Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 10.4.1.126 (talk) at 02:09, 6 March 2014 (Archiving 6 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive238) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:09, 6 March 2014 by 10.4.1.126 (talk) (Archiving 6 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive238) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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:Farhoudk reported by User:Viewfinder (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.)

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: and several subsequent edits

Comments:
Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.

I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)

User:2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e, User:LimosaCorel and User:131.123.177.19 reported by User:DavidLeighEllis (Result: )

Page: Lent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
LimosaCorel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
131.123.177.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Too many diffs to list; massive edit war shown in page history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e has added a sentence to the article that is not supported by the source he added: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lent&diff=598056601&oldid=598056566 He claims that "In the 20th century, certain Lenten customs, practices and traditions derived from Roman Catholic tradition prior to the Reformation also became part of mainline Protestants, evangelicals and Anabaptist traditions as well." This sentence is to be found nowhere in the source. I added a source that demonstrated that Lutherans and Anglicans mantained the tradition and he removed it. Unfortunately, the article remains in the incorrect version after protection from Drmies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:LimosaCorel has also been a part of this edit war, as evidenced by these reverts. Warned here. Novusuna 04:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You know why? It's because they're the same user - that's why they revert to the same version as one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 4:24, 4 March 2014‎

This dynamic duo, guised as a trio, has effected massive disruption by their misconduct. It has engendered reports at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Massive edit war and possible socking and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LimosaCorel, as well as here. IP 131.123.177.19, you are not blameless in this matter; for I believe you were well aware that your conduct was unacceptae – making you a willing participant in an editing activity that playfully mocked this encyclopedia; and the community of serious editors who invest thir time to build it. I am anxious to hear your account; for you did nothing but disregard my admonition on your talk page; to stop your part in the edit war.—John Cline (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Had no intention of mocking you or this encyclopedia. I thought your message on my wall was a result of 2606:6000:80C1:6900:84B:49D8:1AD1:157E/User:LimosaCorel's threats so I did not take it to heart --your message said that I was vandalizing when I was clearly not. The dispute is about the aforementioned man pushing the ultra-conservative agenda of the banned SSPX on this encyclopedia. I was trying to introduce neutral edits here, as noted by your friend, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lent&diff=598057666&oldid=598056601 and on the discussion page, http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lent#What.27s_wrong_with_this_material.2C_eh.3F Unfortunately, Lent starts in a day and that article still contains his biased viewpoints. The duo reverted, even after the article was locked. If you must take action against me, then so be it, but if the aforementioned man continues to edit, the integrity of this encyclopedia will be compromised. This duo has introduced other biased edits to this encylopedia, such as this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church&diff=598042159&oldid=598012970 and has told those who disagree with him to "Fuck off my Pagan you bareback mancunt pig slut", http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:LimosaCorel#NEVER_write_anything_like_.22Fuck_off_my_Pagan_you_bareback_mancunt_pig_slut..22_on_any_page_again If these things don't raise any red flags, then I don't know what will. Be well.

Ahem, if there is to any help, Lutherans have NOT historically observed Lent. That was one of the things that was removed after the reformation. Hafspajen (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:76.31.187.169 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 31h)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

ElKevbo (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr 08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:74.73.35.53 reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: blocked)

Page: Alonzo Holt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.73.35.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

05:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on Alonzo Holt. (TW)"
05:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Alonzo Holt. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly adding hoax content to a BLP and has now violated WP:3rr. Not to mention it is User:Biodude73 evading their block. Pretty open and shut case. STATic message me! 05:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week --slakr 08:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Carriearchdale (Result: no vio)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Brendon_Villegas
User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=595527775&oldid=595527701

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#edit_warring_3

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Brendon_Villegas Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Carriearchdale&curid=41581894&diff=598121200&oldid=598063560

Comments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&curid=6398673&diff=598120707&oldid=598120343

Also after following the protocol of warning the user about edit warring, the link is above, said user that was warned on his talk page reverted the warning itself and made a person attack by saying the editor or edit was "bizarre"

then same user that is being reported here for edit warring went to my own talk page and put a "FINAL WARNING" for vandalism when first of all there was no vandalism and secondly you can't give a final warning for some perceived offense if there have been no previous warnings at all. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Carriearchdale#March_2014

Will someone please block this deliberately disruptive editor, on whom I have wasted too much patience and effort. I'm not going to repost the issues I raised at ANI yesterday, which have now led to Carriearchdale's histrionics and false accusations. But they deserve attention. I'll just note that 1) I've made two pairs of consecutive edits, which count as 2 reverts for 3RR purposes; and 2) Carriearchdale's unexplained and groundless removal of well-sourced content from a BLP in an edit like this is vandalism, and its reversion is exempt from 3RR limits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

there is no vio here. I have full protected this for a week to force a discussion... Spartaz 16:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Carriearchdale (Result: Both warned)

This is now closed as an edit warring case. If you want further review use WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: notification listing of more than 8 reverts in the last hour or so TODAY

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

1 minute ago

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

21 minutes ago

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

23 minutes ago

Your edit on Rachel Reilly has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

40 minutes ago

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz left a message on your talk page in "March 2014".

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Brendon Villegas, you may be blocked from editing without further n...

1 hour ago | View changes

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

1 hour ago

Your edit on Rachel Reilly has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

1 hour ago

Your edit on Brendon Villegas has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

1 hour ago

Your edit on Brendon Villegas has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

1 hour ago Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user keeps reverting the placed warnings on his talk page. see history for the info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: user keeps reverting the placed warnings on his talk page. see history for the info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history

Comments:

Comment - I don't' have the dif gathering skills that others do, but I'd like to comment on the fact that this is an ongoing issue with User:Hallaballo Wolfowitz. Granted, I've seen this User make good edits as well, but I have also seen this user attempt to discredit long standing sources as well as misrepresent information in those same sources seemingly to further their POV. One example is "here" in an article for deletion discussion. Furthermore, under the auspices of BLP policy (among others) I have seen this user outright ignore WP policy such as 3RR in instances where the exceptions hardly seem to apply. Additionally I've tried to communicate and "make peace" with this User only to have my comments erased with an accusatory edit summary. A quick perusal of this User's Talk page edit history reveals what this person thinks of attempts to communicate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Users are permitted to remove warnings placed on their own user talk page - removal indicates that they did see the notice. However, people who repeatedly re-add such material are in violation of Misplaced Pages norms of conduct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: The two parties to this dispute are both warned – Carriearchdale for edit warring on a user talk, and HW for using personal attacks ('caterwauling'). If this behavior continues from either party blocks are possible without notice. Anyone is permitted to remove notices from their user talk and per WP:3RRNO this does not count toward 3RR. But anyone who reinstates the removed notices is edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I never reinstated any removed notices on the talk page of HW. As he continued to personally attack me, I did put notices on his talk page which he immediately reverted, I understand that he is able to do that. Please do not characterize my actions against someone, who was personally attacking me 3 or 4 times, by reporting them and putting simple notices on their talk page as the instructions say is proper to do as edit warring n my part. Really? Really? Yes really...

If you care, here is the proof I saved everything I posted on HW talk page. There was no edit warring by me, I do thank you for having taken the time to look into the matter. But when the victim of three or more personal attacks gets warned for "edit warring" when I did not, but only reported and warned a user about the personal attacking he did towards me. I am not sure of the protocol here, after an admin closes an issue here.

BUT, I do request another look by the same admin, or another admin of his/her choosing. Thank you........ https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Carriearchdale#March_2014

ciao! Carriearchdale (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gnyan1 reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: )

Page: Cinema of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gnyan1 (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 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
1. 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "7 international awards"
2. 13:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "added most notable award winners only"
13:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598103500 by Vensatry (talk)12 yrs is a large period of time"
17:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "included B Nrasing Rao significant contribution to parallel cinema in telugu language"
17:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "discussion is going on, on the other editors POV, do check his talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I came upon as a 3rd party, I warned the reported editor for edit warring and observed some minor attacks and assumptions of bad faith with a declaration to remove information ] and ] if they did not get their hoped for result, this edit ] and ] is the beginning of those edits despite several warnings on WP:POINT. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, he has been involved with disruptive editing in Telugu-cinema related articles. He never comes forward to discuss with other editors and has been involved with edit-warring in at least two articles Cinema of India and Chiranjeevi. —Vensatry _(Ping) 04:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:KajMetz reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / SCWGS 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm not an involved party)

Comments:

KajMetz was blocked for edit-warring in early February on the same article and was warned of WP:SCWGS by Bbb23 on February 8th. He has however just violated the 1RR on Syrian civil war topic once again. I warned one of KajMetz's edit-warring opponents, as a first notice of violation on WP:SCWGS; in case of KajMetz a more serious treatment might me required.GreyShark (dibra) 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure why you've reported me. When I revert something I state why and only once per day (not that I'm reverting all days). I'm not currently involved in an edit war and as far as I know I only removed some content that had Facebook as source (twice in the last couple of days, on two different days with a different content by a different user), which isn't allowed the last time I checked. I feel like this is some kind of misunderstanding. - KajMetz — Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Kumudpant reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: )

Page: Jab Tak Hai Jaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kumudpant (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 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) to 03:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
1. 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
2. 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
3. 22:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
4. 03:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
Consecutive edits made from 04:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC) to 04:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
1. 04:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
2. 04:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
3. 04:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

04:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* You in JTHJ */ new section"
05:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "General note: Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on Jab Tak Hai Jaan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps adding his name to Jab Tak Hai Jaan, claiming that he acted in the film but provides no reliable evidence for the same. He does not even seem to open his talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Related, he has created an article on himself at Kumud Pant, but the sources don't seem very strong and a vanity article is flashing its caution lights at us. I've dropped a line asking for help at the Reference Desk. The roles he is adding seem very, very thin. "Man at bar" and such. I'm on the verge of AfDing, but only as a courtesy because I'm still waiting for a response from the Ref Desk. A speedy-delete seems more obvious, and the article was previously nominated, but the user removed the template. I PROD-ed in response, and he delivered some references, though not compelling. That's all I've got for now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I changed my mind. I nommed the article for speedy delete. The editor deleted my discussion attempt on the talk page and replaced it with copy/pasted interview content. I think he believes the article is "his", and so he can do what he wishes. I wish to bring light to that assumption. He hasn't responded to any questions or warnings. I left my speedy delete notes on his talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

He has gone too far this time. Repeated recreation of the article that keeps getting deleted due to lack of notability and sources. He does not even respond to all the warnings given to him. Somebody please block him right away. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I opened an ANI discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:Darouet (Result: Warning)

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:

I have only just notified the user, so perhaps any decision should wait for Lvivske's reply. The article Right Sector was recently semi-protected as a result of two days of intense vandalism, mostly by IPs or new accounts, responding to the developing Crimea Crisis. Unfortunately much of the resulting article was unsourced.

Today I returned the sourced descriptions of Right Sector that I added some time ago, noting its right-wing, far-right, or fascistic views. Lviviske removed this summary from the lead and placed it in the "ideology" section, while keeping more benign descriptors in the lead. I reverted the change, and placed a note on the talk page explaining my position that all political parties have their ideological views summarized in the lead. Lvivske again reverted and did not contribute or explain on the talk page. In this case I assume that a 1RR is in effect due to WP:ARBEE.

The user edits heavily on Ukrainian politics, has been blocked on many occasions for edit warring, and is well aware of WP:ARBEE restrictions. The user is also a declared ideological partisan of Svoboda, another far-right political force in Ukraine. The two of us have come into conflict repeatedly at Svoboda (political party), though until now we've been able to come to an understanding, in each case, through talk page discussions. -Darouet (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, looking at their talk page, I see they're deleting 3RR warnings from others and throwing abusive language in as well: . -Darouet (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware of any talk page mention, or 1RR in effect since my editing has been down heavily the last few days. By your own statement, if this is the case, you restored once, then reverted me, right? Doesn't that put us both over now? Please refrain from COI accusations like "The user is also a declared ideological partisan of Svoboda", as it's an accusation of bad faith. You edit war with me all the time, taking this to admin is highly WP:BATTLEGROUND since I'm always willing to use the talk page with you. My argument was format (too many unsupported words, style issue) and your argument is me POV pushing (when I didn't remove a word of your content). Come on, now. (if there is a 1RR in effect I'll self revert, but I checked and see nothing?) --Львівське (говорити) 06:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would think the page is under 1RR like all contentious east European articles.

Looking through the article's history more carefully, I see that these IP edits show the exact moment when those descriptions were removed (less than 24 hours before I returned them). However, the article was then protected because the flood of IP edits was deemed vandalism.

I really feel that your "format" argument is a content argument because, in the name of style and concision, you've removed uncomfortable descriptors ("fascist") from major newspapers (Time (magazine), The Guardian, USA Today) while keeping others ("opposition group"). The effect is to bias what a reader sees when they first intend to learn about the group. These descriptors aren't being foisted on Right Sector: in an interview a few days ago, one member told the BBC that many (not all) in Right Sector want "a clean nation, not like under Hitler, but in our own way, a little bit like that." Which is why those reliable sources are providing accurate descriptions.

If you're willing to engage in the talk page (which I see you're now doing), I will appreciate that. -Darouet (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Львівське you state on your own user page that you support Svoboda, so I don't think my statement is so far-fetched. -Darouet (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

'opposition group' isn't an adjective requiring good sourcing, why would I move it to the ideology section? Also, me +1'ing Svoboda has nothing to do with Right Sector or even a COI, unless you're saying all Canadians who like Obama be banned from American politics articles due to rampant COI. In which case...--Львівське (говорити) 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

To whichever Admin reviews this mess, in light of the COI accusations I went over the diffs to review the content and found that User:Darouet knowingly and deliberately used a source on wikipedia's blacklist diff, which was followed by adding original research. The blacklisted site is eutimes.net/2014/02/we-did-not-overthrow-the-government-to-deliver-it-to-us-eu-ukraine/ EUTimes.net and the diff shows he filled out the rest of the citation info and access date, but left the URL blank for obvious reasons.--Львівське (говорити) 07:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I did that, because the site showed up in google news, and I couldn't find the entry explaining that it was blacklisted, or why, when the url raised a red flag as I posted. So I assumed it was a mistake. And Lvivske, in your revert, you also removed an entirely different source, which is now a third revert on the same page. Lastly, I never accused you of WP:COI, which refers to something entirely different. -Darouet (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Because it's PR firm and that you paired it with a blacklisted source. I posted it on the talk page for transparency, but you seem to see no issue with using PR firms and blacklisted sites. Per WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and revert rules do not apply to BLP libel. I acted bold because this was such an egregious edit. --Львівське (говорити) 07:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea that the EU Times was a PR site (it describes itself as a newspaper), and Eurasia Review is something quite different. Here is a video of the man Eurasia Review supposedly slanders. -Darouet (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is dealing with a section of the article, in the body, entirely unrelated to your violation of 1RR in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske was put on 1RR restriction for all Ukraine-related articles by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on 30 October 2011, more than two years ago. See Talk:Ukrainians/Archive_2#Sanctions. As far as I can tell, no violations of WP:ARBEE was registered since. I think two years is almost eternity by wikipedia standards. I think we must keep a good faith and remind him about the restrictions before applying the block. There is also a BLP component in the editorial conflict. Organizations that are active in the present time are protected by WP:BLP, we need a much better source than an opinion of couple of journalists to state that a part is fascist and far right as a fact, not as an attributed opinion as in Lvivske's version. I will give Lvivske a warning, reminding that his 1RR restriction is still active. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand: Lvivske was not adding those tags, (it was me, if you look at my complaint, who wrote that "Right Sector has been described as having far-right, or neofascist views"), and my complaint was only regarding 1RR. Regarding the tags, by the way, another editor already upheld them twice on the page, because of the high quality of the sources. -Darouet (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and I understand your position. It should be noted that Right Sector is only a few months old, which is why we don't yet have academic, as opposed to journalistic sources. I will refrain from adding Op-Ed pieces using the term "fascist", though I believe that multiple news articles from reliable sources should be sufficient to characterize their political position with confidence, even if that position includes fascism. The presence of editorial boards should prevent the simple opinion of journalists from replacing the published record of the newspapers. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: User:Alex Bakharev has closed this report with a warning to Lvivske that his 1RR restriction on Ukraine-related articles is still in effect. The 1RR restriction is actually still listed in the WP:ARBEE log if you search for it. Refer to Talk:Ukrainians/Archive 2#Sanctions. The full text was (per a decision by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in 2011): ..placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC). EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:219.110.203.17 reported by User:DAJF (Result: Blocked)

Page: Futsukaichi Rest Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 219.110.203.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

11:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) ""
05:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598096131 by DAJF (talk)the content There is a reference support."
06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

11:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Futsukaichi Rest Home. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not strictly a 3RR violation yet, but the IP received a 3-day block for similar edit-warring back in February, and has returned to continue adding unverifiable POV-pushing despite warnings and reversions by other editors. DAJF (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Mufaddalqn (Result: Blocked)

07:36, 4 March 2014‎ Mufaddalqn (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,408 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (→‎Succession controversy: typo) (undo)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(cur | prev) 07:02, 5 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,766 bytes) (-6,642)‎ . . (still a claimant dont introduce biased information, the diary is not written NOR signed by burhanuddin , the signatures are wrong. Moreover it is a personal blog of mufaddal and cant be referenced here as its a biased primary source.) (undo | thank)

March 2014

I made 1 revert, you made 3 reverts. Know the definition of edit warring. OccultZone (Talk) 07:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC) please refer user:summichum talk page

Comments:

After being unblocked he started edit warring again without any discussion and reverted all the well sourced and neutral inputs.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC) The user has deleted edit warning from his talk page and is not ready to discuss the issue.Mufaddalqn (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

user:summichum has deleted all the discussion from his talk page.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC) The user:summichum is persistent in reverting the editing done by any other users. Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:219.110.203.17 reported by User:XinJeisan (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:219.110.203.17&diff=prev&oldid=598075405

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor has continued to attempt to add two blog-like youtube links to this page in spite of several other editors removing the link. Even after being warned, editor continues to revert changes.

The editor has a similar pattern on other articles and has several warnings already on their talk page. XinJeisan (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Also reported above for similar edit-warring on Futsukaichi Rest Home. --DAJF (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mufaddalqn reported by User:Summichum (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

There are floods of users adding unsourced or poorly sourced information regarding the succession controversy, or removing sourced content in this article. I've frankly given up, as I can't stop them all and stay within 3RR. Here's one removing that he is a claimant, addition of poorly referenced claims to support a political position.

Comments:
The user Mufaddalqn with other users has been warned several times , yet they persistently vandalize the article adding biased primary blog sources.

you are acting as if you are the only authorized person who has the right to edit.Mufaddalqn (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Summichum (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that but it is you who have been indulging in edit war. my edit is relevant and i have cited proper source. you seem to be persistent in reverting whatever edit I have done or done by anyone which do not comply with your point of view. Stop using this article as propaganda against Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. That is what you are doing. regarding khuzaima qutbuddin nass you can use the arguments in his site. their is no need to discredit other editors.your edit is libelous and defaming Syendna Mufaddal Saifuddin. You can clearly see that I have not reverted nor vandalised any article from history. you are treating this as war because I have reported you above. once you were blocked for the same issue yet again you persist.Mufaddalqn (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: No action. This is not enough documentation to show edit warring by Mufaddalqn. The other party, User:Summichum, is already blocked for a week per a report above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Amensnober91 reported by User:Hanibal911

This user broke the rule 1RR.

Here are some examples:

He do not listen any arguments of other editors and simply insists that only he is right.her and her He was offered a compromise solution but without success, he does not even want to listen to other editors. He does not want to compromise and provokes war the editors. I ask you to take action. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Amensnober91 made a clear violation of WP:SCWGS - i counted at least 6 non-consequent reverts in the last 24h. He needs however to get a formal 1RR warning first prior to further sanctions.GreyShark (dibra) 17:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I informed him. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

But he continues his actions. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You notified him after reporting here, but he has to receive one warning on WP:SCWGS from an experienced editor or from an administrator (which will probably happen, once this case is examined).GreyShark (dibra) 18:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Robsinden reported by User:GSK (Result: )

Page: Jurassic World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robsinden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#Jurassic World vs WP:NFF. Two articles are not justified - and this is only a cut and paste job from Development of Jurassic World"
16:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "NO! We do not need two articles for a film that has not even entered production yet. This is a WP:CONTENT FORK"
14:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598043430 by Koala15 (talk) Revert was is essentially a cut and paste move. Stable article was at Development of Jurassic World"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Jurassic World. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

04:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Violation of WP:NFF */"

Comments:

Instead of the usual 24 hours for 3RR, this is more like 25 hours, but it's still edit warring, in my opinion. FWIW, the redirect on Jurassic World was temporarily removed to make this report via WP:TW. g s k 20:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add I asked he stop and talk, but he ignored me. Rusted AutoParts 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:83.200.15.5 reported by User:Silvrous (Result: )

Page: Giuseppe Garibaldi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.200.15.5 (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 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC) to 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
1. 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598319115 by Silvrous (talk)"
2. 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "The kingdom of Sardinia was occupied by France. Paris was occupied by Germany in 1940. People of nice are italian. Garibaldi is an Italian surname and Nice are italian until 1860."
22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598318207 by Silvrous (talk)"
22:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "it wasn't french in this time"
22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "The kingdom of Sardinia was occupied by France. Paris was occupied by Germany in 1940."
22:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "??? garibaldi is french loool"
22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "It wasn't french"
22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

22:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Giuseppe Garibaldi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resolution attempts were made through edit summaries by myself and Discospinster, and by adding a reference; Silvrous 22:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:25162995 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Amanda Knox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 25162995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC) ""
23:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Again reverted back to sources. No consensus is needed because it is clearly stated that conviction stands. This is stated in sources in black and white. DO NOT 3rr"
23:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Go to talk. Do no start an edit war. Provide a source that says she was not convicted and prove this in talk. Then revert when you have proven your case in comparison to black and white facts. WP:BOLD"
23:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted yet again citing WP:BOLD. You are clearly editing warring and antagonising an issue that you cannot back up. Again stop reverting clearly sourced fact, See WP NOR and 3RR"
23:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted yet again citing WP:BOLD. You are clearly editing warring and antagonising an issue that you cannot back up. Again stop reverting clearly sourced fact, See WP NOR and 3RR"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

23:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* March 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

23:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Use of the word convicted in the lede */"

Comments:

Multiple editors have tried discussing this on the talk page but 25162995 does not accept contrary views and ignores the apparent consensus against their preferred version Ravensfire (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear case of 3 editors with a clear POV banding together to try and change and article to their own OP whilst ignoring black and white sourced facts on the issue. 3 editors claim POV on the issue which clearly comes under WP:NOR. They have consistently reverted highly sourced info whilst providing no real interaction on chat barring OP. 25162995 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This case is crystal clear. User 25162995 must be blocked to prevent disruption, since the user has multiple 3RR violations with no cessation in sight. User 25162995 does not respect the strong consensus against the word "convicted", saying instead that "there is no need for any consensus on this issue", because the user thinks they are the only person who is correct. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwer1995 and User:Newwikiuser12345 reported by User:Meters (Result: )

Page: Airtel Super Singer 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qwer1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Newwikiuser12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

A small sample of what has been gooing on
Diffs of the user's reverts:

And by the other:

Diff of edit warrings / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved. Since being warned has at least made a token attempt to resolve the issue, albeit by proposing mutually exclusive ownership of sections.

Comments:
Edit war between user:Qwer1995 and user:Newwikiuser12345 on Airtel Super Singer 4. Approximately 60 reverts between the two of them in the last 3 days. Both have reverted since being warned. Meters (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Categories: