Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive301

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

Previous version reverted to: [1] (new info removed together with existing info)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:21, 26 November 2015
2. 16:05, 26 November 2015

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

Comments:

Cwobeel constantly tries to reduce the page and its content, though at some point agreed to add information which directly relates to "Arab Winter". He got a formal SCW&ISIL warning earlier this year. Today, my new additions with sources specifically referring to Arab Winter were reverted by him twice. Cwobeel refused to self-revert his second edit, claiming that i also violated 1RR (though i reverted only once, with my first edit being addition of new info).GreyShark (dibra) 16:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Withdrawn - the user eventually decided to self-revert.GreyShark (dibra) 16:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Declined Withdrawn NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Negeryi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

not provided because there are several reverts to several different versions; user is severely disruptive by reverting just about anything, but not in one specific content dispute

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
2. 18:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692576345 by Godsy (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal"
3. 18:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
4. 10:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692532797 by Katangais (talk)"

(the above are reverts of the same content, while the ones below are unwarranted reverts of different content; please note that the edit summaries are misleading, possible copied from other people's)

1. 18:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 692573089 by
   TW
   )"
2. 17:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692572136 by
   WP:EL
   "
3. 11:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692534123 by Katangais (talk)"
4. 11:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692533635 by Nick-D (talk) it means the air arm"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[7]

Comments:

• Also inappropriately reverted my report at
  WP:UAA. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Negeryi: subtle vandalism?. I'd also like to point out that I notified the user in question of this report as required and it was reverted.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT
  ) 18:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have also reported the user at
  WP:ANI, as I believe they are a subtle vandal, after checking their history on other articles as well. Their reverts on the article in questions are of bonafide, valid and generally useful edits. The reverts include removal of valid sourced content. They are also edit warring on the article's talk page. LjL (talk
  ) 19:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Disruption is over. CU-blocked as a sock. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gbgfbgfbgfb. Dr. K. 20:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Negeryi has been blocked indef as a sock by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Page:
  talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )
• User being reported: Unbuttered Parsnip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reporting user: Mateothehistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm reporting

• Comment: I see no 3RR violation on the accused editor's part (are you aware that the reverts must be within 24h, not during the span of several days?); on the other hand, I see a very incomplete edit warring report. I also don't see a notification of this report on the editor's talk page, so I've taken the liberty of sending one myself. LjL (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• I made 3RR a few days ago. That editor kept complete
  WP:ANI – Unbuttered parsnip (talk
  ) mytime= Fri 08:51, wikitime= 00:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No violation of
  WP:DR are open to you. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 19:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Stoning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Krzyhorse22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Filing user

Human10.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's edits

1. [8] [No edit summary given, he basically removed the citation of a news article that stated tribal leaders had carried out stoning extrajudicially in Afghanistan]
2. [9] [Again no edit summary given, he removed mention of the words "tribal practice"]
3. [10] "That article is about stoning in Iran and Pakistan (not about Afghanistan), you're wording implies that tribal leaders are allowed to stone women in Afghanistan" [Note: the news article explicitly mentions stoning in Afghanistan]
4. [11] "I've read all of it, that UK news article is about stoning in Iran and Pakistan. A mere mention of something in that report doesn't mean much, I deal with Afghanistan, which tribal leader is stoning women? What's his name? Which tribe he represents?" [He basically says the article's statements about stoning in Afghanistan don't "mean much" and implies that they shouldn't be added to the wiki article's section on Afghanistan]
5. [12] "ONLY you are accusing Afghanistan's tribal leaders, which includes Hamid Karzai, of stoning people to death. Either stop reading this unsourced POV or provide sources. That UK news piece is focusing on legal stoning in Iran and Pakistan." [Note: no one accused Hamid Karzai of anything. He claims the news article is unsourced POV]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on Krzyhorse22's talk page

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

I have mentioned the instances of Krzyhorse22's edit warring on the stoning article and summarised my attempts at resolving the dispute here. Krzyhorse22 has been active on Wikipedia since the post on the article's talk page was made but has not engaged on said talk page.

You're both revert warring. Seek

dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk

 / 05:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Krzyhorse22 kept deleting sourced text despite my repeated requests to solve the dispute first so I kept reverting him. If he deletes the sourced text again, I will not revert him but I will request a Third Opinion (3O). I hope that is okay. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

As per my observation, these two users reporting each other on ANI, SPI and now here at Edit warring board. I think admin attention is needed regarding articles in which they are involved. Maybe one of them can be topic banned to resolve this. --Human3015^TALK  21:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I only reported Krzyhorse22 to this edit warring board, I did not report him on SPI or ANI. Saying "these two users reporting each other" implies I reported him on all those boards too, even though I did not. Krzyhorse22, on the other hand, did accuse me yesterday of being a sock here, on a page investigating whether he is using a sock (he has since heavily edited that page and also removed his accusation against me). I am not aware of anyone reporting me or him on ANI. —Human10.0 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI was this, indirectly related to you. Anyway, you both have to resolve your issues, continuous conflict with same editor makes editing unhappy. Maybe you both can ignore each other for some time. --Human3015^TALK  22:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the ANI. I am still open to resolving the issue, I do not want any animosity between me and Krzyhorse22. I wish I could ignore him but that's very hard to do when he is accusing me of POV-pushing just for restoring sourced material he deleted without giving any reason.

I also have a question: The result below says I can't make reverts on the stoning article. Does that mean I'm not allowed to make any reverts or am I just not allowed to revert the text that is disputed between me & Krzyhorse22? The thing is an IP has recently made a small edit where they messed up the grammar of a sentence on the stoning article. I would like to correct that.—Human10.0 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a crime or a violation of Wikipedia to report someone at SPI, everyone does it and so did I because I was 100% convinced socks were unnecessarily following me. However, I have not breached any Wikipedia policy so I see no justification for reporting me here. About the article Stoning, which is about punishment. Human10.0 believes tribal leaders in Afghanistan stone people to death as punishment. He cites Emma Batha who states, "In some countries, such as Mauritania and Qatar, stoning has never been used although it remains legal. However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially." [21] Emma Batha does not clarify if she's talking about tribal leaders in Iraq or Afghanistan. All the other sources say only Taliban soldiers do this but as a crime. I have not seen any report in which Afghan tribal leaders doing it or even being accused. Human10.0 is simply POV pushing in articles.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 please do not selectively quote the article. The relevant passage, as I pointed out on your talk page, is: "In some countries, such as Mauritania and Qatar, stoning has never been used although it remains legal. However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign."[22] I think it is clear now that the article was talking about Afghanistan. I would also like to point out that I wasn't the person who added the part about tribal leaders, that was someone else. When you deleted their contribution without justification, I merely re-added it because it was reliably sourced. There are many reports of Afghan tribal warlords/leaders carrying out stoning (in violation of current Afghan law), I guess I will have to add some of those reports to the wiki article to convince you that other sources also mention tribal leaders being involved in stoning incidents. One article also reports how local officials are known to blame Taliban insurgents for stonings to cover up for the actions of their tribal leaders. Please stop insulting me with accusations of POV-pushing, it is evident I am not doing that. Anyways, if you want to discuss this matter further, I would appreciate if you do so on the stoning article's talk page. We shouldn't clutter this board. —Human10.0 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Warlords are a class of criminals fighting against the government and people of Afghanistan, they are not tribal leaders. A tribal leader is someone who represents a tribe. The article stoning is not about the crime of stoning someone to death, it's the opposite of that. That article you posted is based on a theory. Only one woman says tribal leaders "could have" done it but the so many news reports say Taliban had issued the punishment.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reports blame stoning on both "tribal warlords" and "tribal leaders" which is why I used the phrasing "Afghan tribal warlords/leaders" above.

• What you claim is not what the stoning article is about. It is simply about a form of capital punishment which may be legal or criminal, depending upon the jurisdiction. The 'Usage today' portion of the article has numerous examples of stoning being treated as a crime (when carried out to punish people extrajudicially) and also as a legal form of punishment, depending upon the country where it occurs.

• You are misrepresenting the news article, downplaying what it says and conveniently not mentioning what the "one woman" (i.e. Wazhma Frogh, an Afghan women's rights activist and co-founder of Research Institute for Women, Peace and Security) went on to say; please see the stoning article's talk page where I talk about the article. The reason I linked to that article wasn't to claim that 'tribal leaders stoned the woman in the video' (I did not even imply that), it was to show you that some stonings are carried out by tribal leaders but are blamed on the Taliban (who also have a reputation for stoning), a fact acknowledged even by Afghans (like Wazhma Frogh). As you are an Afghan, I can see how you would not want unpleasant facts about your homeland to be published but your objections to sources that mention those unpleasant facts are getting out of hand ( "based on a theory", really?). Anyways, there's no use in further arguing on this page; the editors here aren't going to listen to our arguments and resolve this issue for us. If you want to talk to/argue with me regarding the stoning article, go to the stoning article talk page (also on that talk page, I would like you to produce just one report that says "only Taliban soldiers do [stoning]" as you claimed above that: "All the other sources say only Taliban soldiers do [stoning]"). I am removing this page from my watchlist now. —Human10.0 (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• What you're saying makes no sense. Taliban, warlords and all the other Afghan criminals belong to tribes. They should be collectively called criminals, the same way we call all current Afghan rebel forces Taliban. There are good tribal leaders and bad ones. I'm not responding in the talk page of that article because it's not a big deal to me. You're doing a great job, keep posting more news reports and other information so readers are aware.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: There is a dispute on whether stoning occurs in Afghanistan. As
  WP:RfC or use the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Further reverts by either of you on the stoning article may lead to admin action unless consensus has been previously found on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk
  ) 03:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  EdJohnston, I made 1 revert per day and it was done just like a normal edit. I didn't know Human10.0 was starting an edit war with me, when I realized that I stopped. It's plain stupid to warn me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

One revert per day is edit warring, if you are always removing the same material. Open an

WP:RFC or use some other method of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk

) 20:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

White Ribbon Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Squiggly666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "clarification"
2. 11:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism"
3. 19:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism"
4. 20:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism"
5. 10:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692592913 by Fyddlestix (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Pls block Brustopher (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked for 31h, with a good perspective to be indeffed next time.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Firebrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Identification */ Reverted unhelpful changes."
2. 22:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Identification */ Reverted vandalism."
3. 11:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692536107 by
   talk
   ) Find a source and try again."

1RR/DS notification

Comments:

Despite having been made aware of the

Per

WP:RV#Exceptions: "Edits that do not contribute to edit warring are generally considered to be exceptions to the three-revert rule." I assume this also applies to the one-revert rule. Can you explain why the edit summaries are misleading? Firebrace (talk

) 07:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You wrote that this edit was "vandalism". Have you read the definition of "vandalism"? This edit was not "vandalism", and does not qualify for the exception to 1RR, even if the edit was wrong. What exactly was "unhelpful" about these changes? This was certainly not excepted from 1RR. The same applies for the last edit. In each case, none of the edit was vandalism. Vandalism has a specific definition. Vandalism is a "deliberate damage to Wikipedia", for which none of these qualify. You should've made one revert, then stopped. Instead, you kept reverting under the false banner of reverting "vandalism". That's inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 16:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to justify the second revert—it speaks for itself. Legacypac's edit was a poor attempt at "clarification": there is already a paragraph about the ringleader, "Bataclan theatre" doesn't need linking a sixth time, and changing "the final bomber" to "the third unidentified bomber" implies there were two other unidentified bombers at that location. It was a nonsense edit by someone who obviously hasn't read the article. In spite of many challenges, we have a good article that does justice to the victims of the attacks, and of which I, LjL, InedibleHulk, Bod, Peter and the 'team' can be proud. Firebrace (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWNERSHIP of an article isn't appropriate, and no "team" should exist. Cliques of editors monopolising the development of articles is not beneficial to article development, and is in fact detrimental. Regardless of whether it was a "nonsense edit" or not, there is 1RR on the article, and clear vandalism is the only exception. That edit was not vandalism in the Wikipedia sense. RGloucester — ☎

20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no

WP:POINT (the point presumably being that you really like these sanctions)? Wikipedia is not about application of rules for its own sake ("sorry, you may not have done anything detrimental, but the rules said you had to be reported!"). Bothersome. LjL (talk

) 21:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - please let's stop being ridiculous with literal application of
  WP:1RR. "We" have kept being told it would be used with common sense without blocks for benign edits, yet that's exactly what seems to be attempted here. Firebrace is one of the two top contributors to November 2015 Paris attacks and his edits have generally been very positive contributions to the article. I count at least 52 talk page edits, so he's present enough there, too. The three (unrelated) reverts he's being reported for look like good reverts, and the one labelled "vandalism" does look like a revert of vandalism, since even though it's subtle, the edit arbitrarily removed part of the content and completely changed the meaning of the sentence, which is unlikely to have been done by mistake. Speaking of this sort of nonsense application of rules, though, I will point out that it's hard to complain when almost nobody who had previously objected has now actually expressed their opinion at my motion about it. Don't speak up, and this is what happens. LjL (talk
  ) 17:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW, I agree with
  Procrustian interpretation and Draconian punishment. 7&6=thirteen (☎
  ) 17:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Firebrace is warned for violation of
  WP:1RR. The next admin may or may not believe in a relaxed interpretation of the rule. It is better to stay under the limit to avoid problems. Firebrace's incorrect charges of vandalism don't strengthen their case. Your citation of WP:Reverting doesn't help. That is only an essay; see WP:Edit warring for the policy. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Spherical Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Judist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please note

• This is just a sample report of the widespread edit-warring by this editor across many articles, many of which are covered by discretionary sanctions under
  WP:ARBMAC2
  . Incessant edit-warring over many days adding POV and UNDUE content on Macedonia-related articles following the edits of his/her perceived opponents and starting edit-wars on articles he never edited before.

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Do not remove Harvard University sources. Thank you. Comment the content, not the editors."
2. 15:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "see http://history.wikia.com/wiki/Spherical_Earth"
3. 08:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687316809 by
   talk
   ) comparison to a womb clearly means a sphere"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 05:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 05:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
4. 06:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Canvassing on
   TW
   )"
5. 18:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
6. 18:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
7. 18:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
8. 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
9. 20:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring across a wide swath of articles covered under DS

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Edit warring across articles. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33] 22:47, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692724068 by 83.60.253.184 More anon IP valdalizing; no consensus on removing this section in its entirety. on-going discussion on removing parts"
2. [34] 02:15, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692621192 by LjL "
3. [35] 02:09, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692620407 by When Other Legends Are Forgotten"
4. [36] 01:58, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692618406 by When Other Legends Are Forgotten "
5. [37] 05:55, 26 November 2015 "

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39], [40], [41]

Comments:
See also this

• Page protected --slakr^\ talk / 02:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Love. Angel. Music. Baby. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

ABBA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

91.154.99.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

(at Love. Angel. Music. Baby.)

1. 21:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 20:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692720259 by SnapSnap (talk) Your clearly didnt read any, cause they ALL have sources. And you dont need to discuss to edit. The genres remains the same as they were before."
3. 20:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692691517 by SnapSnap (talk) Reverting without reason."

(at ABBA)

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on
   TW
   )"
2. 21:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Introducing factual errors on
   TW
   )"
3. 21:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
4. [47]
5. [48]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP editor is genre warring at two articles today,

• Blocked — was apparently already blocked as a sock and the block expired a few weeks back. --slakr^\ talk / 02:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

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

—

I have blocked as the editor is changing text without proper attribution as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Nels J. Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DaeafcMnnC (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. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

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

Comments:
DaeafcMnnC is basically blocking attempts to expand the article that he has nominated for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

i was only reverting false info as you can see in the page history and in the talk page i deleted false information which contradict the existing one--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

it was false information attempts!!--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67] (Warning by NeilN)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:

I'm not involved in this edit war, and don't take sides in the conflict, but the edit warring has to stop. I'm particularly worried that after NeilN warned the user,[69], they acknowledged they had "had my 3" [70] and then waited some hours before reverting again. That's not the right attitude, 3RR does not give permission to edit war at will as long as one spread it out a bit, so continuing the edit war after both receiving and acknowledging NeilN's warning is not a good sign. Jeppiz (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made substantial improvements to the lead, to the historical views section, and to the Gospels section. If this time I went too far, it's because making progress is a struggle. For regular edits, I have a history of being reverted and then taking it up in the talk page. I thought a POV tag was different from a regular edit because it says not to take the tag down while the dispute is in progress. Two editors took the tag down anyway. I wouldn't have been pushed the 3RR limit except that taking down a dispute tag seems like a bad faith move. Before putting up the tag, I tried to deal with this issue for weeks on the talk page and got nowhere. I am using the POV tag to draw more attention to the dispute. Any progress I have made in making the Jesus page conform better to RSs has been a struggle against editors who want to promote the canonical Gospel view. The Jesus page deviates dramatically from how neutral RSs cover the topic. I'd love to get more eyes on it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Jonathan Tweet is warned that repeatedly adding or removing the POV tag counts as edit warring for purposes of this noticeboard. In his edit summary he has stated "I'll stop fighting over the POV tag", which allows this report to be closed with no block. It is elementary that someone losing an article dispute (and afraid of breaking 3RR) would wish to put up a POV tag, which results in continuing the edit war in another form. The POV tag should remain if and only if consensus supports keeping it in place. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vormeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692830786 by Moxy (talk) Dead links will be replaced. Do not just reinstate dead links as it's not helpful. I'm taking this to the talk page."
2. 12:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692861118 by LouisAragon (talk) It's not mass-blanketing. It's called cleaning up the article of dead references/links. A dead reference is worse than no reference."
3. 15:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692964971 by LouisAragon (talk)"
4. 15:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692969500 by NebY (talk) See the talk page. The article is undergoing improvement; dead links are bound to be removed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Result: Blocked 24 h.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ejlabnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "anti-azerbaiajnian propaganda to falsify and hide historical facts"
2. 18:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "intentional vandalism, anti-azerbaijanian activities"
3. 18:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "intentional vandalism, anti-azerbaijanian activities"
4. 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "disruptive editor, intentional vandalism, anti-azerbaijanian activities"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See Comment above. Alex2006 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

75.80.175.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 20:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC) to 20:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspect */"
   2. 20:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspect */"
2. 20:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692852585 by Lahaun (talk) Unsourced that he was part of that school."
3. 20:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692851973 by Winkelvi (talk) Uh...yes?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC) to 19:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Messed up the article."
   2. 19:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Aftermath */"
5. 19:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 19:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspect section */ resp"
2. 20:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspect section */ +"

Comments:

IP editor behaving aggressively, ignoring warnings, edit summaries, and talk page discussion. Continues to edit war and push his content inclusion. Request a preventative block for continued disruption. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note Also now edit warring at other articles in relation to the Colorado Springs shooting. [71]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2015 Colorado Springs shooting has been semiprotected by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2607:F358:21:14C:CA4D:6399:D491:69BC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "pseudo-history and false etymology by disruptive editor Ejlabnet (only registered to vandalize this page)"
2. 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692990284 by Ejlabnet (talk) you try to falsify facts by your bogus and unsourced text"
3. 18:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692991250 by Ejlabnet (talk) pan-turksit pov pusher, adds his comments to article"
4. 18:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692991840 by Ejlabnet (talk) disruptive editor, adds his pov and usnourced/personal comments"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This ip and user below are edit-warring since one hour. Some Admin should stop them, thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected by User:Nyttend. This article has become a sock festival. An admin who has some time might consider looking at other articles being dealt with by the same IPs, to see if semiprotection of other articles is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mai-Sachme broke the three reverts rule (1st 2nd 3rd 4th). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.103 (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct in linking directly to the article rather than via a redirect but both sides are edit warring here. Page protection seems a better option I would suggest, making sure to protect the

WP:WRONG version. WCM_email

11:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying "protect the wrong version"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.103 (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, User:Mai-Sachme has reverted one more time, that is 5 times in less than 24 hours.

For a better understanding of the case, I'd like to point out this notice and that discussion on an admin's talk page.

For a better understanding of the case, you should have specified that I've already answerer all of your points, but since you didn't I'll have to do it again here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

We are dealing here with a user, who appears under various IPs (5 or 6, I've lost the count...) and doesn't do anything (!) else than changing the order of German/Italian names, exchanging German town names with Italian ones and so on (despite the fact that both of them are official). That is clearly disruptive editing.

My IP always starts with 151.20.0-1-2-3. It's called "dynamic IP". And, again, the first IP you met, 5.101.99.101, was_NOT_me. HE made such changes, not me. There's one only edit I've ever done regarding South Tyrol with the other IP I used, 46.252.205.187, and you know. Anyway, changing a German name which has to be kept in German to Italian is disruptive, but changing a German name which has to be kept in Italian to Italian is constructive. If it wasn't so, then everybody would be free to change every single Bolzano name to Bozen in all the articles where it's written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

• On principle,
  WP:NOTBROKEN should be a user's guideline. The user behind the IPs isn't interested at all in the articles' subjects, not one single edit was a clear improvement of an article. How on earth is that an improvement?
  Sorry, but that kind of behaviour falls perfectly into the pattern of an nationalistic edit warrior...

Aren't you talking again about the first IP, which wasn't me, are you? You're talking about that single Meran(o) problem, aren't you? How on Earth is your revert an improvement? Face it: the name is Merano, period. If you disagree, you should go to Talk:Merano and create a new discussion, proposing to change the name from Merano to Meran. Otherwise, you're wrong. And a nationalist... Pardon, if you were "nationalist" you would change all German names to Italian, since your nation is Italy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

• Here the IP even falsified a book title, just in order to exchange a German town name with an Italian town name.

Oh my God... Again? This is the 3rd time I repeat! a) It_was_NOT_me. b) I know your edit is correct, I'll repeat, your_edit_is_correct, that's why I didn't revert it, never ever. c) I'm not going to revert correct edits, just wrong ones such as your changing from Merano to Meran. d) Let's hope you won't make me repeat it one more time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

• Here his edit (wrong name corrected, sic!) introduced a clear anachronism. I explained that on Talk:Silvius Magnago, obviusly whithout a response of the other involved user.

An anachronism? So, if you're right, considering that Italy was born in 1861 and Italian was made the official language in that year, every time an Italian town name appears in an article we must use the name it had in that particular moment (in Latin, in ancient Italian, in the local dialect, in the foreign conquerors' language, etc...). Please... And you're not even honest: you refused also the sentence "...Merano, which was then...named Meran...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but the only thing I see here is massive trolling by a user, who even threatened me with "uno stolching perenne, a tempo indeterminato, da parte mia su di te.", that means "an eternal stalking, for an indefinite period of time, from me at your expense". I'd be thankful for a semi-protection of the concerned pages. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what it means, I've told you twice already. It doesn't mean that I'll undo you edits every time you do them. It means that I'll take an eye on you to avoid that you change again to German Italian names which according to consensus have to be Italian in this encyclopedia. I won't do anything different than an administrator who keeps an eye on a known troll. In this case, you're the troll. My edits are correct, maybe not fundamental but correct. And you're the only one behaving nationalistically here, since there's a consensus about Merano which you keep ignoring, pursuing your crusade against the Italic invaders... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

This IP's recent IPs:

• 5.101.99.101 (talk · contribs)
• 5.170.14.19 (talk · contribs)
• 62.19.51.53 (talk · contribs)
• 62.19.51.66 (talk · contribs)
• 46.252.205.187 (talk · contribs)
• 151.20.0.70 (talk · contribs)
• 151.20.1.181 (talk · contribs)
• 151.20.2.6 (talk · contribs)
• 151.20.0.103 (talk · contribs)

It does seem to me the IP editor is changing the articles to his/her favoured national version, against the status quo without any argument carrying weight. I take the view that the IP should do something more constructive, and would support semi-protection for the two most affected articles to give the IP editor the opportunity to argue their case if they wish to pursue these changes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already answered in your talk page, zzuuzz, why are you ignoring that?

the IP editor is changing the articles to his/her favoured national version false: it's not "my favourite national version", it's English Wiki consensus version, or else

Meran

wouldn't be redirects, I've never changed and will never change, for example, Waidbruck to Ponte Gardena.

against the status quo without any argument carrying weight false: the status quo is to use the Italian names for Bolzano and Merano, it's Mai-Sachme who's going against status quo and consensus, if you disagree you're free to propose to change them in the related talk pages, if you succeed in that I won't change Bozen/Meran to Bolzano/Merano any more.

the IP should do something more constructive it's your opinion, and I agree: in fact I'm also doing other constructive edits which have nothing to do with South Tyrol, as I've always done, but now I'm also controlling his edits, not to vandalise anything but to prevent him from keeping changing geographical names from consensus version to "deutsch" version.

I'm neither a vandal nor a nationalist, if you consider objectively what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I am not blocking you for being a nationalist edit warrior, or a vandal. I am not even going to protect the pages. But I would like to strongly discourage you from thinking about "stolching perenne". I find this fiddling from the status quo - the existing text - rather pointless. I am referring to strong policy-based arguments to justify fiddling: Let's take the example of Morano/Meran, "According to the 2011 census, 50.47% of the resident population spoke German". According to the guidelines, this actually suggests the article is titled incorrectly. Perhaps you'd like to argue in favour of renaming it. Also, 5.101.99.101 and by definition 46.252.205.187, is the only reason we've met. I will not believe this is not you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. That "stolchingh perenne" was a hyperbole, I'm not going to waste my life after him, I'll just control every now and then that he won't make uncorrect edits such as the 2 we're talking about. If you want to change the name of the town you can ask for it in the talk page, but as I can see somebody already tried and failed, also because the most common name used in English is Merano; obviously I'm not interested in changing the name of a town that until 1961 had a strong Italian majority. And the only reason we've met is Mai-Sachme: if he didn't report 46.252.205.187 I would have never known you even existed. I don't care if you think I'm 5.101.99.101 too, but I'm not, and I know. 1 last thing: if the three reverts rule isn't applied to Mai-Sachme or to this case for some reasons, we should close this report... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.2.95 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm sick and tired now of the other user's behaviour. Let's take the article Silvius Magnago as an example. The IPs failed to make any useful contribution there. The user behind the IPs has just one goal: nationalistic fuss about German/Italian town names. What follows, is a complete list of the IPs' edits.

• 1st edit: useless change from German-Italian town names to Italian-German town names
• 2nd edit: useless change from German-Italian town names to Italian-German town names
• 3rd edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name (and that is an anachronism, as I explained on the talk page)
• 4th edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name
• 5th edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name
• 6th edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name
• 7th edit: jumbling the German and Italian town names introducing a factually wrong implication (as I explained on the talk page)
• 8th edit: jumbling the German and Italian town names introducing a factually wrong implication

Sorry, but what the heck? In the meantime I tried to expand the article and added a bibliography. You are welcome to compare [my humble contribution to the article's benefit with the extremely stubborn attitude of the IPs. I'm quite used to revert nationalistic bollocks in the area of South Tyrol (no matter if coming from the German or Italian side), but this doggedness as shown by the IPs is new to me. Given the threats and insults I received, I really think that we are dealing with an obsessive behaviour here. And since the IPs seem to continue their annoying activities in the article Silvius Magnago, I would like to ask again for a semi-protection of the page. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well. Let's end this. You have broken the so called three reverts rule. You have reverted 5 time in less than 24 hours. This was the original reason of this topic. You know that I'm just going to prevent you to change Italian names to German and nothing more. Don't try shifting attention to something else honestly risible. And about Merano as I said dozens of times the consensus is to use the most used name in English. Which is Merano. This is the status quo that you're trying to change without even proposing anything in Talk:Merano. You are wrong. Both in your opinion and in the way you've chosen to impose it. We are right. It's not strongly necessary to change every Meran to Merano. But it's not uncorrect. On the contrary changing Merano to Meran is against en.wikipedia consensus. There's no reason your will to call it Meran is more correct than our will to call it Merano. There's no way you're being right in what you do. Just face it.

• Result: Semiprotected
  WP:ARBEE. Note that according to WP:Article titles the criterion is which name is most commonly used in English. The ethnic makeup of the town's population does not decide the issue. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Page:

Breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 20:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 09:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 05:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Aamir Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Biwom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 10:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC) to 10:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 10:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "reverting 8 last edits - I disagree with these changes, mixing "acting" and "directing" does not seem a good idea if it leads to repetitions"
   2. 10:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* On intolerance */ replicating Anupam karn's latest edit"
   3. 10:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* In the media */ reverting: seems better to me"
   4. 10:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Blockbuster films */ reverting: not an improvement imo"
   5. 10:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Blockbuster films */ reverting: what does this mean?"
   6. 10:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Awards and honours */ you cannot call the Padma Shri and the Padma Bhushan "honorary accolades" and you cannot put the doctorate stuff in the same sentence because it's just not the same level"
2. 08:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* On intolerance */ fixes"
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) to 07:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 07:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* On intolerance */ "noted" does not mean much"
   2. 07:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* On intolerance */ I am not sure the lawsuit is worth mentioning"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "G.A"

Comments:

Editing out the references prior article is nominated for Good Article. D'SuperHero (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I was hardly edit warring. D'SuperHero made many many changes during the last 48 hours, I was just reverting small pieces that I objected to, one by one in order to put proper edit summaries. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe

WP:AGF as I have. Silly me. Thanks, Biwom (talk

) 13:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Swarm ♠
  05:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Vitamin K2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

T12999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "no that is cited from pear review paper in journal"
2. 07:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "is not copyrighted"
3. 08:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "going to have trouble.....this page is for the non sci...full of woowoo"
4. 10:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "hang on this is in dispute !!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Alexander Domanda#November 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rwanda#Anglicans

Comments:
This user, who seems to have a history of adding unsourced content to articles, is insisting on adding an unsourced figure for the number of Anglicans in Rwanda to this article. When challenged, they have pointed to another Wikipedia article as a source, but the figure is unsourced there. They have not responded to attempts to communicate. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Windows 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Laurenlovelistenmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 23:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "Do Not Reverted Against, I will be Angry"
3. 11:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "Right File, Do Not Reverted Against"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Similar edit war on

WP:3RR before this report? --NeilN ^{talk to me}

23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• WP:V, across multiple pages; in addition to misc process/template disruption. DMacks (talk
  ) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by User:NeilN (which I support) for more evidence of deeper problems, and then I disabled talkpage access for even further disruption of her own talkpage while blocked. I think we're done here. DMacks (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:

Hello. I had written a section on a biography of a living person. It is by no means perfect, of course, but it is well-sourced, factual, and neutral. Aricialam, however, reverted this substantive edit for four times over the span of about 8-9 hours, thus blanking the entire section. In response, her reverts were undid by three different Wikipedia users including myself. Throughout Aricialam's reverts, a total of five warnings were given, none of which were heeded. It must also be noted that Aricialam had previously removed the warnings, although I had subsequently reverted them back. Finally, I'd like to humbly point out that Aricialam is extremely possessive over this article: she has reverted many, many worthwhile edits to the article prior to mine. A brief survey of Aricialam's reverts reveals that these edits share a striking similarity: that they usually cast the subject of the article in a poor light. I'm admittedly new to Wikipedia as an editor, but I'm sure this is inimical to the spirit of the Wikipedia community that I so greatly adore. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @
    WP:3RR. Thank you. Khairulash (talk
    ) 04:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)