScoobydunk (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In response, 3RR is very clear on allowable exceptions and Springee's revert is not listed among those exceptions. People do dispute about how sources should be represented within the article, so reference reversions are not omitted from counting as a revert. This is still considered a revert in part of another editor. Furthermore WP:3rr clearly states "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard." Springee did not claim that this revert was an exception, or ask that it be treated as an exception. Furthermore, Springee did not only change the source in the reference from "book" to "journal", but he also removed the specific page that the material in the article references, and replaced it with the page numbers of the entire article. I don't contest correcting it to a journal source, but I do contest with listing all article pages, when the part used in the WP article specifically references a passage from page 132. This allows users to find it more easily. Unlike Springee, I didn't revert his edit because it would be a violation of 3RR.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above accusation I think illustrates my concerns. Any perceived transgression is considered in the most negative light possible. Rather than thanking me for fixing a bad citation or just adding the overlooked page number an accusation of malice is made. Another example of the hostile editing and talk page environment created by Scoobydunk is knowingly misrepresenting statements by others. I mistakenly commented about a source due to an error on my part. I found an article with the same title but by different authors. I issued a correction once this was pointed out. That correction was ignored when my original statement, the one in error, was quoted as proof of my position on a subject after I issued the retraction. Knowingly misrepresenting statements by others is a violation of WP:IUC. Details here [42].
    • Comment - Can some administrator please do something about this thread, such as blocking the editors for incivility? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've alerted User:Scoobydunk. User:Springee was previously alerted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The whole arbitration and sanction thing can be a bit intimidating for a person who's never gone through it before, such as myself.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to ask that a 1RR rule be applied to Scoobydunk reverting my edits during the same time period. Please note that despite the above claim Scoobydunk should be aware of these rules. He has a block on his account for edit waring[43] and unsucessfully attempted to bring santions against me in the recent past [44]. Furthermore, though warned about personal attacks here [45] he launched into a series of personal attacks against me here [46]. My current concern is that with a 1RR applied to myself this editor will simply continue to block my ability to edit the topic with impunity. Springee (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned Scoobydunk of WP:ACDS (left by Robert McClenon); WP:1RR sanction of Springee within topic area for 1 month. --slakr\ talk / 08:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AliceAlice reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Kim Yuna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    AliceAlice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689399201 by NeilN (talk)"
    3. 03:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689431825 by NeilN (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Already been blocked twice for edit warring over same material. Has never joined in discussions. Talk:Kim_Yuna#Donations_section Talk:Kim_Yuna#Images_and_donations_section NeilN talk to me 05:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely – For two years this user has been pursuing an edit war at Kim Yuna. They have been blocked twice before. They have never left a talk post or an edit summary. To be unblocked they will have to communicate, and if they are willing to do so it may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Belovaci reported by User:Binksternet (Result: blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Tom Monaghan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Ray Kroc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: List of autodidacts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Belovaci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [47]

    • (On September 9, 2015, Belovaci performed five reverts.[48])

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [49] 03:54, November 7, 2015
    2. [50] 04:05, November 7, 2015
    3. [51] 04:14, November 7, 2015
    4. [52] 04:25, November 7, 2015
    5. [53] 04:37, November 7, 2015

    Belovaci has also reverted four times at List of autodidacts, and three times at Ray Kroc.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54] 03:57, November 7, 2015

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

    Comments:

    Belovaci is using WP:SYNTHESIS and original research to arrive at the conclusion that Tom Monaghan and Ray Kroc are autodidacts, that they are self-taught. None of the sources cited by Belovaci have ever said that these guys are autodidacts or self-taught. Instead Belovaci has determined that they are autodidacts by some personal calculus having to do with some reduced amount of schooling combined with success in business. However, Monaghan completed high school, and Kroc was taught classical piano in addition to attending about half his high school years. The main point is that Belovaci's sources do not use the term "autodidact" or the companion term "self-taught" for either of these guys. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexis Ivanov reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page: Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Alexis Ivanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [56]


    Diffs of the user's reverts at Ali All four reverts restore the same version:

    1. 18:07, 6 November 2015
    2. 19:34, 6 November 2015
    3. 20:57, 6 November 2015
    4. 08:39, 7 November 2015

    Very similar edit warring at Muhammad's views on slavery, restoring This version

    1. 04:34, 2 November 2015
    2. 14:25, 4 November 2015
    3. 18:38, 4 November 2015
    4. 00:59, 7 November 2015
    5. 01:23, 7 November 2015

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Given the user's behavior, several users have warned them recently, including three times in the last 24 hours 04:03, 27 October 2015‎ , 21:05, 6 November 2015 , 01:23, 7 November 2015, 01:28, 7 November 2015

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

    Comments:

    Several users have tried to discuss with Alexis Ivanov, but the standard reply is accusations of being a "lier" "You need to stop lying Jeppiz, enough with your lies and false accusation, that is all you got.", "Again another lie, I'm sick of your lies and the way you snake around the issues", "'LIES upon LIES". Jeppiz (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexis Ivanov also engaged in edit warring here:

    1. 02:14, 13 October 2015‎
    2. 02:31, 13 October 2015
    3. 02:36, 13 October 2015‎
    4. 15:07, 13 October 2015
    5. 18:38, 13 October 2015

    There is also a current ANI discussion regarding the user's combative behavior. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.144.98.20 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page
    Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    80.144.98.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
    2. 18:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
    3. 18:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Rverted"
    4. 18:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
    5. 18:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
    6. 17:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
    7. 17:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
    8. 17:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
    9. 12:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Several Fangio publics"
    10. 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jim Clark. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has reverted six different editors, continued after 3RR warning, and shows no sign of stopping. Scr★pIronIV 18:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SchroCat reported by User:RockMagnetist (Result: No violation)

    Page: Template:Infobox author bibliography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_author_bibliography&oldid=668372770

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [58]
    2. [59]
    3. [60]
    4. [diff]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

    Comments:

    I gave the editor a chance to self-revert with this message, and the editor responded with this comment. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    1. No breach of 3RR (which needs FOUR reverts);
    2. Trying to warn someone of something on your own page (where it wasn't seen until you added the diff here) is no warning at all;
    3. Trying to claim you are justified by a "discussion" when none took place is no basis for making fundamental changes to a template that appears on numerous pages. – SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment ANI is not there for getting editors out of the way that object to changes. As SchroCat points out infobox alterations affect many articles so there needs to be a solid consensus for them. There hasn't been a technical violation so this report should be closed down and I suggest that RockMagnetist posts a neutral notice at the associated Wikiprojects to get further input at the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment My apologies for misinterpreting the 3RR rule. However, Betty Logan should be aware that I did post neutral notices at the two most closely associated WikiProjects, as I pointed out on the talk page, and waited a week for a response. I made a reasonable effort to start a discussion, and this editor has no right to insist that I wait a couple of days for a proper argument. Since three reverts are allowed, I will use mine. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unfortunate that there was not enough interest to resolve the dispute. However, per WP:NOCONSENSUS the convention is that the status quo is retained when a discussion fails to resolve a dispute. Perhaps you could try WP:3O or if that fails file an WP:RFC? Editing disputes should not be resolved by editors trying to game 3RR either. Betty Logan (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its staggeringly petulant to bring a case here, find out that the limit is four reverts and then think that "allows" you to revert your controversial template change without discussion. I'm disgusted by your new, third revert: it shows contempt for any other opinion but your own, and for the consensus-building process. Are you so stubbornly determined to get your own way that you will ignore the fact that there was no discussion at all, and have forced your changes through with no fucking discussion at all? – SchroCat (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RockMagnetist: WP:3RR is clear in that it's not permission to revert up to three times. Editors can and will be blocked for edit warring even without breaking that rule. Use the talk page instead. clpo13(talk) 00:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To make it clear to all party's involved 4 reverts is not an entitlement and you can be found to be edit warring even if you are under that. In my opinion both of you have been edit warring. HighInBC 00:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jeffgr9 and User:Debresser reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Withdrawn)

    Page: Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jeffgr9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: 05:18, 7 November 2015

    Both users have violated the strict 1RR imposed by WP:ARBPIA

    Diffs of the Jeffgr9 reverts:

    1. 05:44, 7 November 2015
    2. 23:26, 7 November 2015

    Diffs of the Debresser's reverts

    1. 16:43, 7 November 2015
    2. 23:45, 7 November 2015

    No warning required as per WP:ARBPIA "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense"

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in the dispute; none of the two edit warring users have used the talk page while edit warring in today and yesterday.

    Comments:

    Having Jews on my watch list, I saw that both users have reverted each other. WP:ARBPIA applies to a "the entire range of articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict"; as the origins of the Jews is a common issue in this conflict, it applies to this edit war, with its very strict 1RR ruling. Jeppiz (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that is a stretch of WP:ARBPIA which was never intended, nor do I believe it to be factually correct in the case of the edits under discussion. For sure, neither Jeffgr9 or I had even the vaguest connection with the PI-conflict in mind. In this context I'd like to point out that there is a reason there is no WP:1RR warning on the talkpage of Jews.
    I propose informing Jeppiz, as the editor who opened this report, that he should not report experienced editors based on novel interpretations of WP:ARBPIA without first checking if the edits unambiguously fall within WP:ARBPIA's scope. I find it unpleasant to be dragged to noticeboards without good reason. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Two comments. First, I did not write ARBPIA but I don't think it's much of a "stretch" to apply it to Jews. The article is very strongly related to "Palestina-Israel articles", and the users editing it most frequently are exactly the same users editing other articles related to the topic. Few articles are as fought over by the users involved in the ARBPIA domain as Jews. Second, Debresser might find it "unpleasant" to be here, especially after eight previous blocks, but that is not a reason for the above violation of WP:NPA. Whether I was right or wrong, I was uninvolved in the conflict and reported both users. For Debresser to call that "malicious prosecution" is strange. Reporting only one user would have been strange, I fail to see the alleged "malicious prosecution". Jeppiz (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that only 1 of those blocks was recent. Making mention of all my blocks (in 8 years of active editing, including in the minefield of the IP-conflict), is poisoning the well. By the way, that block was precisely because of 1RR, and since I have been much more careful. In any case, I think WP:ARBPIA is really too remotely connected to the specific edits in question, and even the general question of the origins of the Jews I have not met in WP:ARBPIA-related discussions, either here on Wikipedia or outside. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's no reason to argue about it. Either (A) WP:ARBPIA covers Jews or (B) WP:ARBPIA doesn't cover Jews. In case A, there is blockable edit warring, in case B, it is not. While I'd surprised if it weren't (especially given how the edit history looks), tt would be good to get confirmation. Jeppiz (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Jeppiz. It seems that the 3RR rule still applies to the WP:ARBPIA as it does to all, if not most, topics. I understand the concern about warring. I also understand this issue does not just concern myself and Debresser, there are at least a few other editors involved in making these most recent changes. Either way, for this particular set of recent changes, neither Debresser (to my knowledge), nor I violated the 3RR.
    The issue of the origins of Jews is indeed touchy and inherently related to the Arab-Israeli conflict; however, when sourced facts directly define the origins of Jews, especially as it relates to converts to Judaism, there should be no dispute. In this case, the general origins of Jews and the Jewish culture are from Israel/the Levant/the Middle East/etc. It is the reason why Jews were/have been persecuted for thousands of years in Europe (from the Greeks, to the Spanish Inquisition to the Romans, to the Visigoths), the Arab League and the Ottoman and Muslim (e.g. Mamluk) Empires, Africa (i.e. the persecutions of the Igbo, the Lemba, Beta Israel, Abayudaya, etc.), and the Americas (the Ku Klux Klan, redlining of Jewish districts, forced expulsions, slander in the media, etc.).
    Jewish survival through these persecutions contributes a great deal to Jewish culture and definition. In regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the origins of Jews very much relates because many Arabs/Arab leaders neither want Jews in power in the Middle East nor do they want Jews to lay claim to any historically Jewish monuments, narratives, or properties. This is evident in recent news events: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4712189,00.html . Jewish prophets have been claimed by many non-Jewish peoples, especially those of Christianity and Islam; Jews are not allowed to proselytize, whereas Christianity and Islam initially functioned to act as political, socioeconomic control systems for the Roman and Arab regimes, respectively. This difference between Judaism and Christianity/Islam is essential——the majority of converts to Judaism "join the tribe" because they feel their soul, identity, etc. aligns with that of the Jews; they believe in Israel as both a people as well as the Land of Israel as the origin of the Jewish people. Christianity, as a whole, used to have that tribal distinction, but it was to the European Empires (Roman, Spanish, British, Russian, German, etc.); Islam always had that tribal distinction, but it was to the Arab Empires, especially centered in Saudi Arabia, where Muhammad was born and the Kaaba is located.
    The point is that many Jews who have converted have in fact assimilated to Jewish culture, but people should neither confuse the places in which diasporic Jews have settled, nor the origins of Jewish "converts," for replacing the true origin of Jews/Judaism in Israel/the Levant/the Middle East. Jews have always called to return to the land of Israel (Zion), and Jerusalem. It is inherent in Jewish ethnocultural (or ethnoreligious) identity. Look at the Kurds, they share the same distinction and similar persecution.
    Let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you.Jeffgr9 (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Finished First ResponseJeffgr9 (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator comment It would seem Jeffgr9 and Debresser are right and that I was mistaken in believing Jews to be WP:ARBPIA. I was in good faith, and I think it's a glaring omission that the article is not covered, but that is a different matter. As it would appear that the article currently isn't under ARBPIA, I withdraw the nomination of both users and apologize for the misunderstanding. Jeppiz (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your time Jeppiz and thank you for your responses Debresser. Jeffgr9 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I supposed this section should now be closed. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scjessey reported by User:Bongey (Result: )

    Page: Hillary Clinton email controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts just in the last 24 hours:

    1. [62]
    2. [63]
    3. [64]
    4. [65] (content removal and adding the word "Republican", without source)Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments: This is only for last 24 hours. The majority of the edits by User:Scjessey on the page are reverts of others users[66]. The majority of edits by [User:Scjessey] are political related removing content edits, under the false pretense of removing "vandalism". Bongey (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Spurious, bad report by a new editor who recently showed up to the page to advocate some partisan political positions.[67] This page has been the subject of a lot of rapid editing by a number of editors, many of whom seem to be trying to promote WP:NOT#NEWS-style scandalous material about this presidential candidate (and hence, many to most proposed additions being reverted by one editor or another). The diffs show three two different reverts, not four, each on a different part of the article — whereas the reporter has joined an edit war and done 2RR on the same section.[68][69] Whether the reported edits count as one or three two reverts is a technical question due to the timing of intermediate edits, so it is questionable, but in no case do they appear to try to repeat a reversion. It would be helpful, though, if an administrator came in and gave some editors cautions about discretionary sanctions that apply to the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the reporting editor's edit history is very odd, either an extremely sporadic novice editor or sock-ish. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of edits by [User:Scjessey] are political related edits, under the false pretense of removing "vandalism".
    How is how much a person edits relevant to the argument? Its not. Yep I am a sock, that uses the same handle on multiple web forums.
    Reality I spend my time on slashdot , were discussions are actually discussions 68.184.247.218 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Accurate report considering User:UW Dawgs and User:Scjessey both reverted my exact change, but User:UW Dawgs reported User:Scjessey in the last 20 days. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikidemon citation needed, every single line of the talk section was cited. When a anonymous source statement to politico is used as a source over two federal judges and two government websites, I don't know of clearer example of a violation of NPOV rule. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed wrong link on the last diff. Also the 3RR rules says content removal and it doesn't have to be from the same section.Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW There seems to be some coordination between Wikidemon and User:Scjessey. Wikidemon has been removing content on the same page. I report User:Scjessey and Wikidemon comes to his defense. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bongey, this report is going to get closed down soon, but please develop some WP:COMPETENCE editing the encyclopedia and dealing with its customs before trying to play process games like this. Your help actually editing and improving articles in neutral fashion, keeping content policies in mind, would be appreciated. Jumping feet first into current politics disputes with a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach in your account's first edits in years, a sloppy attempt to lob accusations and have other editors blocked, is not constructive. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • block me also for a few days if you want,but it is toxic for any community when to have groups of "individuals" consistently making politically slanted statements and immediately resorting to personal attacks.Bongey (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple notes about this bizarre editor. On the sock front, they seemed to admit to it (though perhaps sarcastically) from an IP address,[70] which they subsequently removed.[71] On the BATTLE front, they just filed an AN/I report against me for my participation here. Can we cut to the chase here and do something about this one? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bigbaby23 reported by User:Samtar (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    Page
    Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Bigbaby23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689645387 by Samtar (talk) revert vandalism."
    2. 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689629086 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) reverted vandalism. you have been warned"
    3. 10:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689551498 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) both pro and con sources describe him as such."
    4. 15:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689475895 by Roxy the dog (talk) yours is a pov edit mine is cited"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 19:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC) to 19:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      1. 19:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "most notable skeptics define him as a biologist, and morphic resonance as a theory. see references"
      2. 19:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "small format error i made"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Rupert Sheldrake. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Biritish Biologist in Lead +Morphic resonance theory */"
    Comments:

    I suggest bumerang, and to all parties who have ganged up on this vandalsim. Please see the section in the talk page. Those editors are abusing wikipedia editorial proccess to go against wikipedias purposeBigbaby23 (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Although doubtful, a boomerang would only have me reverting one edit of yours due to what TRPoD rightly said on the talk. Regardless of the actual content, you have been edit warring samtar {t} 15:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:159.203.114.77 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: )

    Page
    Publix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    159.203.114.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689670936 by 174.70.73.68 (talk)"
    2. 19:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689676495 by Loriendrew (talk) Vandalism change"
    4. 19:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism and spam edits made by previous editor."
    5. 19:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Please note that the Publix Twitter that responded is verified; it was retweeted by an unverified source. You are in an edit war and should heed your own advice."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Publix. (TW)"
    2. 19:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Publix. (TW)"
    3. 19:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Publix. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    IP seems to think a twitter account trumps the WP:RS present at George W. Jenkins, also blanked own talk page removing warnings. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be aware that Loriendrew has made one, two, three and then four reverts all on the very same day, note that on edit number 4 where he breaches 3RR, he cites the legislation in the same summary. This needs to be taken into consideration when examining editwarring from anons reported by established editors. Para Forts (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism reversal is an exemption of 3RR. If you note user also changed company formation date ahead 60 or so years. It is nice to know brand new users are getting interested in 3RR discussions.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:popcornduff reported by User:capuchinpilates (Result: )

    Page
    Under the Skin (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    popcornduff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    [72]
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. [73]
    2. [74]

    I did 1 revert between his 2 reverts - [75] , where my edit summary said, "Please don't revert edits, use talk instead." He reverted anyway, with an edit summary accusing me of being the reverter, and saying that my edits have already been talked to death. It's true, I have talked about them at length in the past, because my 3 edits in the past have been reverted by him/her, so each time, instead of undoing his reverts, I try to explain myself. All of my edits have been substantially different, as all have tried to take into account his criticisms of my edits. Here are his previous reverts of my edits on this page -

    1. [76]
    2. [77]
    3. [78]
    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    [79]

    Comments:

    The recent talk is only the latest in a lot of talk I've done on the page, as you can see in the whole discussion - [80]

    Here is the talk where I tried previously, at length to compromise with popcornduff [81]

    When he didn't respond to these attempts to compromise on the talk page, I opened a dispute resolution here: [82]

    I tried to explain my positions in the noticeboard, but to me, popcornduff put only as much energy into it as necessary to make it look like he was participating. It didn't go anywhere, nothing was resolved, and the moderator gave no concluding thoughts or any suggestions.

    Near the end of the dispute, here is what I wrote to the moderator: "I'd be interested in what you have to say, but I fear you might simply say that, in the absence of consensus it should just remain the way it is, or it shouldn't include any language more complex than it has now. But there's a few problems with that. One, is that the language I'm interested in using is not against policy; there are no rules against using "weasel words" and "purple prose." Two, there are other issues we haven't gotten to here; Popcornduff says language I've used is purple prose, I say it's not (and I'd be happy to say more about that). But the biggest problem is with being able to make any improvements to the plot summary at all. Popcornduff wrote the original summary, and he seems to me to be blocking anyone else from making any substantial changes. S/he's reverted many, many editors, and while many of the reverts I would probably agree with, he seems willing to edit war where others aren't. So if one editor protects their own editing, then how can a WP page ever improve? For an obscure movie like this, I don't think there's ever going to be some troupe of like-minded editors who show up on the talk page at the same time and demand the same changes."

    Here are places where popcornduff has removed things I've written on an entirely different page -

    1. [83]
    2. [84]
    3. [85]

    There are also instances where I have corrected basic errors on WP, and popcornduff has reverted them (after I explained the errors he has gone back to fix it, but in his words, not mine). [86]

    Popcornduff engages in liberal reverting on other sites I've happened to edit, but I might be the only one who has called him on this. Most editors probably never noticed he has reverted them, but some other editors have tried undoing his reverts of them, or talking to him, but he often keeps reverting until they get frustrated and go away, such as here -

    1. [87]
    2. [88]

    These are just a few of the many, many undos he's done on Under the Skin and elsewhere. But if I've randomly bumped into these few, I can imagine how many other sites he must be engaging in this behavior on. Personally I think most of his reverts and excisions that I've seen are good, and that he does protect many sites from illegitimate and unproductive additions. Before My first edit of Under the Skin was ill advised, and my first points on the talk page were overbearing, and I’m sure this did not help the situation, but now I wish he would stop reverting me and taking out my edits. Popcornduff is a much, much more dedicated, prolific, and decorated editor than me, but the two of us are enmeshed in a long term power struggle. Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    RE: Someone is stalking and keeps editing my edits.

    [[User:]] reported by User:116.14.128.14 (Result: )

    Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
    User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_MediaCorp_Channel_8_Chinese_drama_series_(2010s)&diff=prev&oldid=689644887

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_MediaCorp_Channel_8_Chinese_drama_series_(2010s)&diff=prev&oldid=689499118
    2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_MediaCorp_Channel_8_Chinese_drama_series_(2010s)&diff=prev&oldid=689497429
    3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_MediaCorp_Channel_8_Chinese_drama_series_(2010s)&diff=prev&oldid=689497290
    4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_MediaCorp_Channel_8_Chinese_drama_series_(2010s)&diff=prev&oldid=689497290

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_MediaCorp_Channel_8_Chinese_drama_series_(2010s)&diff=prev&oldid=689496947 (I didn't know there was a talk page so I tried to communicate with her on the wiki page)

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

    Comments: 

    I have reason to edit it the way I did. I did it according to the names of the cast provided by MediaCorp. Here is the link. http://www.online-instagram.com/media/1089235456619853759_1969001420116.14.128.14 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=689773722"