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 98.196.235.104 (talk) at 14:10, 13 June 2013 (→‎User:RJensen reported by User:98.196.235.104 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    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:FanforClark14 reported by User:Digifan23 (Result: Semi)

    Page
    List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids Sprout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    FanforClark14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit&section=19#
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from Jun 8 2013 6:14 PM to Jun 8 2013 7:38 PM
      1. Jun 8 2013 6:14 PM ""
      2. Jun 8 2013 6:21 PM "/* Current programming (As of June 2013) */"
      3. Jun 8 2013 6:40 PM ""
      4. Jun 8 2013 7:19 PM "/* Live-action */"
      5. Jun 8 2013 7:26 PM ""
      6. Jun 8 2013 7:29 PM "/* Animated */"
      7. Jun 8 2013 7:38 PM ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from Jun 8 2013 7:45 PM to Jun 8 2013 7:55 PM
      1. Jun 8 2013 7:45 PM ""
      2. Jun 8 2013 7:50 PM ""
      3. Jun 8 2013 7:55 PM ""
    3. Jun 8 2013 8:07 PM ""
    4. Jun 8 2013 8:12 PM ""
    5. Jun 8 2013 8:25 PM ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FanforClark14&diff=558981010&oldid=558980026
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:FanforClark14 (talk · contribs) reverts, noticed edit war after FanforClark14 was reported to WP:AIV

    User:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: Semi)

    Page: History of the Ukrainian minority in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    [1]

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [2]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [3]
    2. [4]
    3. [5]
    4. [6]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

    Comments:

    First of all, I want to note that this is not the only page that there is a problem with edit warring with Faustian. He also has been cyberstalking-cyberhounding anonymous contributions by IP address here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&action=history and here: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church&action=historysubmit&diff=558478063&oldid=555908985 (completely unsupported anti-Polonism, anti-Lithuanian, anti-Catholic POV) Rather than engage in dialogue with other editors he arrogantly labels such contributions "anonymous disruption" since they conflict with with Ukrainian Nationalist POV.

    He has used this tactic to harass anonymous contributors, even going so far as attempt to get IP's blocked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#IP_anon_at_it_again His provocative behavior has resulted having anons blocked from contributing to the discussion of Steran Bandera. We also have edit warring here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stepan_Bandera#Recent_IP_edits I don't know if that needs an additional complaint or if it should be included here. I don't know what the rules are about this, but it is becoming tedious because there is a clear pattern of harassment, cyberstalking/cyberhounding by someone not interested in anything approaching a neutral point of view, and that is obvious from his home page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Faustian

    I have attempted to engage this individual in discussion, and I have cited a leading Ukrainian historian who is internationally recognized in Poland and the UK for her knowledge of Ukrainian nationalism in the Second Polish Republic: Iryna Shlikhta in Nationalism as a Play: Ukrainian Nationalists Playing in the Inter-War Poland http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/probing-the-boundaries/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/irynaplaypaper.pdf http://www.polishhistory.pl/uploads/media/Narodowosci_i_role_spoleczne_program.pdf His response was to simply revert all comments here as "restore referenced information and removed blatant falsification of sources": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland&oldid=558758400 DIFF: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland&action=historysubmit&diff=558758400&oldid=558756495

    I have also noticed that he removed reference to a Polish Ph.D., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiktor_Poliszczuk, here as a "unreliable source": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland#Unreliable_Source Essentially, anyone Polish, Ukrainian or other who's views he does not concur, whatever his or her academic credentials, or standing at a university like Oxford University is removed as a "unreliable source".

    Lastly, I concur with other contributors that this topic needs to be merged with something else, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland

    I really don't know where to go from here. All of these procedures are confusing, but I think this problem is beyond a simple edit war. It crosses into other pages from cyberstalking/cyberhounding and the harassment of attempting to get pages locked and IP's shut down to prevent anonymous contributions. I also suspect there is a sock puppet or meat puppet here who is working with him across pages.

    Edit to add that this should fall under Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBEE Sanctions are being requested.

    This IP has a history of disruptive edits, removal of referenced information, and making controversial changes without seeking consensus on the talk pages. I also suspect sockpuppetry. WHOIS of the IPs involved in this harassment of me and disruptions of various articles reveals it is probably one person. 194.44.15.214: [9]; and 213.174.5.82 [10]; this one is from the same city: 176.104.185.203 [11] and is probably also the same person. Abusive behavior by this IP here: [12] "Rabid Ukrainian Nationalist Faustian". About a month ago there arose a similar situation with an IP behaving in a similar way, resulting in a block of that IP due to blatant misrepresentation of sources. That situation complete with diffs is here: [13]. The current disruptive IP appears to be writing from a different geographic location but behavior is quite similar. This is not the place for discussing content but a brief example of the IPs misrepresentation: [14]. Phrase "Ukrainians were worse off in Poland than they were in neighboring Czechoslovakia. In that country, the first Ukrainian school system was only established in 1918 and already by 1921-1922 89 percent of Ukrainian children were enrolled in Ukrainian-language schools" taken from Janusz Radziejowski. (1983). The Communist Party of Western Ukraine: 1919-1929. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press at the University of Toronto, pg.7, was replaced with "Ukrainians unhappy with Polish language instruction were free to study in the Ukrainian language in Vienna or Czechoslovakia" which is not what Radziejowki said (this can be confirmed on googlebooks here. The source stated "In the 1920s, the situation of the Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities was generally worse than in neighboring countries...in Transcarpathian Ukraine the first Ukrainian school system was only in 1918, when this area was incorporated into the new Czechoslovakian state. But already by 1921-1922 89% of Ukrainian children were attending Ukrainian schools") and is clearly adding a POV spin. This is the type of disruption typical of this IP.
    Note that when an established user unconnected to this dispute entered this discussion, there was nothing disruptive going on and the IPs claims were not supported: [15]. Note also that on my user page, which this IP claims is evidence of my pushing some sort of Ukrainian nationalist POV. On the user page it is evident that I have received awards from editors of various nationalities. Also, I have maintained a clean block record with respect to eastern European issues, after many years of editing in these very contentious areas.
    I am requesting a block of this IP or at least semi-protection of articles being disrupted by it. Ironically, this IP engages in the same behavior it accuses others of.Faustian (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.Faustian (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry Ed, but you have just rewarded Faustian for his conduct here. Upon further review, this complaint is beyond simple edit warring and demonstrates a pattern of disruptive editing against anonymous contributors and harassment. Faustian justifies repeatedly reverting edits from anonymous contributions by simply labeling them “disruptive” rather than attempting to address the concerns stated of the lack of a NPOV. Wikipedia permits anonymous contributions and the rules for editing their work is not different than from others who post under pseudonyms. Faustian improperly uses the label of “disruptive” to attempt to censure content and then limits debate to discussion with another editor, Volunteer Marek, appears Deus ex Machina more than once across pages to agree with Faustian without himself ever demonstrating any substantial contribution to the page. It looks very much like he has been summoned to concur. It resemble puppetry and it should be investigated. Many other commentators on the talk page appear to disagree with Faustian's POV.

    Claims of disruption are for the Admins here to address. Faustian has been acting as a provocateur here with his self declared right to revert any edit he considers disruptive without further discussion. Since his conduct was improper, it is difficult to know what comment should be included in response to an illegal edit. Having provoked such reverts with an illegal edit, Faustian then attempted, and partially succeeded, in limiting the ability of anonymous to participate and moderate his Nationalist Ukrainian POV on pages. After failing to get this IP address blocked, Faustian then continues his disruptive editing, cyberstalking/hounding, and harassment.

    While this is not the place to get into the details of what should be on the page. What is obvious is that Faustian is promoting a biased POV about some great injustice done to those who spoke a Ruthenian language and where not at least bilingual Polish speakers. He is promoting a POV that Poland had some moral or legal obligation to continue the Hapsburg model of education that left the Hapsburg empire trailing Germany industrially. He refuses to acknowledge that Poland's policy of one national language was in the national interest of modernization and industrialization, that it opened educational opportunities to minorities in all Polish universities and polytechnical schools nationwide, and that Poles who had been educated in German, or Russian were also adversely affected by this policy.

    Although the page is about the Ukrainian minority in Poland, he wants to discuss how other former Hapsburg nationals educated their Ruthenian populations, while ignoring the affects of the single language educational policy in Poland effected other ethnic groups in the Second Polish Republic. If we are to start comparing Poland's educational system linguistically with regard to the rest of Europe, it would need to include Germany where the Pomerianan language is now extinct.

    To support his POV Faustian, relies upon a communist era historical work published in 1976 to support his claim of the mistreatment of the Ukrainian population.

    The page should be merges with something else, perhaps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonization

    There is more here to address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of false and (and sometimes abusive) statements that are typical of this IP's behavior, although I won't get into that here because it's not the place for it; just pointing out that this is what has been going on.Faustian (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Faustian was making illegal edits and then provoked a problem. Not everyone here wants to spend every waking minute warring like Faustian. Cyberstalking/hounding, harassing other contributors, etc is not acceptable and will be addressed in turn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lexein reported by User:ApolloLee (Result: Article protected)

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


    Note: The description of this is written in the comments at the bottom, which should make this more clear. I am not sure if the full issue will be clear from just looking at the different versions. This article is about a company that had a large ethics scandal. When I put additional information in about that scandal (all sourced from major newspapers), it was erased and I was attacked over it. More details are below.

    Version before yesterday's reverting by Lexein (May Version): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&oldid=556073774

    The current page displaying is the reverted (March) version that Lexein wrote originally: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&oldid=559157357

    Previous version reverted to: [16]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    This issue is more about edit warring & an editor being overprotective of an article that needed updating to accurately reflect what occurred with this company. Here are diffs of Lexein's 2 reverts and one done by a random person who never had any other contribs...but the problem is not really the reverting. Rather, there were 20+ sources erased along with all of the work I (and others) added (see comments below)

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=559157357&oldid=559137978
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=559137978&oldid=559134055
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=558844199&oldid=556073774 (mystery user)


    I stated the problem & warned him on the article talk page and his page with the template provided.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Journatic (see the bottom section that Lexein created - the dispute is concentrated there)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lexein&oldid=559143804 (heading Journatic)

    Comments:

    When I tried to discuss the changes to this entry with Lexein, he responded to my comments with “TLDR” [too long didn’t read] on his talk page and things like “it sure as fuck wasn't Journatic's PR material” (when I pointed out the article was citing “The Journatic Journal”) and “Jesus fucking christ on a stick” (for posting on his talk page) and “do not fucking republish redacted text. That's just fucking rude” (for replying to a prior version of a page that I didn’t know he updated). So, I obviously cannot talk to this person - but I will not let my contributions to the article (which took about 8 hours) be bullied out of Wikipedia by this. He just reverted back to his last copy in March. That was not the solution given that he erased 20+ new sources and a lot of information.

    Since I added 20+ new sources and a lot of new text, the article should be reverted back to my last version in May and then opened to discussion on the talk page to remove the material that Lexein finds problematic. As an aside, I never even intended to edit the much article at first - but I posted about 15 sources in the talk page for someone to use to revise the article to be more comprehensive. When nobody did anything, I expanded the article directly from those sources (but was perfectly happy for anyone else to do it). Lexein has reverted it twice since then to his original March edit.

    He is claiming it looks like a “bully pulpit” and violates WP:POINTY. I don’t agree. Journatic is a news service, and their cover up of how they generated content overseas and printed it with American names is not a small issue. Since they are a young company, they were operating under false pretenses for most of their history as well. They only stopped when they got caught (when an internal employee leaked it). Almost all details relating to this were removed from the article (though they are clear on the NPR transcript cited in my version & other reports - http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/468/transcript - see "Act Two" among many other articles as this grew). Some sources are even more “pointy” than what I wrote. Regardless, it can be edited down easily from the last version. Erasing 20+ new sources is not the solution. The reality is that this company engaged in a lot of unethical behavior and they would like it glossed over and covered up. Its CEO lied to a lot of people about many things that he was doing, which got covered extensively in many reliable sources. This was uncovered in the summer of 2012, and given the short life of the company & new (controversial) business model they are using (stated by others, not original research by me), it’s appropriate to include. All other companies and CEOs that have had these kinds of scandals have them included in detail (e.g., Enron has its own page on the scandal alone). By nature, outsourcing "local journalism" from the USA to Asia will be controversial, and that was explained in the article. Also, the “benefits” and “criticisms” sections existed before I edited anything (which Lexein erased as well).

    While it is not appropriate to take a negative POV about their unethical behavior, minimizing all of it & rewriting history is not appropriate either. Journatic has already done that on their marketing/PR materials. Every other source that I cited (e.g., NPR, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, Crains Chicago Business, Poynter, SF Gate, Houston Chronicle) has the real story about this company, and those sources were included in my edits (but wiped out by Lexein). They were reverted because Lexein thought I was being “obsessive”. I was being accurate & depicting a chronological series of events as shown in the sources. He also claimed I was going overboard because it was limited to Chicago, which it is not the case at all (Houston and San Francisco are included, among others - which is clear if you read the article). I am not going to waste time in an edit war with this person. He will not communicate in a civil manner and has already reverted it twice (possibly 3 times since another screen name appeared out of nowhere and reverted it):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=559157357&oldid=559137978

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=559137978&oldid=559134055

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=558844199&oldid=556073774 (mystery user who didn’t use revert but copied all the old text. User has no other contribs)

    I would like it to be reverted back to reflect the 20+ new sources and accurate depiction of the company. Lexein should not be able to revert this back to his personal March version. It can be edited from there to remove things that are supposedly POV once all of the sources are read by the respective editors - not based on their emotional reaction to a factual article or other possible conflict of interest. It should also be pointed out that Journatic links directly to this page on their blog - http://journatic.weebly.com/about-journatic.html. So, they have an interest in keeping it looking "nice" as well. Thank you. ApolloLee (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Lexein:: What this is, in my opinion, is an article which grew out of control with POV in one direction, then was heavily edited to reflect a strong POV in the other direction. I erred in not reverting the whole mess sooner, and farther back, and I've apologized for that in Talk. I think my baseline is neutral, and progress on the article should proceed from there, and I've explained that in Talk:Journatic. ApolloLee is quite willing to spend hours and days arguing with voluminous, repetitive text, rather than just rewrite with neutral tone. This is wikilawyering, and it wastes time and effort. The dispute would have been over and done with sooner if ApolloLee had just followed my advice. AFAIK, we have a duty to remove strong POV from articles ASAP, rather than leave it up to be gradually edited. I am not a pro or anti partisan in re Journatic, and I reverted to "my" so-called version from months ago, because it was the last one that seemed neutral to me. In Talk, I strongly suggested that further changes be discussed in Talk first, specifically to avoid revert battles. To me, literally all the other versions were taking brickbats to either the company or its detractors. If ANEW concludes I'm wrong, so be it. No problem. --Lexein (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by ApolloLee: Re: "ApolloLee is quite willing to spend hours and days arguing with voluminous, repetitive text, rather than just rewrite with neutral tone." - I said I was willing to rewrite what was already there and take out what was repetitive from the last version I edited on May 21. This was the first thing I wrote to you after your revert. I said, "At this point, if it is repetitive, then it makes more sense to edit rather than to revert..." - and you replied "TLDR" among other things. Regardless, I don't see why I (or any editor) should start from the March version you reverted to which erased 20+ additional sources that took 8-10 hrs to write the first time. That makes no sense to do. It is not "wikilawyering" - it's a ridiculous use of time given that the article had so much put into it already. What if you don't like the next version after 5 hours of additional editing (and the same sources that you erased, likely) - are you going to revert it again? Who would want to edit it then? Anyway, it is not so horrendously POV that it has to be taken back to a 3 month old version. All of my statements are sourced without my personal opinion stated anywhere. If my last version seemed non-neutral, it could be edited down instead of being reverted back to your version from March with the 20+ new sources gone. As soon as editors who thought it wasn't neutral started reading the source material, they dropped that viewpoint. Journatic did what they did - I just typed it in. I didn't white wash their behavior because it was the subject of 20+ articles.

    When i found this article, it was heavily citing Journatic's materials and it did "grow out of control with POV in one direction" exactly as you said. Journatic's entire business involves hiring people all over the world to write content...so it's not surprising. So, I went to the talk page and posted many links to articles for someone to hopefully edit in over time. Anyone who read those sources would have written a very similar article to the one I did because the article reflects the sources. If it went too negative, let's start from that end point and edit out the stuff that went too far. I already took some out in the various revisions. It's much easier to take content out than to start from scratch (from March). All the sources are in the May version & the chronology is there as well...but it's gone in the March version. If it isn't neutral, that largely reflects the fact that 20+ articles about them were quite negative. The tone can be changed, but the facts are what they are. I know some was repetitive (e.g., I had a hard time w/ the opening paragraph sounding too much like the rest of article, etc) but I think it's definitely fixable from that point. Starting from the March copy eliminates way too many sources and information. ApolloLee (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? Yes, I know they will respond, and I wanted them to have the most accurate details possible. This is the fourth time you have tried to control what I say on here for no legitimate reason. First, you have a major f-bomb laden overreaction because I politely asked you not to revert Journatic on your talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lexein&oldid=559143804). Thousands of editors use talk pages to discuss article changes, and your reaction was completely unnecessary. Then, you had another similar reaction on the Journatic talk page telling me I was "fucking rude" among other things (for doing exactly what you told me to do & not responding on your talk page) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJournatic&diff=559158721&oldid=559157745. Yes, I copied your "redacted" text because I never saw that you erased it. Then, you demanded I rewrite this article (that I already spent hours rewriting) because you reverted it all back to your March version...all the while implying that you somehow hold veto power over the article's changes. And now, you're trying to control what I post here - which is the last possible place I can even post about this. I had no intention of continuing to post here now that the last details are clarified above. I am just amazed you've made a 4th attempt at trying to control what I write, when I've never done anything wrong from the start. I have certainly not reverted your pages & told you to rewrite them, swore at you repeatedly, and told you to "stop". 10:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)ApolloLee (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Time spent complaining is not editing. WP:TIGERS. WP:NOT. Whatever you're expecting to happen here, you should lower your expectations. Nobody is here for you to vent at. If you had bothered to ask anyone (most editors with any experience would have told you that just because sources exist, does not mean every one of them has to be added to the article) you probably wouldn't have wasted hours of work. See also my essay SHRUG. --Lexein (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Article protected three weeks. Some of the recent versions of this article make it sound like a hit piece. Even if all the negative claims about Journatic are correct, Wikipedia articles aren't usually written in that style. Lexein's comments about neutrality are well taken. Use the talk page to get agreement on the disputed material. You might be able to get advice at WP:BLP/N. Ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP if consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Underlying lk reported by User:AfricaTanz (Result: AfricaTanz warned)

    Page: Tanzania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Underlying lk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanzania&action=historysubmit&diff=551021105&oldid=550762296

    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanzania&diff=558687537&oldid=558186536
    (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanzania&diff=559144379&oldid=558728187
    (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanzania&curid=30118&diff=559334720&oldid=559269804

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings:
    (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUnderlying_lk&diff=559263387&oldid=559163038
    (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUnderlying_lk&diff=559338355&oldid=559333978

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article and user talk pages:
    (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATanzania&diff=559340759&oldid=552349426
    (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAfricaTanz&diff=558851321&oldid=558762017

    Comments:
    This user is also highly incivil and disruptive.
    (1) Misrepresentation of my edits and the purpose thereof: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATanzania&diff=559149086&oldid=552349426
    (2) Unapologetic and sarcastic admission of doing so: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATanzania&diff=559334909&oldid=559264822
    (3) Ridicule of myself for having been blocked recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Underlying_lk&diff=prev&oldid=559333978
    (4) Same: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Underlying_lk&diff=prev&oldid=559338472

    AfricaTanz (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I first came across AfricaTanz after reading the Tanzania article, and noticing that the GDP per capita figures were missing. I assumed they had been removed by a vandal and added them back. AfricaTanz then reverted me, insisting on their removal, as they were 'wrong'. As is customary in the case of content disputes, I dropped him a message to discuss the issue and offer a compromise. This greatly annoyed him, and he changed his tone, becoming outright obstructive. He admitted implicitly the absurdity of his stance of deleting everything when he restated the GDP figures, this time with a note pointing out his own 'right' calculations, which I removed. The rest of this petty argument is of his own doing, and his accusations are lies.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Taroaldo reported by User:AfricaTanz (Result: Protected)

    Page: Michael Omolewa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Taroaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:
    (1) Omission of article tags: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558850063&oldid=558849262
    (2) Omission of quote in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558849262&oldid=558731022

    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    (1) Omission of quotation in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=prev&oldid=558854097
    (2) Omission of article tags: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558857432&oldid=558857304
    (3) Omission of article tags: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558857885&oldid=558857728
    (4) Omission of quotation in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558858177&oldid=558857885
    (5) Omission of quotation in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=559326146&oldid=559269303

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings:
    (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=558863977&oldid=558863567
    (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=558864629&oldid=558864311

    Comments:

    Taroaldo has been edit warring in the Michael Omolewa article since June 7 and continuing to the present time. The next-to-last edit in that article (as of the date and time of this post) was another edit warring revert by Taroaldo. He has been edit warring about two related issues: the omission of revision article tags and the omission of a quotation in the lede. He is in favor of both omissions, and is the sole editor that favors omission of the quotation. Myself and Lord777 are in favor of including the quotation; however, Taroaldo has unilaterally overriden that consensus in favor of his own preference.

    Not only has Taroaldo been edit warring, but he has actively promoted an "us versus AfricaTanz" incivil atmosphere. And he has gone to great lengths to punish me for disagreeing with him. Here are the diffs:

    (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AfricaTanz&diff=prev&oldid=558853072
    (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AfricaTanz&diff=prev&oldid=558860104
    (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=558862292
    (4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord777&diff=prev&oldid=558863253
    (5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taroaldo&diff=prev&oldid=558864311
    (6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taroaldo&diff=prev&oldid=558866130
    (7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&diff=prev&oldid=559117217
    (8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&diff=prev&oldid=559122502
    (9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AfricaTanz&curid=37569588&diff=559315505&oldid=559268506
    (10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=559315149&oldid=559313913
    (11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=559312650&oldid=559311807

    AfricaTanz (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how the third link in AfricaTanz's final list [18] shows that he is being punished for disagreeing with Taroaldo. Rather, Taroaldo's post was accepted as a good-faith 3RR report, investigated by an uninvolved administrator, and led to AfricaTanz being blocked for edit warring [19]. (In fact, most of the revert diffs he provides above predate his block, and form part of the very same dispute for which he was judged the party in the wrong.) Upon the block's expiry AfricaTanz continued his combative behaviour, and twice rewrote Taroaldo's talk page comments in violation of WP:TALK [20] [21]. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is AfricaTanz's response to his block [22] of 8 June 2013. His behaviour at the Michael Omolewa article was already discussed at AN3 here [23]. AfricaTanz suggests I have "overriden" a consensus about edits to the Michael Omolewa page when, in fact, there hasn't been any productive discussion on the talk page [24]. I updated the talk page to indicate that I was going to clean up some of the excessive weight and promotional tone, which seemed to be AfricaTanz's main concern as indicated by these edit summaries [25], [26], [27].
    Pattern of behaviour
    A
    AfricaTanz came back from the block and immediately restarted a dispute he was having at the Tanzania article regarding GDP figures [28]. This is an "escalation" (based on the inappropriate wording used within the article) to the edit [29] he made just before his block. His talk page contributions were not constructive [30], [31].He has subsequently been warned (see the report immediately above, or [32]).
    B
    He invokes User:Lord777's name above as one of his supporters, which appears to be an attempt to mislead this forum. AfricaTanz is in conflict with Lord777 about almost everything:
    • AfricaTanz's edit summary [33], which I encountered on a Recent Changes patrol, was a threat to have Lord777 indef blocked for removing a maintenance template after Lord777 had made good faith edits which he felt were sufficient to remove the template. (Note: When I found this edit summary on Recent Changes, it became my first encounter with either of these editors.)
    • Lord777 asked AfricaTanz to cease making reverts to the cleanup attempt [34]
    • This edit shows the ongoing disagreement between the two editors [35]
    • AfricaTanz suggested Lord777 could be blocked for discussing his (AfricaTanz's) edits on my talk page [36]
    • Lord777 subsequently asked AfricaTanz to refrain from commenting on his talk page [37]
    • After AfricaTanz had been reported to AN3, he placed a 3RR warning on Lord777's talk page [38]
    Additional
    The "warnings" he cites above were placed on my talk page after discussion about his actions had been initiated at AN3.
    AfricaTanz has cited issues other than 3RR here, and seems to be engaging in conflicts with multiple editors. This only furthers ongoing concern about his behaviour. It may be at the point where this whole situation should be moved over to another forum where the idea of a longer block for tendentious editing should be explored. Taroaldo ✉ 22:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Article fully protected for three days. Several editors appear to have an interest in cleaning up the article so it is unclear why they are getting in each others' way. Consider using the talk page to reach agreement on the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CSDarrow reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 1 month)

    Page: Men's movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: CSDarrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [39]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [40] 17:20, May 19, 2013. New section. Added "...mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers..." etc.
    2. [41] 22:10, June 10, 2013. Restored section including "...mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers..."
    3. [42] 01:22, June 11, 2013. Reworked section but it still includes "...mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers..." as a quote.
    4. [43] 18:48, June 11, 2013. Restored section including "...mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers..." as a quote.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Men's_movement#SPLC_material.

    Comments:

    • Note that the Men's movement article is under 1RR oversight.
    • With this reply to the edit warring warning, CSDarrow acknowledged that his most recent revert could be considered a violation of 1RR, but he invited some other user to revert in his name. This comment of his took longer to type than it would have taken to simply self-revert. In fact CSDarrow made three more edits in the next three minutes ([45][46][47]) but none of them were a self-revert. I consider three minutes ample time to self-revert.
    CSDarrow's disruptive behavior needs to be addressed. He is at the heart of a debate about the Men's movement article, which practically reached a boiling point last night at AN/I, as a result of his false allegations that he was being bullied by four editors, including two admins (Bbb23 and Drmies). So he is fully aware that the content he has now added three times is contentious. More importantly, he is ignoring not only the three editors who have reverted his changes, but completely disregarding the fact that there is an active discussion taking place on the article's talk page about the disputed content. The fact that he once again re-added the same content (about 90 minutes ago) in the midst of everything that's happened is outrageous. It indicates CSD's inability to work cooperatively with other editors. He has already been blocked twice in the past three months for his editing in Men's rights movement - one for three days and the other for two weeks - so apparently he hasn't learned his lesson. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not forget that he was blocked for the second time after he removed a sentence [48] in the lead which was supported by the SPLC in the article body. SCDarrow's fixation on the SPLC commentary about the men's rights movement took him to several noticeboards [49][50][51] and articles [52][53][54][55] and he has caused considerable disruption. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I see that CSDarrow has just been blocked for a month, so this report can be withdrawn. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked — One month by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:HistorNE (Result: No action)

    Case 1 - Talk:Lullubi (3RR)
    1. Revision as of 19:17, 11 June 2013
    2. Revision as of 19:25, 11 June 2013
    3. Latest revision as of 19:33, 11 June 2013
    Case 2 - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (4/3RR)
    1. Revision as of 20:37, 11 June 2013
    2. Revision as of 20:39, 11 June 2013
    3. Revision as of 20:41, 11 June 2013
    4. Revision as of 20:45, 11 June 2013

    This user is persistent in aggessively accusing me of being someone's sock, but despite all explanations, proving ranges are different, and consulting with administrator - he's doing same again and again. --HistorNE (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor is lying when they keep claiming that the IP ranges "were proved o be different". It has been pointed out to this editor several times that the IP ranges were NOT proved to be different, and they are obviously the same as recently indefblocked User:Shaushka who has stated their intention to continue maximal disruption. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I analyzed the edits from the entire range and would like to opine that a rangeblock is probably inappropriate at this time. Now when I have account my range can be analized at any time, and I assure admins that result will be the same. --HistorNE (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see User talk:King of Hearts. King of Hearts plainly clarifed to the user that the only analysis was to see that other, valid editors were in the range, and therefore a range block was inadvisable. He pointedly told the user that he/she was NOT cleared of sockpuppetry, yet he/she knowingly continues to try to fool people trying to see what's happening, with this one diff taken out of context. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I already contected User:King of Hearts and informed him that he can check it again. --HistorNE (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)HistorNE is definitely either a sock or a stalker. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it's otherwise, because when someone is assuming bad faith (persistent in aggessively accusing without basis), avoiding communication, harassing by threats (all your edits will be reverted on sight), there's no other explanation. Sorry but I don't consider it as civil behavior. --HistorNE (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined. Regardless out of the outcome of the SPI, TE has a good faith belief that HistorNE is a sock. Therefore, I'm not going to sanction him for the edit warring. @HistorNE, I strongly recommend that you wait for the SPI outcome before continuing to edit here. @TE, you might consider whether it's necessary to revert everything HistorNE does. In other words, slow down a bit, everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TornadoCreator reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No action)

    Page
    History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    TornadoCreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Jun 11 2013 3:22 PM "No, I won't take it to the talk page. Leave it the fuck alone. Either ban me, or watch as I keep changing it back. Is 2.2 million the correct number, or does Wikipedia like being wrong. There's a reason Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for anything."
    2. Jun 11 2013 3:15 PM "Prove that VGChartz isn't reliable, or leave it alone. Unreliable is better than flat out wrong, the Joystiq article is a year out of date. Therefore WRONG! Is Playstation a good enough source. Here. http://www.psu.com/a019417/"
    3. Jun 11 2013 3:06 PM "Yes it is a reliable source, no less unreliable than an out of date Joystiq article. Stop playing favourites."
    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    See Talk:History_of_video_game_consoles_(eighth_generation)#VITA_units_shipped

    Comments:

    Consensus indicates VGChartz is not a reliable source. Repeatedly reverts.

    Also shows very rude conduct. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: No action. User has not continued to revert since being warned. If this resumes file a new report and mention this one. Their edit summaries don't suggest any good intentions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joeymattii reported by User:MusikAnimal (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    Page
    Jane Censoria Cajes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Joeymattii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Jun 11 2013 8:11 PM "Undid revision 559470926 by MusikAnimal (talk)"
    2. Jun 11 2013 8:07 PM "Undid revision 559420165 by MusikAnimal (talk) nice try leo"
    3. Jun 11 2013 12:09 PM "Undid revision 559356358 by Graeme Bartlett (talk) baseless accusations by a hater"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. Jun 11 2013 1:28 PM "User warning for unconstructive editing found using STiki"
    2. Jun 11 2013 1:33 PM "Warning: Edit warring on Jane Censoria Cajes. (TW)"
    3. Jun 11 2013 8:10 PM "Warning: Disruptive editing on Jane Censoria Cajes. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Sys admin questioned user about intentions over a week ago, have received no response. User has been editing disruptively and warring repeatedly over the past two weeks, introducing inappropriate content and unexplained section blanking including sourced content. — MusikAnimal talk 00:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of indefinite It is clear that this editor is only here to promote the reputation of a person by suppressing information inimical to that reputation, and that he/she has no interest in collaboration with other editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Microsoft Office 365 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Jun 12 2013 9:58 AM "Reverted to revision 559583468 by Dogmaticeclectic: WP:VANDALISM. (TW)"
    2. Jun 12 2013 6:24 AM "Reverted to revision 543698790 by 71.208.18.191: it's time to finally WP:REVERT this obvious WP:VANDALISM. (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. Jun 12 2013 10:01 AM "Warning: Not assuming good faith on Microsoft Office 365. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Bad faith edit war, considers good-faith edits by me to be vandalism, continual restoration of promotional fluff that was trimmed to provide a cleaner, more informational article.

    Conflicts have occurred between me, him, and other editors before, so this isn't the first time. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No administrator "considered a block". One admin pointed out that Viper had provided a reason for his revert in an edit summary. You may disagree with Viper's edits but that doesn't make them vandalism. They're not vandalism. No one agrees with you that they are vandalism. You both need to spend more time discussing the content on the article talk page and less time discussing each other at administrator noticeboards. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring more particularly to the statement at User talk:ViperSnake151 that begins with "I declined blocking you for now". Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you are quite clearly incorrect that "no one agrees with [me] that they are vandalism", and it therefore seems obvious to me that you haven't read the talk page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion from AIV —Soap—
    The user claimed a reason. "Partial rv; you just restored TONS of marketing fluff, and what I did was NOT considered vandalism. Stop assuming bad faith. But, to be honest, I like having the table back here," wrote the user in an edit summary. Was the user properly warned? Bearian (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the user was properly warned but reverted again after the first warning. Also, "marketing fluff" does not qualify as a "non-frivolous explanation" per WP:VANDAL. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a "non-frivolous" explanation of why I'm removing fluff, there is a reason why {{advert}} exists; his version contained a poorly sourced and promotional sounding explanation of each of the services provided by Office 365 (which were, per a mixed consensus on the talk page in past discussions, referred to as "products"). The article had been marked as having too many primary sources, a situation that was improved by my version, which introduced more secondary sources. The article right now is a mixture between his and my versions that tries to strike a balance between what he wants and what I want. Additionally, he skipped right to the "final" warning. I'd like to also note that this editor has had a history of edit wars and content disputes on Microsoft Office-related articles in the past. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the first warning I gave this user was a level 3 one. Also, you are (or were, at least) a single editor going against the consensus of at least two at the talk page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but still. I considered there to be a lack of consensus due to the tendentious editing from multiple parties (primarily those IPs who kept going after me on the talk page no matter what I compromised with). ViperSnake151  Talk  17:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that I agree with (many of?) the arguments the IP user(s) presented at the talk page. Also, WP:PRIMARY does not justify content deletion (at least when there are at least some other sources)! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • An IP user from a few months ago doesn't exactly count as someone who agrees with you, given that they were a dynamic IP and clearly WP:NOTHERE (see the fourth bit of their last comment on the Office 365 talk page). No one agrees with you that the current iteration of the edit is vandalism; that is an unavoidable fact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, since you're making a controversial claim, the onus is on you to prove that Viper's edits were vandalism, and that multiple people agree with you. So far, you've failed to back up either of your claims. Also, did you seriously just make the comment that you agree with what was quite a clear personal attack? Are you trying every possible way of getting yourself blocked? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I've backed up both of those claims.
    Pointing out a clear fact about a username is a personal attack? Really? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI he's now using the same arguments to request full protection. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're actually complaining that I'm requesting protection for the current version? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was not a complaint. I was only bringing up relevant developments. I did not show any opinion on the matter. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PantherLeapord reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result:Indef )

    Page
    PlayStation 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    PantherLeapord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Jun 12 2013 8:48 PM "Undid revision 559661861 by Tarc (talk) I know free is preferred but free shit is still shit!"
    2. Jun 12 2013 8:45 PM "Undid revision 559661408 by Tarc (talk) rv as user obviously blind to fact that image is not illistrative"
    3. Jun 12 2013 8:28 PM "FFS! THIS IS NOT AN ILLISTRATIVE IMAGE! EITHER ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE WRONG OR AT LEAST DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE RATHER THAN FORCING A SHITTY IMAGE ON THIS UNDESERVING ARTICLE!"
    4. Jun 12 2013 8:16 PM "Undid revision 559658965 by Onorem (talk) DO YOU NOT SEE THE HUGE LINE COVERING PART OF THE CONSOLE!? THIS IS NOT AN ILLISTRATIVE IMAGE!"
    5. Jun 12 2013 8:14 PM "Undid revision 559658761 by Masem (talk) The glass corner in the way disagrees"
    6. Jun 12 2013 8:11 PM "Since the encyclopedic image needs to be replaced with a shitty image because free we may as well not have an image because of how shitty the one we have to use is!"
    7. Jun 12 2013 7:31 PM "Undid revision 559654521 by Masem (talk) See your talk page and answer there. Please EXPLAIN why you replacing the good image with a shitty image in talk before reverting"
    8. Jun 12 2013 7:23 PM "Undid revision 559653698 by Masem (talk) rvv"
    9. Jun 12 2013 7:15 PM "Undid revision 559652849 by Masem (talk)OI! non-free images CAN be used where there is no acceptable free replacement. This one is NOT acceptable as it does NOT properly illustrate the subject!"
    10. 20:58, June 12, 2013‎
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. Jun 12 2013 8:56 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on PlayStation 4. (TW)"
    Comments:

    Constantly removes a free image that he believes is not of good quality. Has gone way beyond three reverts. We need action ASAP ViperSnake151  Talk  02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am NOT restoring the non-free image! Merely removing the absolutely shitty free replacement until a better one comes along! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Complaint corrected. But still, you've gone way beyond three reverts, and that's not allowed. You're also being very uncivil. That isn't allowed either. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    PantherLeapord blocked until he agrees to stop edit warring over the images.—Kww(talk) 03:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ArmanJ reported by User:Faizan (Result: )

    Page
    Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    ArmanJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Jun 13 2013 2:43 AM ""
    2. Consecutive edits made from Jun 13 2013 12:07 AM to Jun 13 2013 12:14 AM
      1. Jun 13 2013 12:07 AM "you cant warn me. your issues are covered in the preceding lines, but you seem to suggest state-sponsored persecution, which is contradicted by your own source"
      2. Jun 13 2013 12:14 AM "this is absurd, most biharis are bangladeshi citizens. those who are not, they want to go back to pakistan and currently live in the United Nations monitored refugee camps. this is not persecution by bangladesh, rather by pakistan"
    3. Jun 12 2013 11:58 PM "you better stop. your sources were not removed, the content was adjusted to be more specific and have npov."
    4. Jun 12 2013 11:35 PM "Undid revision 559614746 by 86.151.237.220 (talk) you're the vandal, get an account and stick to neutrality"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. [56]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. [57]
    Comments:

    I am totally uninvolved, as the article has an AfD and RfC in progress. But, I do watch it, and found that he's violated the 3RR rule, so I found it better to report. He has been warned too, and has also commented on the AfD and RfC. Faizan 08:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at talk page of the article resulted in no consensus. Faizan 08:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned User:ArmanJ and an IP (from UK) and also requested protection of the article. Solomon7968 08:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that both of them violated 3RR. A user here has commented that the IP was a sock. In this case, is there a 3RR exemption? Faizan 09:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are at least 3 socks here. The IP sock master from UK and User:ArmanJ both violated 3RR. Solomon7968 09:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments at the AfD were given much earlier, not during the edit war. And again, I apologize for my behaviour with that IP.--ArmanJ (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Full protected for one week by User: Ged UK. Solomon7968 12:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I won't term Armans edits as a violation of 3RR as he just reverted the vandalisms by a sock IP. That IP is continuously assisting User:Faizan in edit warring and trapping other editors to commit 4RR. He has done it in several articles. (Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, Stranded Pakistanis, Anti-Bihari sentiment). Also, the IP is constantly making personal attacks on other editors.--Zayeem (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: There is a sockpuppet investigation going on against User:Faizan.--Zayeem (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Samaksasanian reported by User:Verdia25 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Azerbaijani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Samaksasanian (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. [58] 12:35, 10 June 2013‎ Samaksasanian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (78,277 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Have Refrenc (Stop vandalism)) (undo | thank)
    2. [59] 22:26, 7 June 2013‎ Samaksasanian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (78,283 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Undid revision 558823031 by Verdia25 (talk)) (undo | thank)
    3. [60] 15:39, 7 June 2013‎ Samaksasanian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (78,283 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Undid revision 558762485 by HistoryofIran (talk)Have and Say References!) (undo | thank)


    The words are changed from Turkic-speaking people to Turkic people

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

    Comments: Because the user is not willing to resolve the edit war on the article's talk page, not going against my arguments, I decided to report the matter.

    Verdia25 (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    this user Does not accept Azerbaijani people is a Turkic people, But i Edit this Reliable and complete source = Encyclopædia Britannica say: [63] Azerbaijani, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran.I explained Talk:Azerbaijani people Again did not accept I have a valid source Meanwhile User Verdia25 Before A once He had complained User:Qara xan // User:Qara xan reported by User:Verdia25 (Result: ) But administrators, ‎did not accept complaints User:Verdia25--SaməkTalk 09:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rjensen reported by User:98.196.235.104 (Result: )

    Page: Phyllis Schlafly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [64]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [65]
    2. [66]
    3. [67]
    4. [68]
    5. [69]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: It was placed on his talk page. However, RJensen removed the friendly invitation to self-revert with a tag of "hate mail". [70]

    Comments: Have attempted to add valid sourcing to an article improving on the section created by another user. RJensen came to article and began edit-warring over it and leaving some very nasty and threatening notes on my talk page. Invitations to RJensen on multiple pages to become a collegial and non-tendentious editor have gone in vain. I dislike reporting someone for 3RR when it appears they think they are obeying some warped view of policy but I believe it to be necessary in this case.
    98.196.235.104 (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=559726100"