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)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475
476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325	326
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: See below)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2]
[3]

Obvious violation of 1RR at an Arab-Israeli conflict article. Discussion is still ongoing on the talk page. There is no consensus whatsoever to add Israel to the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man,He violated the 1rr about five times,trying to impose his point of view without any consensus Alhanuty (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i can see, at least 11th time. Wow... --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WW, what in the world have you to do with this article? :) imo your stalking my talk is just embarrassing by this point. I honestly hope you might find some other hobby. -- Director (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call on anyone to review the sources next to Israel's entry in the infobox (here) and not question the justifiability of the reverts that have been taking place for six months now. And that with significant support on the talkpage for its inclusion (its 6v5 or 6v6 or something..).

For six months now, and longer, these fellas have been WP:DISRUPTING the functioning of that talkpage, and should imo be sanctioned without delay for the serious damage they have caused to this project on one of its most prominent articles. It is impossible to post sourced material into the article unless it "passes the approval" of resident edit-warriors, shamelessly WP:GAMING the 1RR restriction and WP:STONEWALLING any and all additions they disapprove. And that regardless of talkpage support, as one can claim "no consensus" and "ongoing discussion" however long one wishes without being technically wrong.

Reams of text were written in numerous talkpage threads, all sorts of DR attempts, several RfCs were called, DRN threads were posted. Over there, however, it boils down to the edit-warriors and their reverting, plain and simple. And no one wants to touch this with a ten-foot pole.

I'm an editor with over 46,000 edits on this project, and all I'm doing is making an addition that's so damn sourced its not even funny anymore. An addition which, I assure you, its entirely impossible to make in any other way. If you fellas wanna sanction me - sanction me. I do not believe my actions are fundamentally in contradiction with the meaning of Wikipedia policy. -- Director (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If both Direktor and his opponents keep reverting the article, blocks appear likely. Saying you are reverting 'Per talk' looks like empty words at this point. You all should know how to open an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: So you're just going to let him get away with this? This is not the first time he's done this. He's been trying to add Israel to the infobox without consensus since for months. Also, there was an RfC. See the discussions here: Talk:Syrian civil war/Israel.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't close the original report because the counting of reverts seemed messed up. At present I'd settle for any plan that aims to find consensus on whether Israel should be listed as a combatant. If blocks are needed, I'd propose that anyone reverting on Israel's combatant status from now on (before a clear talk page consensus) should be blocked. If there is no appropriate promise from either User:DIREKTOR or User:Sopher99 about their future conduct I'd include them in the blocks for what they've already done. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to cease altogether removing Israel so long as DIREKTOR agrees to not add it in when a debate is ongoing. Stonewalling is not a legitimate excuse as there are significant minorities and significant majorities in this discussion, each with in depth arguments. Considering RfC and Dispute resolution's both failed to establish consensus, we can rule out stonewalling as an excuse. Sopher99 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So yes I agree to EdJohnstons's proposal. Sopher99 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Anyone who add/remove Israel from now on should be blocked.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though we need someone, an admin or such, to revert the edits while discussion is ongoing. Sopher99 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general discussion at Talk:Syrian Civil War#Israel & the infobox, and a collection of threads at Talk:Syrian civil war/Israel. If anyone thinks this adds up to a consensus, why not ask an admin to formally close it? EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the thing. There is no consensus, even when we tried RfC and Dispute Resolution, so it stays at status quo. Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. I think Ed has it right here; discussion is the only way forward, with the caveat that further edit-warring to insert/remove the section absent a talkpage consensus will mean a block. And, oh yeah, a couple of editors above inserting comments to the effect of "BLOCK HIM!! BLOCK HIM!!" - not helpful. Let the report speak for itself, please. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(just saw the post on my talk) I am prepared to give my word never to breach 1RR over there, if I could only get some helpful advice as to how and where this WP:STONEWALL might be adressed (and it is my immutable opinion that any objective survey will indicate disruption on that talkpage). In fact, I do hereby vow so, in hopes od receiving said advice. I myself have no idea. It appears only edit-warring breaks the easy and relaxed manner in which sources are off-handedly dismissed over there. No RfC result is deemed "consensus-worthy" for these folks, who apparently believe wikipedia fuctions by WP:VOTE. DRN & ANI threads are just plain ignored. -- Director (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chicago Style (without pants) reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Stale)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: see below

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

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

Comments:
Although there was no 1RR violation, the editor has not learned anything from their previous blocks. They are still edit warring, albeit in slow motion. The editor's very first edit after returning from their 1 week block (see report [4]) was to re-engage in trying to edit war their preferred content into the article.

today - they changed the piped link Palestinian political violence|political violence to political violence.
This is a repeat of the previous edits below
- 2013-05-02T09:57:40 - ES = "Change to normal wikilinking"
- 2013-04-29T01:42:26 - ES = "This link will define the term in a less "politicized" way."

Why would someone keep doing this over and over ? They want to be able to include a link to Palestinian political violence in the "See also" section presumably because it is prominent. They first tried to do this with their edit at 2013-04-08T08:53:13. It was reverted because it is inconsistent with WP:SEEALSO i.e. there is already a link in the article body. This was explained to them Talk:Palestinian_people/Archive_22#What_should_be_in_the_See_Also... on April 9. Nevertheless, they added the link again on 2013-04-23T10:07:44. Their solution since then has been to try to edit war the piped link Palestinian political violence|political violence link out of the article and replace it with a less specific link to political violence so that they can include the link in See also.

Please keep blocking them over and over again until they stop this kind of disruptive behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User: MarshallBagramyan reported by User:Kazemita1 (Result: Article placed under sanctions)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[6]
[7]
[8]
[diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] & [10]

Comments: The user is using absence of others to reopen a closed case. Clearly, with one person (himself) in the talk page we do not have consensus for inclusion and I tried reminding him but it does not seem to work. P.S. He was the only person in favor of including the material when the case got closed due to WP:BLP / WP:SOAP; yet he is still insisting on his position.

Kazemita1 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just absurd. My first edit was not a revert but a re-addition of material which had been removed and left out of an article pending its discussion. As the discussion petered out, I wrote on the talk page of the article informing all concerned editors that I would re-add it, if there were no objections. One week passed and I re-inserted said section. The two reverts I made today but that is hardly a violation of 3RR nor necessarily proof of mendacious edit-warring. A perusal of the article's history page will show that Kazemita was perhaps one of the most passionate of editors of trying to sanctify this particular individual's biography and went through several rounds of reverts, continuously removing, wholesale, in my and several others editors' belief a well-sourced section. Even though that section has been improved with additional references by me, he has still continued to remove it , not even bothering to add simple "disputed" or "needs resources" tags in the section in question. It should be noted that this complaint follows my recent warnings to him that he desist from making disruptive edits. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an Armenian matter: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Enforcement may apply. I'm somewhat involved here as an editor, and I have given my opinion on the talk page. This is a BLP and I have serious problems with the content, though I can't say that removing it would exempt one from 3R, since it's not that bad. Mendacious or not, it seems clear to me that Marshall is continuing a conflict--but I have not studied the history carefully enough to pass judgment. I leave that to the experts. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 3RR violation by anyone because each contributor made only two reverts during 24 hours, with the first recent revert started by Kazemita1. However, reporting someone on 3RR noticeboard, while being perfectly aware that there is no 3RR violation (this is not the first time when Kazemita1 comments on 3RR) is an obvious example of WP:BATTLE. My very best wishes (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The disputed material has a long and checkered history. As far as I can tell, it was first added to the article by Marshall in April 2011. Since that time it has bounced in and out, and it's kind of interesting to see who, other than Marshall, restored it. As others have said, there has been no 3RR violation by either editor, and I'm reluctant to sanction either editor based on WP:ARBAA2 given the lack of warning on this article (Marshall has a deep familiarity with ARBAA2). However, in my view, the material transforms what would have been a rather humdrum article about a college professor into an article that should be subject to ARBAA2. Therefore, I have added the sanctions template to the talk page. The two editors involved in this report are now aware of the sanctions and should act accordingly. Any further signs of disruption may be met by blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I blocked Marshall after he went back to the article and reinserted the disruptive, BLP-problematic material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over nationalities of various musicians and a sitcom

A number of ever-changing anonymous IPs has been edit warring over Dirty Pretty Things (band), Dizzee Rascal, some Franz Ferdinand (band) releases (Can't Stop Feeling, Eleanor Put Your Boots On, Lucid Dreams, No You Girls, Tonight: Franz Ferdinand, Ulysses (song) and Walk Away (Franz Ferdinand song)), Klaxons, Murdoc Niccals, Rab C. Nesbitt, The Cure and likely more, changing any mentions of them being English/Scottish to British and vice-versa. This happens every day or two and has been going on for over a month now, with the anons showing no sign of heeding any warnings or engaging in any talk page discussions. I would like to request an admin step in and do something about this. -- I need a name (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not an admin, but could you please provide edit histories for these articles? It would be nice to check out what is going on without having to go to the articles themselves. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 20:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure: Dirty Pretty Things (band), Dizze Rascal, Can't Stop Feeling, Eleanor Put Your Boots On, Lucid Dreams, No You Girls, Tonight: Franz Ferdinand, Ulysses (song), Walk Away (Franz Ferdinand song), Klaxons, Murdoc Niccals, Rab C. Nesbitt and The Cure. Also, three more that I've noticed since originally posting this: Blood: Franz Ferdinand, Die on the Floor/Katherine Hit Me and The Fallen / L. Wells. The last one hasn't been touched for 2 weeks, but it fits the pattern of the others. -- I need a name (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resaltador reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

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

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:THC Loadee reported by User:AutomaticStrikeout (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:
Though not pertinent to edit warring, the user in question has been blocked for personal attacks, and has been harassing User:ZappaOMati here. Again, this does not pertain to the edit warring allegation, but just as an FYI to any patrolling administrator. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he is continuing the edit war. AutomaticStrikeout ? 02:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week by User:Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dyrnych reported by User:Federales (Result: No violation, article protected)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32] (Discussion belated started by Dyrnych after he received a 3RR notice.)

Comments:
Diff #4 is an IP hailing from an open proxy server. The revert should be credited to Dyrnych according to WP:DUCK. Federales (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocate indicates that the IP is a network sharing device or a proxy server, but not an open proxy server.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not my edit. Also, "revert" 1 is my original edit of the page and not a revert at all. Dyrnych (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing a violation of 3rr, and if Federales thinks that the IP should be credited to Dyrnych, then I don't see why the other two IP's should not be credited to Federales. As a side note, the current version is very neutral. Arzel (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #4 is not my edit. Also, Diff #1 is my original edit of the page and not a revert at all. I explained the reasoning behind Diff #2 in my edit summary. Diff #3 was probably not appropriate, but my reversion had just been undone by a nameless IP address that has apparently engaged in precisely one action: undoing my reversion (See [33]). If Federales is going to blame me for Diff #4 via WP:DUCK, he should be blamed for the revision noted above as well as for subsequent revision by another nameless IP address which itself has engaged in the sole action of undoing Diff #3. Thus, Federales would himself be guilty of edit warring and probably of violating WP:3RR. That said, I'm not interested in harassing Federales; I'm interested in resolving the underlying conflict.

Although I've never been involved in an edit war and this is something of a new experience for me, I've familiarized myself with Wikipedia's policies on edit warring and do not intend to revert further. Hence, I'm attempting to resolve this conflict through the article's talk page. Thus far, Federales has used the discussion solely to accuse me of edit warring and has not addressed the actual substance of the conflict other than subjectively noting that my edit "didn't improve the article." I don't see how any sort of resolution within WP:BRD can be achieved when I lay out my rationale and the response I receive is as trivial as that. Dyrnych (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should point out that Federales' claim that "[d]iscussion belated [sic] started by Dyrnych after he received a 3RR notice" is false. I started the discussion prior to receiving the 3RR notice from Federales. That's an easily verifiable fact, and I'm not sure why Federales would claim otherwise. Dyrnych (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article already protected, and regardless No violation. As mentioned above, the filer should be very careful about assigning IP edits to the other editor "per WP:DUCK" when there are two IP reverts that do exactly the same for his own edits. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sageo reported by User:Finx (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1, 2

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

Comments:

I'll try my best to explain briefly, because there seems to be some language barrier between myself and this editor. This article (along with others relating to the topics of anarchism and markets) has a bit of a history of previous abuses and to me this seems not too dissimilar. As far as I can tell, the objection, once again, appears to be that an article on "market anarchism" is not an exclusive and dedicated shrine or redirect to the ideology of Murray Rothbard, since there are now several solid sources disassociating its most prominent anarchists from the ideology. The editor had originally made "market anarchism", "free-market anarchism" and "market anarchy" redirect to "anarcho-capitalism" -- some diffs and reverts here:

When these changes didn't stick, as the two clearly aren't synonymous (for the simple reason of most of the anarchists described being clearly and explicitly anti-capitalist, spanning over 150 years of the movement's history), the page was labeled by this editor as using 'primary sources', then 'original research', then 'previously unpublished synthesis', in a kind of shotgun blast of apparently random objections. Sageo would not identify the primary sources used, what constituted original research or how this was synthesis, but insisted that the article was an "essay" (despite ample citations for an article of this size), proposed again and again that the term "market anarchism" should not refer to anyone except anarcho-capitalists (which was refuted with yet more academic references on the talk page), and then repeatedly accused me of pushing some of sort sinister personal political agenda. I don't know how to resolve this, because I've tried reasoning through it and all I'm getting is foot-stomping, accusations and threats to, um, "denounce" me until I run out of time and patience. Finx (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by "non"-involved editor: I am not involved in the content/article talk page discussion, but I have revised the article page with an {{essay}} template replacing the disputed OR/SYN templates. My edit summary suggested that particular OR/SYN problems be tagged in-line.; With my "compromise" template in mind, I think this ANI is pre-mature. OP posted both a level 4 EW message and a notice of this ANI at the same time. (I have remarked on OPs talk page about this.) I suggest that the editors go to WP:3O to resolve the question of whether the article page should have the templates. – S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a warning regarding the redirects that prompted this edit war long before this noticeboard post. Still not clear on how many academic citations need to be provided to prove this point, if the The Journal of Historical Review, Woodcock, Ellen Frankel Paul and Tucker's/Spooner's own written works are not sufficient to elevate the claim that market anarchism has something vaguely to do with markets and anarchism from 'essay' status. Finx (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by non-involved editor: It's not necessarily an 'essay' - type article; it just needs better references. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case for "edit warring" by me. Please don't make false assertions Finx. This is not a case for redirection revertions (today is 1 June). I put a template of OR/ and then synthesis on 18 May, that now have been changed for Essay template from another user on 30 May (no problem for me, the idea is the same). And I discussed for a consensus without make any edition on the content of the article. A don't make any edition to any redirection since the discussion beggins (18 May). A template couldn't be quit before consensus, and I want to dialogue with the user and don't denounce him for don't make the troubles bigger [40] [41]. It's terrible that now, the user who was deleting templates without get an agreement in talk page denounce me for ask him follow the rules. This is not a problem about "redirection", after dialogue with Finx and after some references, both accepted to make that page a disambiguation page (Finx "If you want to make that into a disambiguation page, I think that's a good idea, personally", me "We get a first consensus that this article is wrong and should be a disambiguation page (it's a contradition to remove templates after both get to the conclusion of make a disambiguation page)"). Adding an editorial comment, that article have no one reference about the term that the article asserts is a theory with history and internal disputes, after research (see talk page) the term seems to appears at later 1970's without any complex pretentions. In my editorial experience that is an apocryfal article, and in my editorial experience no user could remove a template before a consensus in talk page if it have been rationally argued by a community user. I'm not asking for any punishment for Finx for removing templates and then make false accusations, that I believe he deserves it, but only asking that him accept to follow the rules and discuss in talk page. --Sageo (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article fully protected three days. There is a long-running thread at Talk:Free-market anarchism#Original research where Finx and Sageo are the only participants. So long as there are only two, it seems unlikely there will be any resolution. Follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and consider a WP:Request for comment. Reverting of tags is considered like any other edit warring; there is no right to revert tags. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Attleboro (Result: No block, BLP concerns are legitimate and need to be discussed and consensus reached before adding material )

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&oldid=557462217

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&oldid=557550431

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Gospel_of_success

Comments:

As can been seen from Talk:Prosperity theology, I have made it clear to Attleboro that this material is a clear violation of WP:BLP policy - it uses the words 'crass' and 'hucksterism' in Wikipedia's voice, characterises Donald Trump as a 'heretic' quoting no source whatsoever, and and goes out of its way to brand Joel Osteen as both 'heretic' and a 'subversive' with no pretence at presenting any objectivity, or even an intimation that others might not share this point of view. It is clearly a coatrack attack on Orsteen, and simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I apologise for repeatedly reverting this, rather than bringing it up at a noticeboard, but I hoped that Attleboro might see a little sense. In any case, since WP:3RR doesn't apply to reversions of WP:BLP violating material, while it clearly does apply to those inserting such material, I suggest that action be taken against Attleboro instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP concerns here are legitimate and need to be discussed. That is not to say that some form of this material cannot be in the article, but unless and until a consensus is reached as to the form, wording, and specific sources used to put in the article, it should NOT be there until BLP concerns are dealt with and a wide consensus is reached. Attleboro, please do not readd this material, consider this a warning to not proceed down this path. If you wish to see this material in the article, work out exactly how to do so on the talk page, and get widespread agreement to do so. Which is not to say 100% agreement, but a broad consensus is necessary. --Jayron32 18:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jayron, I wish you'd review this. WP:3RR exemption 7 is "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Since neither libelous, unsourced, nor poorly sourced, the only one that may apply is biased, but since this is criticism, that shouldn't apply either if reliably sourced to a notable. Grump does not read carefully. The words he objects to are sourced, except no one called Donald Trump a heretic. Some of Osteen's ideas are called heresy. Some of what Trump represents are called subversive. No individual is called a name. Also, Grump did not "report... to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Attleboro (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, it's a judgment call by the reviewing admin on whether to apply the BLP exemption. Wikilawyering the language of the exemption won't assist you. If the admin believes that there are strong enough BLP issues, applying the exemption is sound. Second, to the extent it matters, I agree with Jayron. Third, arguably the material is poorly sourced considering how you cobbled it together.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) I have, and am going to again, expressly not make any decision about who is correct and who is wrong with regards to the content issue here. Instead, I am instructing you both to use the talk page, make your case, and invite others to weigh in so consensus can be established as to the specific wording, sources, and text of the section in question. I have not, and will not, make any decision as to whether or not the current text is or is not appropriate, or whether some form of the text would, or would not, be appropriate in this form or a modified for, or whether it should or should not be there at all. The issue is that the text should be worked out on the talk page, out of the actual article, and once consensus is established there, and it is clearly established by enough users who have weighed in, then the version that everyone thinks is the best, and has consensus, can be added. Do not add any text about this material unless and until that has been done. If you need additional eyes or help from previously uninvolved users, WP:DR has many suggestions. --Jayron32 21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Number 57 reported by User:Batvanio (Result: Batvanio warned)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[43]
[44]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:

I have high respect for User 57 for his editing work. I welcome Wikipedia helping the community with grants that promote transparency, honest dialog and correct information. However, it seems to me that User 57 has taken a personal attitude towards my edits and deletes or reverts them no matter what. I did try to take many of his points in the comments he provided, and I did try to correct my edits accordingly. However, I found them outright deleted without any regards of contents. For example, one of his/her comments were "unfunded edits" - I did provide enough references from public media and official reports (see my last edits). However, my edits were deleted regardless. Please help.

As can be seen from the edit history of the article in question, Batvanio has repeatedly added unsourced material which is a clear WP:NPOV violation.[45][46][47][48][49][50] I have removed this several times (as have two other editors - [51][52], the second of which also requests that Batvanio be reported for his problematic editing), and tried to make it clear to them via their talk page that this is not acceptable editing. Unfortunately Batvanio has added almost identical material to the article again since posting this complaint, and I am unable to removed it without violating WP:3RR. The major issue is in the claim in the inserted text that "Bulgarian Socialist Party lost because of alleged involvement in massive corruption, links to criminal groups and siphoning EU funds to private individuals and organizations". This is not supported by the two citations given in this sentence, and has been blindly reinstated despite this being pointed out to Batvaino. My last message to them warned that I would seek a topic ban from this article if they continued to edit in this fashion, so if this is a possibility, please can it be implemented. Thanks, Number 5 7 22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. I have formally warned Batvanio on their talk page about their inflammatory, non-neutral, unsupported edits. @Number 57, you should be more careful of your reverts. You may not have violated WP:3RR with respect to Batvanio and the one IP who re-added the same material, but you have other edits on the article that could be considered reverts. As for your suggestion of a topic ban, even assuming it was warranted after such a short history, I do not have the authority to unilaterally impose it; it requires community consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:184.91.36.102 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: Semi-protected)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63], [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
An IP editor has continuously removed the section about Angie Miller's "controversial" shocking elimination and truly has many reliable sources in her elimination weeks ago, though was shocked by many criticisms in reality shows. It's really confirmed to an edit warring removal. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected. I semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Youssif Saadieh reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:
User is removing reliable sources and adding original research. Pass a Method talk 10:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Pass a Method, next time please use the template at the top of the page to notify a user of a report, or at least provide a link.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Werieth reported by User:Expatkiwi (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [71], [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[73]
[74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments: User is unilaterally removing my flag submissions on a continual basis and by doing so, is questioning my integrity as a contributor. No discussion before the fact or no putting it up as a candidate for deletion. 14:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC).

User:Expatkiwi

Please note that I am removing obvious violations of the non-free content policy, which is exempt See Wikipedia:Edit_warring#3RR_exemptions #5 (See WP:NFCC#8,WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFLIST). This is a classic case of IDONTLIKEIT in regards to WP:NFCC and the user is attempting to circumvent the issue by reporting me here. If the user wants removal will remain and it can be taken to WP:NFCR where my position and a long history of policy will be re-enforced. (PS I was never given a link to this discussion) Werieth (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the first time that User Werieth has targeted my submissions. I've been taking pains to ensure that the images submitted meet the criteria for non-free image usage. He has also threatened me with removal from Wikipedia. His actions are an attack on my integrity as both a vexillologist and as a contributor. BTW, he had been informed of my intention to report him. Expatkiwi (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - For one, I don't see 3RR here, though one could argue "being in the spirit of" 3RR. But that said, NFLISTS is clear that non-free images cannot be used in tables like these, and enforcing NFC policy is exempt from 3RR/edit warring. If you feel the editor is specifically after you, an RFC/U may be a better venue, but that's not apparent from the evidence given. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - For your information, Masem, I had refrained from reversion of the pages concerned due to Werieth's earlier threats to have me blocked. In any case, I looked at similar non-free images in Wikipedia and modelled my submissions and usage rationales on them. If those other illustrations are able to be used without threat of deletion but the ones I submitted are, then that is showing a selective hypocrisy on the part of Wikipedia. In any case, he is acting unilaterally in his removals and taking a distinct pleasure in doing so. Incidentally, finding the correct noticeboard to lodge complaints has not been the easiest thing to do on Wikipedia either. I will make this clear: MY SUBMISSIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMEANING WIKIPEDIA!!!!! Why can't you people understand that?!! --EXPATKIWI (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please note that I never stated that your intent was to demean wikipedia. All that I stated was that your edits are not in compliance with wikipedia policy. There is a large gap between the two points. You will not find a list with a large amount of non-free files on a single list page. List of Australian flags had 14 non-free files. There are only 23 pages on the entire wiki with as much or more non-free media. This is because the usage of non-free media is restricted. Werieth (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        And I'm sure that it was with a bleeding heart that you decided to yank those flag images... The rationale for the usage of those images on those pages is pretty clear: to add to the information given by the page, and the page does happen to be about flags, in case you hadn't noticed. You have in effect told me that not just my vexillological inputs on Wikipedia are unwelcome, but me as well. And you wonder why I think you're being a hypocrite? --EXPATKIWI (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Please review our policy on no personal attacks. I removed those files that where used in the list article. I am not nominating them for deletion. I am in fact enforcing one of the most important policies on wikipedia, our policy on non-free media. Take a look at File:Torres Strait Islanders Flag.svg which is the first file on the list that I removed. It is still being used on Indigenous Australians where it is the flag of that group of people. Besides failing WP:NFLISTS it was also failing WP:NFCC#10c on List of Australian flags. Werieth (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not convinced. If I put the Australian Law enforcement flags up on a separate page because you're stating that the issue was numbers of images on the List of Australian flags page, then I beleive you'd pull the page using the non-free images excuse.--EXPATKIWI (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Non-free media is meant to be used exceptionally per the Foundation (and the basis of our non-free policy). We require images to be used with contextual significant - that is, that a page requires the image to be present to be understood. Lists and tables of non-free images - including your flag pages - do not need those flag images to be understood. That's why NFLISTS was created, because nearly every case of such image-filled list or table is just as a "decorative" element. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not quite correct. NFLISTs was created largely in response to television series character lists -- where an image, even if valuable, is not the defining aspect of the character; and also where there was often the possibility of a cast group image instead. But when we're talking about flags on the other hand, what the flag actually looks like arguably is the defining property of the item -- rather than being tangential knowledge, it is arguably actually the key piece of understanding per WP:NFCC#8 that can be imparted to the reader. In such a case it may well make sense to include the image. It is also acknowledged in U.S. fair-use case law (Graham vs Dorling Kindersley) that an image does not necessarily need to be commented on to be valid fair use. The exemption from WP:3RR is only for absolutely black-and-white NFCC violations. In this case I think therefore it would have been better for User:Werieth to refer this to a discussion board, rather than to use WP:3RR to force through his interpretation of the WP:NFC policy. Jheald (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Expatkiwi, you wrote that User:Werieth has been targeting you. Are you saying that he has been specifically targeting you? Looking at his contributions, it looks as if he picks random WP:NFCC policy violations, not targeting any specific user. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Finx reported by User:Sageo (Result: Article protected)

Removing of OR/SYN templates in the middle of a discussion in process since 18 May. I don't ask for strong sanctions, that could damage the dialogue, but I have warned the user in two times for stop removing templates without consensus 27 May/ 30 May. For me a warn message is enough.Sageo (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article fully protected three days per the above closure. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:109.65.226.91 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

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

Comments:

User:Film Fan reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Comments:

User:Film Fan continues to edit war on this article over trivial things. He was reported by myself for edit warring on the same article one week ago where he was warned by an admin to stop edit warring or he would be blocked. He was warned on his talkpage about this edit warring by User:Black Kite (as per the diff, above), and the talkpage was blanked by FF. He then posted on Black Kite's talkpage about the rules stating I know them. Clearly then, he is aware of the 3RR and the fact he is breaking them. Note that FF has been blocked no less than five times since last July for edit warring, with each block increasing in duration (24hrs, 48hrs, 48hrs, 72hrs and 1 week). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for reverting were not valid. Film Fan 09:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you've been wikihounding me for a while now. Quit it. Film Fan 09:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johannes003 reported by User:Dravidianhero (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: not done myself

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Johannes is not interested in standpoints of others and always thinks he's right because he is senior (with almost zero real contributions in the last year months as far as I see). That's why he always reverts to his own version to push his POV. Talking is fine as long as you fall in line with his mostly what seems to me Alibi arguments.-- Dravidian Hero 10:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on the article's talk page regarding this, I have explained the changes I had made in detail. User Arjann, on the other hand, reverts back to his version without giving any reasons. He has not replied at the talk page either. Also fellow Dravidian himself has agreed with me that the changes seem reasonable. I don't know why he has suddenly changed his opinion now (he hasn't given any reason for his edit either). They refuse to discuss at the talk page and keep reverting, so who is violating the rules? Johannes003 (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shaushka reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

2013-06-01T10:25:35Z "Undid revision 557812461 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
2013-06-01T10:24:08Z "Undid revision 557812325 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
2013-06-01T10:10:37Z "Undid revision 557809651 by Ahmetyal (talk)"
2013-06-01T09:52:15Z "Undid revision 557794155 by Rivertorch (talk)"
2013-06-01T04:58:05Z "Undid revision 557670476 by Ahmetyal (talk)"
2013-05-31T09:44:56Z "Undid revision 557492506 by Ahmetyal (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[87] blocked for 48 hours two days ago by Vianello
Notification of ANI discussion by Rivertorch

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

That would be basically hopeless, because they refuse to discuss anything.

Comments:

Clearly here as a POV-warrior, is edit-warring on multiple pages and shows no intent of stopping. The previous 48h 3RR-block just expired and they're right back at it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV! Shaushka (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked them for 72 hours unrelated to this report or the ANI discussion. They have been repetitively adding a {{delete}} tag to Yazdânism even after I explained twice they need to follow the directions at WP:AFD. GB fan 11:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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