Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:13, 20 April 2015 view sourceKhestwol (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users25,401 edits →User:Nulla Taciti reported by User:Khestwol (Result: ): r← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:50, 20 April 2015 view source Nulla Taciti (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,543 edits →User:Nulla Taciti reported by User:Khestwol (Result: )Next edit →
Line 447:		Line 447:
	:::::::Khestwol, your reading of policy is not correct. Per ] a person can remove almost anything from their own talk page except declined unblock requests. ] (]) 18:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)		:::::::Khestwol, your reading of policy is not correct. Per ] a person can remove almost anything from their own talk page except declined unblock requests. ] (]) 18:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::A person can also remove warnings for edit-warring from their talk, as much as 3 times within a period of less than 15 hours? ] (]) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)		::::::::A person can also remove warnings for edit-warring from their talk, as much as 3 times within a period of less than 15 hours? ] (]) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			What exactly is your problem Khestwol? You are going to quite great lengths to harass me over this unintentional 1rr. It really speaks to your character, as well as your intentions regarding this subject. I didn't "use misleading edit summaries" and a user can revert whatever they like on their own user page or talk page. Stop clutching at straws. And yes EdJohnston, I agree to avoid the subect of Wahhabism for the next week — probably would have anyway. ] (]) 18:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 18:50, 20 April 2015

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Inayity reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked Inayity and warned Factchecker_atyourservice)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal#Missing from the lead

And on their talk page:

Comments:

Appears to be gaming the 3RR; clear pattern of edit warring and attacking other editors over content issues. I just warned Factchecker atyourservice, who appears to have broken 3RR. VQuakr (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, guilty, and my only defense is that the other user wasn't engaging at the talk page, just reverting and claiming consensus (which doesn't really appear to be supported by looking at the Talk Page discussion he referred to). Meanwhile the material doesn't seem appropriate, and at the very least it doesn't belong in the lead.

It is a little silly to suggest not using the talk page when the talk page subject was created by me, and everyone can see all my comments. It did not seem appropriate TO YOU!! The point of Misplaced Pages is not what you on your own think. Why did you continue to remove it when you had been reverted with a reason. You were not part of the hot discussion, where did you come from? to push what you think?--Inayity (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

THis editor actually has a history of being a bully bully forceful I am right editing just check their contributions and see the battleground forceful way they force their POV on Wikiepdia.--Inayity (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The body of the article has Amnesty International saying it doesn't consider Mumia Abu-Jamal to be a political prisoner. Amnesty International, as I understand it, is the world's foremost authority for designating who is a political prisoner and who isn't. If the body of the article says he's not a political prisoner, citing to AI, why should the lead then say that he is — while citing to a source that lacks any real authority on the subject and is notorious for being highly partisan? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

THe amnesty thing was an error, but I made that clear on Talk page. But the point still stood as Amnesty would not be discussion the term political prisoner if he was never considered one.--Inayity (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Note @VQuakr: Your report doesn't make sense. I don't see any warning, at least not recent, given to Inayity. Inayity has not even come close to breaching 3RR. Factchecker admits they breached 3RR and yet rather than reporting them, you only warn them. Finally, you did not notify Inayity of this report as you are required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, he's clearly breached 3RR in the last 24 hours now because he reverted for a fourth time this morning. There was also a typo in one of the diffs above, which I've corrected. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

And you have an agenda as pointed out. You Dr Kierman are the one who placed that sentence there and now telling people about POV. Did you not agree to that sentence? So now you have someone with your agenda you no longer agree he is a political prisoner? Is that what you are --Inayity (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at this page isn't about whether the sentence should be present or not: it's about whether an editor has edit-warred or not. DrKiernan (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant to report me :(

However, I do notice that the diffs posted by VQuakr are of Inayity previously edit-warring on the same issue with another user. It also appears he was misrepresenting Amnesty International's statement on the subject, although that could have been a simple mistake. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: mea culpa on the notification. I pinged Factchecker and that somehow satisfied the "must do this" criterion in my brain. I have now notified the editor. The warning regarding edit warring is linked above, here. It is from April 11, which in my mind is plenty recent enough for them to be aware of our policy on edit warring. The reason I reported Inayity is because they are back to edit warring over the same section for the second time in a week, after being warned. I mentioned in my comments above that Factchecker is the other editor this time around, but Inayity was the common factor both times hence the noticeboard posting. I did not report Factchecker because I only just warned them. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Thanks for the explanation. For future reference, pinging is never a substitute for notifying an editor of a report on this noticeboard, or on most administrative noticeboards where notification is required.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Heard. VQuakr (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably fair to say that I distracted VQuakr with my similar 3RR conduct. I'm to blame. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

In all of this remember the edit war ended with an AGREEMENT, and that was that. Now comes ANOTHER editor taking out what was agreed upon without agreement on the Talk. So we were not edit warring over the "SAME THING", since the stuff I reverted was agreed between me and another editor. (I forgot his name). --Inayity (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Edits I have restored have NOT been written exclusively by me. They are the product of multi-contributions. Yet here comes some new guy who decided ON HIS OWN, that all of the stuff we spent weeks discussing should be thrown out. We have raised the issue of slant (me and another editor) fought with Dr. something and come to an agreement. Now fly by is throwing out everything because he is right and superior to everyone else and master of Misplaced Pages and does not need any agreement, just forcefully arrogant editing. Go and read the talk page and see if I am in error. And I suspect the great issue is an agenda editor who cannot stand Mumia and is hence deleting positive remarks from the lead.--Inayity (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I've Blocked Inayity for 36 hours. Apparently, they show no insight into their behavior. First, reverting to enforce a supposed consensus is not acceptable and not an exemption per policy. Second, reverting after a report has been filed against you is almost never a good judgment call. I am not blocking Factchecker_atyourservice because they do appear to understand that what they did was wrong. However, Factchecker_atyourservice is Warned that if they revert again at the article anytime in the next five days, they risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Clubjustin4 reported by User:Johnglen559 (Result: no violation, IP editor blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Clubjustin4 is reverting good faith edits that are minor, factually correct and constructive to the page through edit warring and making unfounded threats on 24.190.48.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alongside another user Amaury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In relation to the actual content of the original edit itself, it consisted of correcting the status of exclusivity of Fable from "Yes" to "No," as the game itself is reported by Misplaced Pages's article to in truth, not be exclusive, as it is available on Mac OS X, PC and Xbox 360. The reported user also for some reason found it to be "cleaning-up" or constructive to remove the number count of total listed games.Johnglen559 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No violation The IP editor involved was blocked. Krakatoa Katie 07:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Strivingsoul reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result:no violation)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments: Not a 3RR case, but the editor has been warned before, and recently, about edit-warring. Despite being admonished to follow WP:BRD, the editor continues to make sweeping, controversial changes and then edit-war aggressively when reverted. I have attempted to discuss this content dispute with the editor, but he has demonstrated an inflexible bias that has more than verged on fringe theories and anti-Semitism at times: While this may not be something to be addressed at this particular noticeboard, I can't help but suspect that his extreme POV is part of what makes it difficult to convince this editor to behave responsibly on this particular article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. If he continues, I suggest taking it to ANI. Krakatoa Katie 07:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Dishonest sweeping charges! I have no comment on charges of anti-Semitism for I have already explained that my position is a critique of Jewish/Zionist power elite which is just as legitimate as critique of any other political group. As for charge of edit warring, the reason I insisted on my edits is that I had elaborately summarized and explained my edits, while the removals were sweeping and unexplained and by a user (user:Monochrome Monitor) who has a history of such sweeping unexplained deletions. Sweeping deletions with no explanation or justification and then forcing the contributor to discuss his contributions with a user adamant to censor some unfavorable referenced facts from the page seems like a good strategy of gaming the rules to suppress some facts that are unfavorable to the political persuasions of the user! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I support a topic ban on the Syrian Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant). As for "sweeping deletions", I was undoing Striving Soul's previous "sweeping edits" which hadn't been discussed on the talk page. It got to the point where he pushed the limits of what he can put on the article under any pretense of neutrality, ie this edit . --Monochrome_Monitor 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The onus is on you to explain why referenced materials must be deleted with no explanation! Misplaced Pages encourages users to be bold and try to enhance the content so long as Wiki guidelines are taken into account. But your past record on the page (e.g. accusing editors of being "Shia extremists" for editing the page with referenced POVs and information that you didn't like; and then insisting on unexplained sweeping deletions) shows that you deserve a topic ban on the topic for your persistent bias against any sourced information that enhances the article NPOV. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I deleted your material because on the talk page it was established that Press Tv sources had to be corraborated, and they weren't. As for calling you a "shia extremist", you called the Houthis (Shia extremists) "lions", which is pretty indicative of extreme views. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:123.140.222.75 reported by User:Nug (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Seems to be an SPA intent on edit warring across multiple BLPs, rather than make any meaningful contribution. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rovoobo reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Classic case of edit-warring. Rovoobo inserted a dubious tag claiming the term was coined later and that the origin of the term srbosjek is uncertain. However, the sentence itself says "The Ustaše slaughtered the inmates of the concentration camp also with a knife that became known as the Srbosjek, or Serb-cutter. (Reference: David M. Kennedy, Margaret E. Wagner, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn, The Library of Congress World War II Companion (Simon and Schuster, 2007), pages 640, 646–47, page 683). The sentence is sourced, it says that the knife "became known" as Srbosjek, so it really ends up not being important when the knife became known by that name. Other editors removed his tag but he made 6 reverts in less then 6 hours to restore it even warning other users and asking them to discuss (see article history) totally ignoring that by WP:BRD he is the one that should not edit-war and should discuss. This is a sensible article and making 6 reverts in 6 hours is just too much. FkpCascais (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear labeled reverts; warned prior to last revert. Oddly warned others of edit warring so well aware of policy. Kuru (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:156.61.250.250 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result:Declined)

Previous version reverted to: see below; same incorrect claim being inserted into multiple articles

Diffs of the user's reverts:

("Coordinated Universal Time"
("Universal Time")

(version of "Universal Time" being reverted to)

"Greenwich Mean Time"

version of "Greenwich Mean Time" being reverted to.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Warning that introduction of outdated information will be reported to administrators:

Discussion of the same factual error on the talk page of closely related article: Talk:Coordinated Universal Time#Information introduced to lead

Comments:

Editor was blocked for edit-warring on time and calendar related topics by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on 2 March and again the same administrator on 10 March, the latter for 1 month. User has returned to the pattern of coming up with some time or calender related idea that is refuted by many reliable sources and stuffing it into some time or calendar related article.

There is a discussion of the previous edit warring block at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Attempt to conceal disputed section on Gregorian calendar but since administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise decided to describe the behavior as edit warring, I am making the report at this noticeboard. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC), additional diffs inserted 15:42 mean solar time at Greenwich.

Please identify more than three alleged reverts within 24 hours. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no misinformation. All changes are sourced per the discussion at Talk:Coordinated Universal Time. The way to handle this is to discuss on talk, not run to AN3.

I see an edit by me at 08:22 16 April and another at 09:48 this morning in line with the discussion. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that my cite of infoplease is being described as "stuffing" an idea. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Declined This appears to be an edit dispute that needs to be resolved through appropriate channels like WP:30 or Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't see 3RR being violated at the moment. only (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:176.25.207.254 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result:Blocked 24h)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has ignored suggestions to discuss this on the article talk page. Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The IP only have four edits, and all of them are identical reverts within 24h, without any comments.Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for dealing with this, Ymblanter, and I apologise for the fact that I failed to notify the user that they'd been reported here. It slipped my mind somehow, and I'm happy for the block to be reviewed if anyone thinks that I acted improperly. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 reported by User:CharlieTheCabbie (Result: no violation)

Page: Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657087910 by 132.3.53.81 (talk)"
22:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657093945 by Keilana (talk) repeated addition of vandalism highlighted by obvious ignorance of Latin"
22:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657096850 by Wikiisawesome (talk) failure to cite a reliable source or explain changes to long-standing content confirmed in article text"
22:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657098303 by Wikiisawesome (talk) repeated vandalism"
22:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657098875 by Wikiisawesome (talk) try actually looking at the (Latin) motto's linked article. Now what's your source for Madonna's song being the anthem"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussions has been held over edit summaries. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Warnings have been given by at least 2 other users to cease disruptive editing and provide sources. These have been ignored. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 22:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think my reversions of this IP's edits were in error. Looks like the IP was correcting some earlier vandalism and I was too quick on the trigger. My fault. wia (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Does that actually excuse the edit war from occurring though? Surely it should have stopped before it hit that mark. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 22:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, the whole situation seems more my fault than the IP's. Perhaps IP should have posted on my talk page, but I should have paid closer attention to what I was doing. I'd rather not have the IP blocked when the problem stemmed from my own jump-the-gun reversions. I will offer to stay away from anti-vandalism work for a token period as a gesture of goodwill. wia (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Screw up admited good faith should be applied and a fishing trip may be required but that should be sufficient. Amortias (T)(C) 23:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No violation. Goodness. Apologies to Puerto Rico. Kuru (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:223.176.190.65 reported by User:Mfb (Result: blocked)

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

diff
diff
diff
Based on very similar IP and version history, also diff and original change

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:223.176.190.65 (done by Jaaron95)

Comments:

Repeated nonsense in the article and edit war for it. --mfb (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. This isn't really an edit war; it's simple nonsensical vandalism that you're free to remove. I've blocked the latest IP and will semi-protect the article if they keep rotating out of the block. Kuru (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism the right place then? Okay. --mfb (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and usually faster. No big deal; it all comes out in the wash. Kuru (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Appears not to be willing to discuss on talk page or stop reverting the article. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Tuvixer ignored repeated requests to explain his recent additions, which include listing unsourced ministry budgets in a list of government ministers. He never tried to start a discussion or resolve the matter in either article talk or my user talk page - that is, not until he decided to file this report, after which he started a discussion in the talk page, issued a warning on my talk page, filed this report and then notified me about it - all in the space of 11 minutes. Sounds rather disingenuous to say the least. Timbouctou (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It is the first time I am reporting someone. It is not the first time you have harassed me and you are doing it even now on the article bout the Ministry of Culture(Croatia) --Tuvixer (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And where have you tried discussing the matter at the other article you've mentioned? 17:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Timbouctou (talk)

User:217.118.81.17/User:217.118.81.21 /User:217.118.81.22 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: page protected)

Page: Crimea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.118.81.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 217.118.81.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 217.118.81.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP-hopping editor is edit-warring to insert the following uncited POV text into the article on the Crimea

But it must be said here that this United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was adopted only by very small majority. By example, only 51.81% of total UN members voted for this resolution. This small majority is only 33.80% of world`s population. The international community was split.

A later version is:

Diffs of the user's edits to do this:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:52, 19 April 2015

There has been no discussion on talk pages. Four different editors have reverted the IP editor. Some of them explained why in their edit summaries, e.g: "reverted uncited POV edits by 217.118.81.17", "Reverting POV OR", "OR"-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Comment Page protection requested, might be more beneficial as ip-hopping. Amortias (T)(C) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Page protected. Per Amoritas; the rapidly rotating IP makes semi-protection a better option here. Kuru (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:GogoLive123 reported by User:Jetstreamer (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Links can be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unsourced.2Fpoorly_sourced_changes_at_Balkan_Bulgarian_Airlines where I started a thread regarding the warring pattern of the user concerned. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Many warnings left at the user's talk regarding the removal of content.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user also left a message at my talk (diff provided in the link to the thread at WP:ANI above) and in their latest edit summary to the article that borders WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Jetstreamer 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I saw after seeing the WP:ANI report and checking, this definitely looked like Edit warring to me. I would definitely agree that a (short) block is in order, possibly a somewhat longer block when the personal attack (see: diff) is factored in. --IJBall (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:174.124.182.172 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

- Reported to AIV and warned about edit warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Pretty clear cut violation of WP:EW and WP:NOTCENSORED. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Nulla Taciti reported by User:Khestwol (Result: )

Previous version reverted to (no link to Wahhabism in the "Ideology" section of the infobox):

Diffs of the user's reverts (with misleading edit summaries):

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: (Nulla Taciti decided to delete my warning note about disruptive editing to them from their talk page .)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Clear cut violation of WP:1RR. The user is repeatedly pushing a certain POV while disruptively edit-warring in articles related to Wahhabism. They are removing any link to Wahhabism that they find from multiple articles. Another user, Mbcap, who is also pushing the same POV as Nulla Taciti, had also violated 1RR recently, after reverting 2 users in a period of less than 1 hour ( ) in the same article. Even Mbcap had agreed that something must be done so that the removal of the Wahhabism reference from the ideology section of the infobox is stopped (). But all of that, and even the 1RR restriction, is not protecting the article from disruption by Nulla Taciti. Khestwol (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Other users active in the article are welcome to comment here, including Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, GregKaye, and Aronzak. Khestwol (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is remarkably WP:BADFAITH behavior on the part of Khestwol. Wahhabi/Wahhabism is considered a derogatory sectarian term: this was the result of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant talk page WP:CON that this user is completely misrepresenting (see also The Vocabulary of Sectarianism "The utilization of Wahhabi as a negative moniker is not new"). Khesteol is using sensational language and clearly pushing his own agenda regarding the inclucision of an obviously contentious term, and hasn't even attempted to discuss this matter before coming straight to the admin noticeboard on the most flimsy pretext (didn't even realize the page was 1rr, which I usually adhere to on a global basis regardless). Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nulla Taciti: stop deleting notice from your talk page about this report. Also, there have been discussions about 1RR at Talk:ISIL in the past, so a user like you active in POV-pushing in the article can not claim to not knowing about 1RR. Khestwol (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I will remove WP:BADFAITH from my talk page whenever I see fit. You are literally edit warring on my talk page while engaging in a bad faith attempt to get an editor you disagree with blocked. Talk about a hypocrite. And stop with the WP:PERSONAL (e.g. "POV-pushing") and debate the issue at hand — why are you so insistent on inserting sectarian hate terms into articles? Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Also the only other article edited in relation to the misuse of the term Wahhabi was al-Nusra Front, where an article was quoting a Shiite sectarian figure disparagingly using this term. It is uncommon to except 1rr. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

When you violate WP:1RR it doesn't help to argue you were right, so it was justified. It is now too late for Nulla Taciti to self-revert. But in my opinion they might be able to avoid a block if they will agree to make no edits regarding Wahhabism on any article for the next seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input EdJohnston. Also note that Nulla Taciti has been repeatedly deleting my warning note and AN/EW notice to them from their talk page (, , ). Such unhelpful behavior should be considered vandalism. Khestwol (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol, your reading of policy is not correct. Per WP:BLANKING a person can remove almost anything from their own talk page except declined unblock requests. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A person can also remove warnings for edit-warring from their talk, as much as 3 times within a period of less than 15 hours? Khestwol (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem Khestwol? You are going to quite great lengths to harass me over this unintentional 1rr. It really speaks to your character, as well as your intentions regarding this subject. I didn't "use misleading edit summaries" and a user can revert whatever they like on their own user page or talk page. Stop clutching at straws. And yes EdJohnston, I agree to avoid the subect of Wahhabism for the next week — probably would have anyway. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Mustu6233 reported by User:Summichum (Result: )

Page: List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mustu6233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 13:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 13:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC) "/* List of Da'i al-Mutlaq of Dawoodi Bohra */"
2. 13:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC) "/* List of Da'i al-Mutlaq of Dawoodi Bohra */"
14:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "The changes is been made by looking towards the followers of super majority sects of group who are following Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and let the world know who is currently the authoritative of the community.The other sect have less than thousand ppl."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

long history of reverting correct information, possibly a partisan of one of the claimants to Dai.

WARNINGS given by admin: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mustu6233#April_2015 Summichum (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Unesco2015 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Zeitgeist (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unesco2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC) to 09:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ removing "social networking". This is a real chapter-based activism group that has been around for 6 years. It has had over 1000 events"
2. 09:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ Adding viable data. Removing biased legal reference used to distract and create POV"
3. 09:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Zeitgeist: The Movie */ Removing incorrect 3rd party ref to claim the film supports "new world order" interests. This is a fringe 3rd claim with non consensus."
4. 09:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ Removing incredibly biased and unfounded ref to "profit" for peter joseph. Who is putting this crap in here?. Peter joseph has never claimed to lead any group/"
09:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "Removed "social networking group". In the 6th year history of the movement, never has this term be seen or heard. The movement is a network of physical chapters across the world"
16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657349409 by Ian.thomson (talk) Restoring non POV change."
Consecutive edits made from 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC) to 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
1. 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 657351194 by Ian.thomson (talk) Removing biased vandalism"
2. 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "Showing source as documentaries"
17:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "fixing biased vandalism"
17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ repairing POV based on blog sources"
17:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC) "removing poorly sources blogs references that paint absurd and false POV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article attracts WP:SPA fans who want to censor the article and turn it into a promotional piece. Unesco2015 is just another one. User has also engaged in talk page vandalism and their first edit was an utter fabrication about consensus. Unesco2015 is WP:NOTHERE except for WP:ADVOCACY. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bishonen | talk 17:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Categories: