Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:99.236.215.170 (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwamikagami&oldid=584081130 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.215.170 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5].

Comments:
The user continually reverts edits made in good faith. Three reverts and messages to "refer to talk" where the IP (reported) was the only one making any arguments, including the first, on the talk page. Three reverts of good faith edits is beyond the pale

The purpose of editing WP is to improve the articles, not to soothe our editors. Good faith only means they are not a vandal: It does not mean the edits are appropriate. We have discussed the issue, several times, and they seem immune to reason. This argument is typical: Claiming I did not participate in the discussion when anyone can see I did. Their reading of their source is similarly divorced from reality, but regardless it's up to the person proposing the change to convince the rest of us. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. 99.236.215.170 and Kwamikagami, both of you have edit warred, and both of you have discussed the content issue on the talk page, although without resolution. The next step is dispute resolution. Continuing to revert may result in block(s).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MagicKirin11 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indeffed)

Page: United Nations Human Rights Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MagicKirin11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

00:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC) "accurate description"
22:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC) "more accurate"
22:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC) "reverted Good faith edit"
00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC) "Restoring a vandalization"
05:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC) "made description NPOV"
08:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC) "NPOV is one can not criticize it, one can not compliment it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned several times: 00:50, 1 December, by Irn, 22:34, 1 December, by Jack Greenmaven, 05:50, 2 December, by Wtmitchell RolandR (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Sean this person has a political agenda. This is another attempt from people who are biased against Jews to silence a poster.MagicKirin11 (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a political agenda and Roland is Jewish. This is about you not being able to follow simple rules. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also this editor's BLP-breaching edit warring at Talk:Omar Barghouti: "Neutrality", "Editing another removal from Sean Hoyland", "Correcting editing abuse from Sean Hoyland", "Correcting Sean Hoyland's vandalism". These articles are all covered by the WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction. And this editor's practice of constantly editing articles to describe critics of Israel as "antisemites", and to throw the same baseless accusation against editors here, is in breach of several Wikipedia policies. RolandR (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a thread at ANI about this editor, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MagicKirin11, but it doesn't seem to be getting admin attention. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. I've indeffed the user. I explained at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Torugames12 reported by User:ThomasO1989 (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] Comments: User is repeatedly aadding unsourced information to the article. The IP in the first diff is the same user.

User:Ostalocutanje reported by User:Firstlensman (Result: )

[11]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

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

[16] [17]

Comments:

This page is for strictly Symphonic Prog artists. This user has been pushing a Space Rock (Tako) act, who've only had 2 albums, and a Crossover Prog act (Galija), who have NO recognition outside Yugoslavia. Before I rewrote this page it had entries for bands like KISS that happened to use a symphony orchestra on one album. Firstlensman (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding these two bands, but with reliable sources which say that these bands were symphonic rock acts. The source for Tako is Petar Janjatović's Ex YU Rock Enciklopedija 1960-2006, the most extensive work about Yugoslav rock music, I could have found more sources but I believed Ex YU Rock Enciklopedija was enough. The sources for Galija include an interview with Galija member Predrag Milosavljević, a 1980 review of their second studio album Druga plovida, and a text from Popboks magazine. Galija is not more or less recognized abroad than any other band mentioned in the "Yugoslavia" section; besides Yugoslavia, Galija saw some popularity in Eastern Europe and some attention by progressive music fans around the world. The band Tako did release only two albums, but so did The Stone Roses or Joy Division (of course, I'm not comparing the impact of Tako to these bands). Besides, the band Opus, also mentioned in the "Yugoslavia" section has released only one album, but Firstlensman doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Ostalocutanje (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post an excerpt from your source translated into English? If it says things like "This band SOUNDS symphonic" doesn't automatically make it acceptable on this page. As I posted on the Talk page:

Sounding symphonic is not an automatic include. We are covering a subset of Progressive Rock called Symphonic Prog. For instance, Queen and Styx are not represented here because they are considered Crossover Prog bands at best. Some of their output definitely sounds symphonic. The Neo-Progressive bands are just mentioned in passing because the Neo-Progressive movement was basically a bridge between the classic era and the new era of Symphonic Prog. But no write-ups for Neo-Progressive bands appear here. A lot of the Neo-Progressive bands definitely sounded symphonic. In both cases, the bands did not achieve the other requirements for being a Symphonic Prog band. I would recommend that Crossover Prog and Space Rock pages be developed for the bands listed above. Firstlensman (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to completely wipe out the Yugoslavia section of this page. Opus is a Symphonic Prog band despite only putting out one album. I did an entry for Harmonium that had only one album because it is a highly regarded Symphonic Prog work. Tako was formed from the ashes when Opus broke up. But, between the two, it's like comparing Transatlantic to Flying Colors. The only other Symphonic Prog bands that I can verify are Laza I Ipe and Zeljko Bebek (and Podium). The rest belong on other sub-genre pages. Firstlensman (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Werieth reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Simple bright-line breach of 3RR, against two other editors.

Note that this is not a copyvio (or BLP) or some other such clear-cut excuse that might justify ignoring 3RR. It is a removal of images of a living artist's artwork from their bio. This is a matter of opinion between editors acting in assumed good faith. We discuss such matters through talk: and there is also WP:NFCR. We do not edit war to bully one opinion over others.

The justification for removing these appears to be, "The article is about the artist not the works" Yet our clear practice is that we consider images of artworks to be of relevance when discussing a visual artist and their works.

Werieth is an account who removes NFCC-labelled media from articles. He also makes meta-edits defending such removals. He makes a great many such removals. He does not appear to make any other types of edit, other than these NFC removals. An editing rate for a relatively new account (34k since 2012) with such a narrow focus that has led to suggestions that he is the infamously banned Betacommand (talk · contribs).

Werieth's editing style is highly aggressive. He issues stern warnings "Do not re-add" [22], he templates widely and inaccurately (reverting Werieth is not "uploading an image", no matter how much it obviously offends him) and he also threatens other editors with topic bans. Past warnings for edit warring on just this issue are here: [23] There's a lot of WP:BITE at User_talk:Chriscs26, where a new editor and creator has been slapped with final warning templates on this article and an article they'd just created at Ian Scott (artist) to such a point that we're almost free of this pesky new editor already.

Werieth does not attempt to ever fix anything, no matter how trivial. Nor does he see a trivial paperwork glitch as being a reason to stop his removals. Here [24] we have " one does not have a rationale" – it does, but not formatted with a template. A constructive editor would simply do the formatting work, but Werieth instead favours deleting the image. I first encountered this editoor recently at Tweenies (see Wikipedia:Non-free_content review/Archive 38#Tweenies ) where they removed a set of character images because only a composite image would be acceptable. Again, a constructive editor would see this as a need to provide just such a composite image – but not Werieth, he just does deletions.

Other relevant talks:

This (in the scope of ANEW) is just bright-line 3RR, something to which Werieth is still subject.

I will note that Werieth has been warned about editing warning over subjective application of NFCC, which this is (I do believe his removals are correct but that's a subjective call and not an exception under 3RR). It is very difficult to support Werieth if he does not bring these to WP:NFCR where better discussion can be made (and he's done this with other pages). --MASEM (t) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werieth has already been blocked for edit warring (a remarkable 18RR at Arts_on_the_Line), and I don't know how many other warnings there have been before or since. From his attitude towards other editors though, clearly such rules only apply to the little people and he's here to right some greater wrong instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That block was immediately removed (about 15 min later) because the remove was objective - no non-free images in tables is policy. This is far different because it is subjective, and if you go through the logs here as well as at ANI, there's plenty of times Werieth has been cautioned about unilaterally applying NFC and edit warring on the subjective criteria. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? these personal attacks need to stop. I am not the user you accuse me of being (With zero evidence and in fact quite a bit of counter evidence, Ive uploaded 200 non-free files) Andy is just attacking me because he doesnt like the fact that I removed files from his pet article a few weeks back. Please see WP:NFCC#10c and WP:3RRNO#5 File:Jeff Wall Mimic.jpg doesnt have a rationale for that article. Werieth (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS the warning that I use is a standard warning ({{Uw-nonfree}}) which states However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy (my bolding) which is 100% accurate, If andy fails to actually read the notice its not my fault. Werieth (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a new user, who is merely attempting to contribute some articles of quality (and has begun to & intends to improve many of the articles on New Zealand artists which are sorely lacking) I found Werieth's attitude extremely rude and offputting, to the point I am considering withdrawing work and quitting wikipedia. Whether or not English is his first language I do not know, but all I have to go by is WP:NFCC, and I honestly, as a professional writer, cannot for the life of me see how the images I used do not meet those guidelines.
That he makes comments here User_talk:Werieth#Images_at_Jeff_Wall such as "The article is about the artist not the works" & (the images)"can and is fairly easily replaced with plain text" makes me wonder, what possible interest he could have in editing articles about art, if he is so uninterested/clueless about art, and oblivious to the fact that when talking about art, visual examples (at least a few) are always be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscs26 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy's evaluation of Werieth is spot on. Werieth is fairly much a uni-dimensional editor: he doesn't create, write or improve articles, all he really does is delete images, and when he's challenged he gets upset, since his sole Wiki-shtick is under apparent attack, so he responds in ways such as this: edit-warring. The problem is that removal of images is a simple thing when the violation of NFCC policy is straight-forward and objectively obvious, but when it comes to a subjective evaluation of the purpose and function of images within an article, Werieth is, as pointed out in several noticeboard discussions, rather a disaster. He should really keep away from those instances, or, better yet, find some other, more productive, function to fill here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with both Andy and Ken; Werieth's behavior toward art appears to be clueless - images need to be seen and accompanied by text and context as well as fair use rationale's they need to be left alone. The other day he removed all the sculptural imagery from the Alberto Giacometti article; one of the most important sculptors of the 20th century...Modernist (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist, We didnt need all 8 non-free files in that article. It was a clear case of over use. Just because the art section of wikipedia is heavy in non-free material doesnt mean that they are correct. A limited example set is sufficient in most cases. I have not been targeting articles with just a few examples, I have been focusing on those articles with 5+ non-free files, in a lot of cases they just are not needed, or can be link to the article about the work. Werieth (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not discuss that on the talk page - rather then just deleting the imagery. In several cases I agree with you that the imagery can be pared down and those used accompanied by relevant text...Modernist (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a lot of cases I do, I take it to NFCR, where both sides can discuss it. Werieth (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"a clear case of over use"

So what about Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami, a GA bio on a cinematographer and film director where in one undiscussed edit you removed all of the images? This is an article that has reached GA, and by implication a review of it by a large number of eyeballs. Yet again though, Werieth's single-purpose editing overrides all other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to break down every file I can, however this isnt the place to do it. GA process doesnt fully review NFCC issues. Werieth (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you're already edit-warring [25] on that article too. No attempt at discussion, just steamroller editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given your incompetent understanding of NFCC, and blind reverting my removal it was warranted. If you want to discuss the removals I will, but this isnt the place to do so. 16:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's "incompetent", I think you will find.

You haven't discussed this on either article talk page (you're already edit-warring similarly on the related article 10 on Ten), or where it's raised at NFCR. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just opened the NFCR seconds before posting here, to which I have posted a fairly detailed rationale for removal. Werieth (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there was plenty of time for you to revert me first. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:ANEW, not WP:NFCR. We shouldn't digress into whether you think Giacometti is an important artist or not, or whether bio articles on visual artists warrant illustrations of their artworks. This is about your edit warring and your bright-line breach of 3RR, nothing more.

Your edit history is single-issue and you are prepared to use bullying and edit-warring until you get your way, no matter what other editors think. OK, so at Giacometti you only had to go to 2RR before you won, but that's still edit-warring. Edit-warring is toxic: it is a powerful tool for the use of editors who don't give a damn about policy or other editors, which is exactly how you keep using it. Other editors aren't being won over to your position by the strength of your logical argument, they're merely less prepared to breach WP:EW than you are.

The more you do this (and the chronology of when you started doing it), the more I think that you really are Betacommand returned. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop with the baseless personal attacks, I am not Betacommmand, from what I have read they wouldnt ever upload non-free media because they where so pro-free content. I have and will continue to upload non-free media. I have already uploaded 200 or so files, and will continue to do so. This is your final warning if you continue to make personal attacks I will request an interaction ban. Werieth (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"baseless personal attacks"? 3RR: [26][27][28][29] - Why do you think it doesn't apply to you? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations of socking and ban evasion are personal attacks. Please actually read what I type. Werieth (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: concerns about socking should be raised at WP:SPI. This is the wrong forum for that kind of thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no hard evidence for any socking, but the 3RR is clear-cut and should be addressed. There are behavioural issues here that belong at AN or RFC/U too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've said this about Werieth before but it is critical: you get one free (via BRD) removal of images from an article on an NFCC#3/#8 claim, both which are subjective. If as such that edit is reverted, the only appropriate next step is to open discussion, either on the talk page of the article in question or at NFCR (set up explicitly to invite broader discussion). 3RR does not excempt the enforcement of the subjective measures of NFCC, only the objective ones (like where clear free replacement is possible, #10c, or NFLISTS). Any other time, you're edit warring to enforce your opinion about NFCC. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Werieth has been the subject of edit wars, as well as reports to other noticeboards, regarding images over and over again. They have been warned on this board at least twice: [30] and [31]. If another administrator wants to unblock Werieth, they may do so without consulting with me, but from my perspective, enough is enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to address something that may be beyond the scope of this discussion, but I'm going to go ahead anyway. I think it would be damn shame if User:Chriscs26 leaves Wikipedia because of this. He seems a very promising (and bold) editor, and Chris, if you're reading this, it's just bad luck that you ran into an editor like Werieth so early in your Wikipedia career. I've been here 7 years, and a good 90% of the editors I've worked with are pleasant, genial people willing to discuss matters and simply work to improve Wikipedia. Even users with whom I've had disagreements, I've become friends with after the fact. I don't doubt for one second that Werieth thinks he's doing good, but as everyone has pointed out above, it's the way he goes about it. Threatening you with a block was absurd behavior. I'm sure Andy and the others involved with this discussion would agree with me that you've been unfortunate to get such harsh treatment, and advise you to chalk it down to experience and continue editing. Bertaut (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ruby Murray reported by 98.200.208.230 (Result: Stale)

Forgive me, I am using an iPad and it is.very difficult for me. This page has glitches on me several times so now I will explain Myself as fast as I can. Click the history on the Souter page and you'll see Ruby Murray has been engaging in some edit warring for months! And seriously frivolous editing. He is abusing his target. Forgive me for not sharing the links proper, I've already lost this page several times trying to do just That.

This is not retaliation or anything like that. I am just trying to report on a misguided editor who frequently engages in this kind of Misguided behavior. Sir Brian Souter page. Check recent history, the edits are legion with some pretty flimsy erroneous edits.

Again my apologies for the technical difficulties of not filling out this form as intended.

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Stale. And please log in when you edit here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nubia123 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: )

Page: Kingdom of Kush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nubia123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

12:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Name */"
13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
14:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
16:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "/* 25th Dynasty of Egypt */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

warned by another editor at [32] - before their last revert Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Nubia123's last diff above is not an actual revert or edit warring, and he/she has not edit warred the revert again since I warned them, so there is still some room for benefit of the doubt, unless they revert again... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it the least of his pov changes in other people's text. Technically a revert but perhaps there is still some room for doubt. His edits appeared to be aimed at removing almost every mention of Egypt from the article. I'm going to restore a bit more of his deletions. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: A brand new account, VanMills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just surfaced making the identical edits, which looks like 3RR evasion to me... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:119.67.234.78 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

Page: Labor rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 119.67.234.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583681885 by Loriendrew (talk)"
16:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 584310140 by Loriendrew (talk)"
17:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "this page contains about "Labour rights" in this planet. not only in us. so no reason to strain using us type spellings. by DavidLeighEllis (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Labor rights. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned about language changes and 3RR, continues to revert ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC) User continues to revert other editors, leaving this message: "see ILO, ITUC sites how to use the word word "labour or labor" and no matter for WP:ENGVAR guidelines. so don't strain using us type spellings. just read WP:ENGVAR"--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pluto2012 reported by User:Blue Duck T (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[33] 12:34, 1 Dec edit summary: Undid revision 583945526
[34] 08:00, 2 December 2013 edit summary: Undid revision 584152522

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User has many warnings for edit warring

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

Comments:

This is a page subject to a 1-revert per day limitation, as an article that is in the scope of the Arab-Isralei conflict

Blue Duck T is likely to be a NoCal100 sockpuppet by the way. The editor repeats an edit by NoCal sock GoGoTob2[35] and targets Sepsis II and Pluto2012, editors he apparently doesn't like. Typical NoCal behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that I am stalked (and pursued) by NoCal100. He is also the one who reported but last time. But it is also the 2nd time I do the same "mistake" with the 1RR rule : [36] and NoCal100 is not involved in this article.

I suggest that I am blocked in compliance with the rules.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tokyo2001 reported by User:Estlandia (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

While not formally violating the 3 RR (he has reverted 3 times within 24 hours in a number of articles), it is clearly a single purpose account created for mindless edit warring against established consensus in a number of articles. Edits consist only of reverting against a number of editors [41], [42]. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44] (a request at user talk page)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Niteshift36 reported by User:Sephiroth storm (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:
I added an entry to the AFOSI article reguarding an event that recently came to light. NightShift has reverted 3 times, violating the policy. I have attempted to get him to converse on the subject prior to his 3rd revert but he waited until breaking 3rr before posting on the talk page. I ask that NightShift be warned and an uninvolved editor review the situation to see if my edits are in line with Wikipedia policies and procedures, and encurage NightShift to engage in dispute resolution rather than a revert war. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the editor doesn't understand what Warning he should be talking about. There was no 3RR warning, there was a notification of this complaint. Second, there were 3 reverts. He apparently thinks that a 3rd one is a violation. Lastly, check the times. I responded on the talk page before I reverted. He may pretend otherwise, but this editor hasn't really done much talking. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightsift is correct that he only reverted 3 times, my claim of 3rris incorrect, which I admit with no issue, however, this was still under the purview of this noticeboard, which is used to report edit warring which can occur without 3rr being broken. My request stands, that an Nightshift be warned and that he enter into mediation. While I had no intention of mentioning this, Nightshifts tone indicates he has no intent to be civil, therefore I must also report that Nightshift may also have a conflict of interest. details are on his talk page if he has not removed them (He has. Nightshift has a logo on his talk page which identifies him as a member or former member of the US Army's Criminal Investigation Division a Federal Law Enforcement Agency similar to the one in question. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for mediation is premature. Again you make your baseless and uncivil allegation of a COI. There were no "details" on my talk page. There was a template and some trolling. Yes, that has been removed. Army CID is "similar", so that's your whole case for a COI? Well there is a COI noticeboard. Please, feel free to take that to the board and I'll listen for the laughter. And BTW, it's fairly uncivil to repeatedly spell an editors name incorrectly. Once or a typo is one thing. Repeated is either incivility or gross inattention to details. You can pick which applies. BTW, the ~~complainer~~ complainant states a lack of respect for the Army CID. I wonder how much of that plays into his decision regarding his actions towards me and my edits.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:HCPUNXKID reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[52] (23:59, 3 December)
[53] (23:42, 2 December)
[54] (23:01, 1 December)
[55] (19:42, 30 November)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Comments:

While HCPUNXKID is technically not currently in violation of the 1RR restriction on the page (by a matter of less than 20 minutes), this is blatantly edit warring. He even openly stated in a self-revert (23:31, 1 December) after I warned him of the 1RR that he intended to simply circumvent the 24-hour technicality instead of finding stronger sourcing to support his change.

Given his stated intent to push a POV and his generally hostile manner of interaction, this should be seen as part of a larger pattern of problematic editing in a highly contentious topic area. It's natural that people will lose their temper at times in such an environment (I'm certainly guilty), but there is a limit of acceptability. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your link to his supposed "stated intent", it reads as if he doesn't agree with your characterization of his edits or intent. 02:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, should've given relevant context. I reverted an edit of his in which he sought to prevent a town shown as government-controlled being changed to contested. My "interpretation" that he talks about is not of his actions, but of sources. He seems to have taken that as a challenge. In any case, I'm not sure how you can talk about him disagreeing with any "characterisations" that I would have made to provoke that response without showing me where I made them first. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MilesMoney reported by User:Roccodrift (Result:No action; user self reverted)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:
User MilesMoney has been slow motion edit-warring on this article since November 22, mostly with editors other than myself.

Concerning the most recent dispute... After 24 hours of Talk discussion involving several other editors, in which he has failed to convince others of his views, he has falsely and WP:TENDENTIOUS-ly claimed consensus and logged his 4th revert in just over 30 hours, all within the same article section. I suspect he thinks he is safe from AN3, but that's only true if he is allowed to get away with this obvious WP:GAME. Roccodrift (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting in particular, the edit summary in #4 "conforming to consensus" is less than accurate. – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)03:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MilesMoney has self-reverted: [64]. I don't think we need to continue this noticeboard discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The situation is resolved. Roccodrift (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not blocked Per above clarification. Wifione ^Message 04:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Nubia123 (Result: )

Page: Kingdom of Kush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Til Eulenspiegel (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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

A group of users have been consistently and collaboratively undoing user edits and contributions to the article in favor of the material they seem to have authored. These undo (or reversion) activities are conducted by the group in a spam-style manner. As soon as I make a contribution, the material gets reverted back within only a few minutes. I tried to contribute a number of times, but in vain. One user of the group placed a 3RR warning on my Talk page today, while another reported me on the Administrators' noticeboard for nothing other than attempting to contribute.

Also, the material imposed by this group, who basically have no tolerance for other user contributions, is essentially irrelevant to the subject of the article. Their material is concerned with Egyptian history with very little, or no connection, to the history of the Kushite kingdom.

I find the activities of this group to be strongly abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia.

This group of users include Dougweller, Flyer22, AnomieBOT, and Til Eulenspiegel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubia123 (talk • contribs)

Do explain why their edits are "abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia" and yours are not. People who add content to Wikipedia don't get any special permission over those who remove. There is a talk page for that article that I notice you have not touched for the duration of this edit war. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a single group of users collaborating to prevent individual users from contributing with any alternative material, that is why their behavior is abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia. The group uses a single set of material. And like I said, the material forced by this group is essentially irrelevant to the subject of the article. It appears that the group is made up of online commercial advertisers for tourism in Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubia123 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Nubia123[reply]

User:75.157.19.124 reported by User:Kokot.kokotisko (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:

The edits of user User:75.157.19.124 contain personal opinions and are worded so as to disparage Feathercoin and its creator. The edit comments contain emotional ad hominem statements.

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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 and 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:Wikipedia noticeboards