Comments: I proposed and implemented a new layout for the GPU chipset table (which is used in all of the aforementioned tables), which received positive feedback:
This was all around 2 weeks ago. Now comes FF9600 around and reverts everything without further ado.
Wikiinger never proposed the changed of the GPU chipset table on the ACTUAL (AMD) GPU list talkpage. I proposed the actual discussion on thetalk page & Wikiiner continues to revert the edits, therefore they are one that is edit warring. As I alsopointed out more dramatic proposed changes to established articles should be via userspace (sandbox) or a draft and a discussion should take place on the article(s) affected by these changes, but Wikiinger continues to disregard my attempts at having a proper discussion. #FF9600talk21:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Check the links above, I started a discussion AND received feedback. It is true that I did not start a discussion AMD GPU list talk page (since I found this talk page only later). However the templates are used in several articles, so it isn't clear at all where the best place for discussion is. After starting the edit-war you made a poor attempt to criticize the new layout. While it is true that the new layout has issues, they are much less than with the old one. Also I'm open to discuss these and further improve the new layout (seeTemplate talk:GPU Chipset Table), however just reverting to the old layout is not going to cut it.--Wikiinger (talk)22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation. Report only lists three reverts—you needfour to breach3RR. Please discuss the issue on the article talk page; if failing to reach a compromise, you may wish to set up anRFC, or list the dispute onDRN.Addendum: I have also protected the page for a few days to discourageedit warring and encourage discussion.El_C21:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I stopped after the third revert of FF9600. You locked the page but in the reverted state from FF9600 :-( --Wikiinger (talk)22:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
No question he raped women, but the user seem to have a biased agenda, that this should be the first sentence in the intro.Dan Koehl (talk)00:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
02:37, 4 March 2017 - WP:3RR nottechnically breached, but there were four reverts in 27 hours 29 minutes, seeWP:3RR "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."
22:01, 3 March 2017 - WP:3RR nottechnically breached, but there were four reverts in 26 hours 53 minutes, seeWP:3RR "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."
I have gone right back to 23:46, 15 February 2017 (even though the dispute started somewhat earlier), listing many more than four reverts for each user, for reasons that should be apparent.
I have not personally tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, butAnne Delong (talk·contribs) has.Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:04:50, 11 February 2017.
Comments:
I am prompted to file this report because Koui² madethis edit less than five hours after being served a formal{{subst:uw-3rr}} warning. I could have placed a 24-hour block upon Koui² (not for 3RR violation but for continuing toWP:EW after a formal warning); but instead have decided to bring both Koui² and the other party to the dispute, i.e. Iennes, to WP:ANEW to gauge the opinion that both should be blocked, also that a longer block may be necessary. Both have been claiming the other's edits to be vandalism, even though a plain and simple dispute over wording isnot considered vandalism.
This dispute has been going on for weeks, andWP:3RR was violated by both users on 17 February 2017, for which a block could have been imposed, but seems to have gone unnoticed. If it had ceased there, this would be a stale report; but the dispute is clearly ongoing, and apparently began somewhat earlier. Since 23:46, 15 February 2017, theonly edits made in mainspace by these two editors have been to the articleAir (band); and since that date, the only edit made to that page which did not involve the disputed phrase wasthis link addition by Koui². I first became aware of the problem soon after I put the page on my watchlist when makingthis edit to its talk page at 21:40, 27 February 2017. Hence I was not aware of the 17 February 2017 violation at the time.
L'honorable is the new account ofMabelina (talk·contribs) and was only granted an unblock after a successfulWP:OFFER. He has immediately returned to the same pattern of behavior that got him blocked indefinitely in the past. I know from previous interactions that discussing the many reasons why his edits are wrong is totally pointless. He will simply carry on doing them regardless of how many times things are explained.DrKay (talk)08:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Reply by L'honorable This account is not a replacement ofMabelina (talk·contribs), which was my ex-wife's account name (which we jointly used).
No attempt was made byDrKay to co-operate by way of reply, before he moved directly to launching thisWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring enquiry : I'm aware that you are trying to game the system but it's still edit-warring even if there aren't three reverts in 24 hours. You can avoid being blocked by undoing your last revert and raising individual issues on the talk page. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not trying to game any system, but shall do as he requests, and trust thatDrKay and I can co-operate fully (in true Wiki spirit) for the future. Subsequent to which I deduce thatDrKay can run rings around me on Wiki procedure, because he had already intervened thereby rendering the option (he suggested) impossible.
Non-admin observation There is enough evidence that DrKay made attempts to get get a useful discussion going, both on his talkpage as on L'honorables talkpage. L'honorable is also amply warned on his talkpage that it is his own behaviour that brings him into trouble.The Bannertalk10:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
HelloThe Banner : fancy you popping up here! I know you absolutely detest me but there is no need to rub it in.L'honorable (talk)10:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC) PS. so much of our time is spent nowadays arguing, one wonders whether anything useful can ever be added to Wiki's pages. Why is it that you want me blocked? Please explain, because I presume that any block (if achievable, and however short), will then become a launch pad for my permanent exclusion under my own user name. DrKay's opening comment "only granted an unblock after a successfulWP:OFFER" is most revealing, and lays bare his ulterior motive : to have me blockedad infinitem. If I knew why, then I could possibly help remedy matters, but as things stand,ie. basis this flimsy allegation of edit-warring, I really am not sure how best to reply (given that I have provided a most detailed response elsewhere,qv.User talk:L'honorable). There must be something else which is bugging you, otherwise why would you go to such lengths? Without knowing the cause of your angst, it is not easy to remedy matters, please explain - many thanks.L'honorable (talk)10:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The edits made by the Mabelina account are identical in tone, style and topic area to those made by L'honorable. The claim that the accounts were operated by different people is a variety ofWikipedia:My little brother did it that is neither sustainable nor believable.DrKay (talk)10:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah now I see it, you do not believe me (& therefore seek to reverse the decision made following theWP:OFFER). You seem not to like that decision and therefore are doing your utmost to get it reversed, now via a trumped-up allegation of edit-warring. Firstly, whatever either you or I may say will prove nothing either way; Secondly, what was your grievance against my ex-wife? (although I see no reason to get embroiled yet again in her disputes); and, Thirdly, I am so dumbfounded by this attempt at subterfuge, I request an adjournment so that all matters (as necessary) can be properly reconsidered. This is no way for Wiki to operate andI repeat that I am not Mabelina, and thatmy sole aim is to improve the quality of Wiki's info.L'honorable (talk)11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC) PS. disappointed to discover DrKay's ulterior motive :qv.Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion.
qte
@DrKay: you are right about that - the discussion has spread like wild fire and as you attest boils down to whether or not I am Mabelina. I am not, but I am glad that we have at last got to the bottom of why you are so keen to see me blocked (nonetheless I am not so naïve as to think this is the last I will hear about this). When will my divorce ever end? L'honorable (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
unqte
(Non-administrator comment) I can't find any signs of you discussing your preferred wording on the article's talk page, despitereverting another editor with the edit summary "See Discussion". That you mentioned it on your user talk page is not relevant in this context - the editor you pinged may or may not have seen it, but other editors who are interested in the discussion certainly won't. Secondly, repeatedly changing directly quoted text in a featured article is completely inappropriate (it seems that you have issues with the way the sources write, but that does not matter - when text is quoted, the original text must be kept even if there should be grammar errors or stylistic infelicities there.) When this waspointed out to you, you never acknowledged it, insteadtalking about the phrasing and orthography as if your way was obviously the only right one, and if anybody disagreed it was only because they had misunderstood you. That's a third problem, right there. --bonadeacontributionstalk11:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation. Fails to meet the burden of four reverts in 24 hours (first revert is March 2, fourth revert is March 5). A note toL'honorable, theusername policy states: "usernames should not be shared between more than one individual," so I'm glad to learn you have your own account now. Please do not share an account in the future.El_C13:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
15:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "/* In media */ I'm sorry, but if this article continues to be reverted to distort truth, the problem will need to be presented at a higher level. Suzanne Somers CONFIRMS this in the video clip!!!"
14:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768741633 byKarst (talk) This has been talked to death. No offense. There are literally hundreds of sources that support the assertion."
14:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "/* In media */ This edit has been removed previously. Manilow's marriage to Garry Kief is a matter of record and should not be deleted by anyone, whether or not they think doing so "protects" his image. Wikipedia shares truth, not convenient truth."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Explained the issues on the Talk page and on my own page. Editor appeared to be a single-issue account created today.Karst (talk)15:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation. But page protected for a week. Only three reverts listed—you needfour to breach3RR. Indeed, the account seems to have been created for this purpose. Being relatively new, she should keep in mind policies and guidelines oncitingreliable sources, and onliving people.El_C15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC) "Providing information based on more reliable sources (ie reputable news organizations) than obscure blogs. Also providing more current information about subject's work than information about a report prepared in 2011."
23:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) "Previous edit does not provide current career and other info; providing current information based on past Google searches for news reports containing information about subject"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User is committed to pushing this heavy-handed unencyclopedic tone and promotional version of an article he or she seems to have an unambiguous clear association with.Note, the user also wrote a since deleted page on Kronos Advisory, the company founded by the subject of the article.
Seems to have made it clear they will revert every time regardless of details. I left an explanation on their Talk page (not a TW warning) and they suddenly wrote essentially the same thing on my User Talk saying I was adding an "obscure blog" the only ref added when I updated the page was toNewsweek magazine -- no blog has been added.
Despite not being able to select three reverts here, they've made them and probably still will as User is not engaging with the substance of the complaints by other editors, namely that it is promotional, and a career roundup with a grossly overwritten newspaper style, to say nothing of the almost certain COI/NPOV issue.JesseRafe (talk)23:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation. You needfour reverts in order to to breach3RR—you only list two. In regards to issues of COI, please file a listing atCOIN; for NPOV, seeNPOVN.El_C03:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'mBOLDly closing this discussion here because the discussion has spiraled out of control and no longer is about the specific edit-warring problem in this article but now evolved to encompass the behavior of multiple edits, including allegations that there is a systematic problem with Drmargi. This is not the correct venue for such discussions though and is even more problematic since Drmargi cannot defend herself against such allegations. Please useWP:ANI /WP:AN, otherWP:DR mechanisms orArbCom to discuss specific problems with the conduct of one or more users in general. ANEW is not the place to address problematic user conduct outside edit-warring. I do recommend that all involved parties take a step back for a few hours and concentrate on something else for a while. RegardsSoWhy15:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Note's note: Said ANI discussion happened before this report was filed and was just about this edit war though, thus there is no problem reporting this user to ANI for the perceived pattern of such editing if necessary. RegardsSoWhy10:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The editor, while a respected member of the Television WikiProject, refuses to allow the version of consensus to stand, and has therefore long-term edit-warred over the past several days, violating 3RR in the process. A discussion was started, upon which the editor decided that consensus stood after a day, which it did not, and continues to force her edits upon the page, reverting even the clearest of consensus' to not include character descriptions at all.Alex|The|Whovian?08:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
It's been an aggravating experience. The recent three reverts come off as out of spite more than trying to force her view. She's shown no interest in productively discussing the issue as after only a day unilaterally declared the discussion over. I first noticed the issue after Favre and Alex undid her edit, citing since the season will cover a period of time before Kennedy's presidency, there was a possibility they could appear during that time. Drmargi outright refused this and thus the war started. She is more than likely in the right, but once three editors dispute an edit, it should be discussed, NOT forced back in. I had my problems with not discussing in my past, but with the new year I resolved to be more level headed as it wields a more productive dialogue. And Drmargi, being an editor here for 11 years should know this.Rusted AutoParts08:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi,El C, andDrmargi: I'm going to post this here, so that no-one can revert my contributions. 1) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's accusation ofWP:GRAVEDANCING is entirely inaccurate and exceptionally uncivil. "A history of disputes with the blockee.": Incorrect, I've had massive respect for DM as a contributing member of the Television WikiProject; "An established pattern of deliberate wikistalking of the blockee." Never wikistalked her; "A repeated stated desire to see the user in question blocked, beyond the normal course of voting in a block/ban discussion." I made this report out of necessary to stop her disruptive editing, not because I wanted to. Now that you've read some sense, you will hopefully revert your accusations. 2) Nine reverts is unacceptable, and cannot just be "accepted" because the page is protected. This is where editors get the idea that their edit-warring and personal attacks towards other editors is acceptable, when they're just let off, and they know that they can do it again.Alex|The|Whovian?11:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: I'm not one who sinks that low. I wanted her to realize her actions andwhy they were unacceptable, and not to beat her down as a "victory". I did have respect for her as a fellow WPTV member. But she shows no remorse for her actions, and, given the situation propose on her talk page, will more than likely know that she can do it again without repercussions.Alex|The|Whovian?11:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. But I hope you can see how it can be construed otherwise. As for remorse (and being cognizant of repercussions), I am still hopeful.El_C11:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gareth Griffith-Jones:This post was not grave dancing, as you incorrectly assumedhere, but attempting to bring to light the issue to you, so that you understood that it was not just an arbitrary ban on the editor, but it was put in place due to the unacceptable actions. While I understand that editors such as yourself like to take sides and display favouritism when your favourite editors are blocked, do read the rest of this discussion, while you're here.Alex|The|Whovian?12:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Support for what? Nine reverts, grossly breaking the edit-warring policy? Do you too support edit-warring? This is a textbook example of taking sides and making false accusations. Read the discussion properly, and you might find that you'll be needing to revert your false accusation. Cheers.Alex|The|Whovian?12:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
So, you mean to say that listed my edit as an addition to the accusation of grave-dancing, so that I might stop posting on your talk page?Alex|The|Whovian?13:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
El_C, I'm bothered by the possibility of DM being unblocked early considering she has a history of this type of behavior coupled with blatant personal attacks. Since I first encountered her a couple of years ago, I've seen her play the edit warring game more than once, however, it's that coupled with a completeWP:IDLI/WP:WIN/WP:POINT attitude and behavior, name-calling/personal attacks, and strong-arm bulling tactics as an attempt to wear editors she sees as opponents down that has characterized this whole dramatic ordeal (did you look at her edit summaries, article talk page comments, and how many days she's been playing this edit warring game at a slow pace?). What she was blocked for here ... It's not the first time she's done it. This goes beyond simple edit warring, there's a pattern and behavior that goes hand-in-hand here. Lift the block sooner than the original 72 hours and there will be a message sent that really can't be taken back: treat other editors and their opinions like crap, never really discuss, act like as much of a bully as you like, call others names and personally attack, say you'll stop edit warring, and your block will be lifted early anyway. That kind of message says: please continue at a later time, after you're no longer being watched for going over "1RR or 2RR". This is a long-standing problem with her. It's not going to go away if she thinks she can pull one over on admins because she says "Oops!" and has a fan club supporting her on her talk page and assist in her edit warring efforts. --WV ●✉✓13:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[25] (Scroll down a bit)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yep. I went to the talk page because I'm going to try to reason with an IP editor who, despite geolocating to the Rochester Institute of Technology, is accusingothers of conflicts of interest.
18:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768948239 byEmir of Wikipedia (talk) stop reverting this fucking page. U are basically reverting it back to let everyone know where they live. USE UR FUCKING BRAIN"
18:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 768948239 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk) stop reverting this fucking page. U are reverting it back to let everyone know where they live. USE UR FUCKING BRAIN if you have one."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[44] (note the response: "Deal with it")
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[45] (there's a couple discussion on talk. TheBD2000 has not participated in any of them)
Comments:
The user has madeseven reverts in the recent past, at leastfive of these within the last 24 hrs. Note that the fifth revert was made *after* an edit warring warning was made. Judging by their response -"Deal with it" - they appear to have no intention of stopping. This is an edit war against multiple editors (at least three - myself, User:Frederickmsp and User:HelgaStick)Volunteer Marek (talk)14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment I've reviewed this report; the content in dispute is the statement that "... [the subject of the article has been criticized] as being similar to lists of 'Jewish' crimes publicized in Nazi Germany." The statement is sourced tothis article. The source is an "analysis" piece from the Washington Post "WorldViews" section—an editorial. It's a professional article written by a staff writer for a credible journalistic institution and thefacts presented needn't necessarily be questioned, but I don't see anything within the article to support the actual claim that is in dispute. It's the author herself who is drawing the parallel and even she does not draw the comparison unequivocally. Since this is dangerous BLP territory, I'm declining to action and will be involving myself on the talk page instead. PerWP:INVOLVED I cannot rule on this report but it is my opinion that the content in question is dubiously sourced and solidly under the purview ofWP:BLP and thus the reverts are exempt. Will expand on the talk page.Swarm♠21:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
First, that isn't the only source. Second, if you're gonna involve yourself then don't close this request as "declined". Third, how is this "BLP"? This is about a freakin' law.Volunteer Marek (talk)22:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that at no point did TheBD2000 invoke "BLP" (which frankly would've been - and still is - silly, since this is not about a person). And seven reverts is seven reverts, even if one thinks they're right.Volunteer Marek (talk)22:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
What you call reverts were actually attempts to compromise notations of reductio ad hitlerum content given that I never saw it to be necessary. I did not edit war because I hardly reverted any edits and only amended them, barely removing any content. If you would like to continue with this issue, I will not agree to stop editing the article entirely, but whatever it is you want me to do, I might do it.TheBD2000 (talk)21:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
There's seven diffs up there. They're all reverts. You were warned after the fourth one. You kept going. You were warned again. You said "Deal with it!". This is dealing with it. You've edit warred, you knew you were edit warring, you kept on edit warring despite warnings, and you implicitly promised to continue edit warring. Oh, and you failed to participate in the discussion until the last minute.Volunteer Marek (talk)22:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
There's seven diffs right up there, each one of them a revert. And you don't really "calm" anything by telling people to "calm the fuck down", nor are you "keeping things civil". This just throws inWP:BATTLEGROUND along with the edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk)23:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
and much more editions, which can be seen in his page, he just changes with redundant sources or even without sources and with fake data, for example he used a website which talks about the politicians wages in 2013, and he changed as he wanted the wage on Italy using that source? I warned him on his talk page and he fastly deleted that[58]
He also changed the economic data of the page ofItaly with fake numbers even referencing the officialIMF source which doesn't say and support the numbers he gave. I changed those numbers he edited to the ones from the official IMF source and he reverted here my change[59] although another user has reverted his change and from that day he didn't edit that page further.
Anioni(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) – actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. This user is suspected to be the same user as Sad9721, a user which was banned from Wikipedia doing the same redundant editions on the same topics/articles. This time isList of European countries by average wage. He accuses me for being "anti-italian" because I revert his non consensual changes with redundant sources (one source he used was referencing this wikipedia article of the list of european countries as the main source, Wikipedia can't be a valid source for a Wikipedia article!) then changed it to a source which talks about the politicians wages (nothing related to the article) and then putting fake numbers which can't be found even in his sources and he also said that it's data from 2013. I reverted his changes by putting the official EUROSTAT (european statistic agency, official EU organism) numbers from 2015 on it and he keeps deleting those numbers and changing the aspect of the page.
Also threatens me on the talk page of that article that he will delete any of my changes because "I make them without consensus" (while he started changing the aspect of the page in 28th of February without any kind of consensus and putting redundant sources) and because I just use the official data he calls me that i'm "anti-italian" and "aggresive" and doesn't change his mood, again today he not only changed the data of Spain and Italy in that page, he also deleted their official data from EUROSTAT and also deleted the source! Here are the proves. [[60]] this is when all started, after this edition he maded 19 editions in a row in the pageList of European countries by average wage which every one of it was an redundant edition without trustworthy sources. Then I changed his editions to the official sources and all started.
In his profile can be seen that he just edits the same topics, I warned him on his talk page and he directly deleted it and keeping in the same mood. He went to warn EdJohnston about "my vandalism" and EdJohnston said the same to him, that I tried to change his mood in his talk page and he deleted it. He also maded editions on the page ofItaly by faking the official IMF economic numbers of Italy and changing the numbers while the numbers are referenced with the officialIMF source, he changed them even if that's not what the page of IMF says and then when I reverted his edition with fake numbers he reverted mine again! [[61]] and here is the proof when today deleted the numbers of Spain and Italy in the article mentioned before just because he wanted, deleting the official numbers from the official source. [[62]] --TechnicianGB (talk)16:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[73]
Comments:
I noticed a rather controversial statement in the article above, stating that the subject of the article was eccentric, disorganised, and had "behavioral oddities". I could not verify this information because it did not have an inline citation, so I added tags to indicate that a citation was needed. My expectation was that someone who knew where the material had come from would simply add a citation tag to the end of the appropriate sentences. I am pretty disgusted by what in fact happened, which was that two people have edit warred to simply remove the tags. It defies explanation, and I believe these two users most likely simply feel a sense of ownership of the article and resent my attempt to improve it. I do not think anyone has violated the 3RR but their disruptive behaviour really needs to be stopped.128.40.9.164 (talk)20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours. IP, that is,Boomerang-blocked. The other two users did not breach3RR, though they are cautioned foredit warring. Maybe just give the ip the source they're asking for in order to resolve this once and for all.El_C20:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
We did:[74][75]. This same IP has been warned for edit-warring twice in the last three months[76][77]. Note to IP: the diffs of 3RR warnings provided above do not meet minimum standards. The warnings should come before the 3RR report not at the same time. Reports should only be filed after a warning has been given and ignored.DrKay (talk)20:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I would suggest maybe quote the relevant passage from those pages to the IP. And maybe add a ref to that spot with those specific page nos.El_C21:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked 24 hours, which is the standard first offense block... I'm going to leave it to someone else to decide if they want to close this, or discuss whether a longer block is justified, as this was pretty bad, and even resulted in move warring. I have no objection if another admin wants to go with a longer duration.Monty84500:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [section]
Comments:
Piles of sources in the article and re-presented and summarized at Talk. IP editor is making OR arguments about why content and refs are wrong, and failing to provide sources to support their changes, and edit warring all the while.Jytdog (talk)01:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Jimthing has been edit warring against consensus to include poorly-sourced material. Three editors have attempted to remove it and explained why on the talk page.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)04:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but each editor there has given differing reasons for removing ALL the data I added; under aI don't like it syndrome, rather than proper WP policy, each using differing excuses for removal. Even if they disagree with parts, then they shouldedit the parts they feel are not sourced or break WP policy, not simply remove ALL the text I added for the parts with valid sources, that make it perfectly acceptable under WP rules. Thanks you.Jimthing (talk)04:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments: I attempted to bring this discussion to theWP:RFP page first, to lock the page down however the user has chose to go way beyond what that page is for, and potentially beyond here as well. He appears to be using an IP address as aWP:SOCK to do additional reverts and changes, as you can tell by comparing their contributions[83] and[84]. In addition he has tried moving the page in addition to his other random moves through copy and pasting[85] and after it was undone the IP user redid it[86]. Therefore I would say on top of edit warring there are plenty of other violations as well. -GalatzTalk18:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation. I'm not sure that fourth diff is a revert, it it seems like just an edit. So, unless you can prove to me that it is a revert, I'm ruling this as no breach of3RR. But Unknownassassin is still admonished, and is cautioned, aboutedit warring. I have also protected the page for a week.El_C18:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Thanks. He moved the page originallyhere which was moved back, he then moved it againhere and it was moved back, and then again moved ithere. Meaning 2RR relating to the move, and then the first 2 make 4. If we look into the IP sock account he also had[87] making 5.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User is continually reverting edits made, and the account is obviously linked to the place described in the articleSirGents(talk)19:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of36 hours. I note the absence of an attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (field blank), otherwise the block duration would be greater.El_C19:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The editor has repeatedly tried to update a highly visible template to their version without any discussion. I tried talking to them at their talkpage without any success. I understand that I am walking a thin line myself, but i reverted based on the fact that it is a high visible template which affect many pages so should not be modified without reason, but also I have tried to talk to the editor.Qed237(talk)21:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation—Stale. Most of the reverts are from days ago. That said, I caution all participants no to edit war.El_C21:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Repeatedly reverting to their original version of the BLP (except for one maintenance template) with promotional language and material unsupported by the citations in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C)23:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of18 hours. Once again, the section in the report about an attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page isblank (artilce talk page hasn't even been edited once), making this an incomplete report. This time, I'm taking a stand about that: not the full 24 hour block due to that.El_C23:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Not brought up here but a look at the removed text reveals copyright and close-paraphrasing violations, something Emeka2010 has been warned about before. I'm going to revdel versions but I would recommend an indef copyvio block for Emeka2010. --NeilNtalk to me23:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation. You needfour reverts to breach3RR. Page protected for a week. Also, that's not the article talk page you link to below the headingattempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, Mlpearc, and more importantly, I'm not seeingyour attempt to convince Paintboxing. Please take it to the article talk page, both of you. Honestly, I would have expected for you to have tried speaking plainly to Paintboxing rather thanonlythrough templates. Now you two have a week to figure it out. And Paintboxing, just because the article happened to have been protected on your version, does not mean you can shy away from the conversation for the week. (Note that I have been known toignore all rules and revert to the other person's version, as a motivator, if I see a lack of participation on the article talk from the right-version party.)El_C05:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Anon user; previously warned, previously blocked, currently actively reverting a redirect with poor-quality content. --Slashme (talk)08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user is a clear vandal who, as soon as they learn about a policy, sets about violating it while accusing others of violating it. This IP geolocates to theRochester Institute of Technology, meaning this user cannot make substantial edits to that article or anything in its orbit because ofWP:COI. They've responded to my explanation of this policy by repeatedly inserting trash sourced to Reddit atComputer Science House while summarizing their reverts with a lie that I have a conflict of interest. They are aware from last time that editing like this will earn them a block.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Seethis edit summary, which came 14 minutes after they were blocked for edit warring, and gauge the potential of having a positive interaction with this person.
Comments:
Despite over a dozen edit summaries byUser talk:129.21.159.59 that containedWP:NPA violations on their own talk page when they were blocked, adminUser:El C chose not to remove talk page access or extend the block. (Per the very first bullet point onWP:EW#What edit warring is, El C incorrectly characterized my reverts of vandal edits as edit warring.) Hours after the minuscule block expired, the user resumed edit warring with a hopelessly unacceptable edit (that, since the summary included a lying attack on me, means it was vandalism) atComputer Science House. The block must be at least a week and it cannot allow talk page access during that time. If you disagree, please leave this report to a different admin.CityOfSilver16:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: You two, again! Do I need to block both of you? Or would you rather I set up an interaction ban? (It's the latter, right?) That said, IP, I have questions:1. Have you readBLPCRIME and do you think it applies in this case? And2. WhatCOI are you referring to?El_C18:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: And CityOfSilver, the only reason you weren't blocked before was because I try to err on the side of leniency—but when I tell you to leave a blocked user's talk page, you do it. If anything, you took advantage of my then-spotty connection. Many admins would block you after-the-fact for that. Anyway, you don't get a different admin, you already have me. I'm the one investigating and the one familiar with the case of you two. I caution you, though, that a 2nd opinion might hit you like aboomerang.El_C19:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Regarding thepersonal attacks, I have already given a warning to both of you, for both the "angry virgin"[90] and "snowflake"[91] (an insult I'm not familiar with) namecalling. Moving on, you should both take that warning asone-and-only warning regarding NPA violations. But there's not gonna be retroactive blocks issued.El_C19:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
CityOfSilver, you are so lucky I didn't see this a couple of days ago. You would have been blocked for a couple of days. 14 reverts in just under 2 hours is completely unacceptable. That isn't counting the 4 reverts on the article. You need to back away. - GBfan19:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The only reason he wasn't blocked is that he was sure it was vandalism—but once I tell him it isn't, that should be that. I may have been too soft, however; and that, as well as the resulting blasé attitude, is on me.El_C19:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
They knew they weren't supposed to be reverting onUser talk:129.21.159.59. They even said as much on their first revert, and then went on to make 13 more reverts. That is what I would have blocked CityOfSilver for. - GBfan20:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Taking advantage my then-spotty connection, I should add. Once I came to, I chose to protect the page for an hour, but a block would probably been more appropriate.El_C20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan andEl C: Every single one of my reverts was in accordance with exception #4 atWP:3RRNO. I absolutely did every single one of those reverts as antivandalism, no more, no less. I can't prove that I'm telling the truth beyond what I just said but proving I'm lying about my motives is also impossible. While I know this has been so contentious and aggravating that this could badly boomerang on me, I'm asking you both to stop saying or hinting that I'm not editing in good faith per the fifth bullet point atWP:NPA. I don't believe that policy has been violated since until now, I haven't made my motives this clear.
(My first revert's edit summary has apparently cost me a bit of credibility. It read: "And while I know we're supposed to give people autonomy over their talk pages, I can't abide by allowing my good faith advice to be removed with a blatant personal attack." That was in response to that user's response to a friendly edit summary reminder I'd left, which was to revert it with an edit summary that read, in total, "remove bullshit". I concluded that if I didn't revert, I'd be co-signing what that user said about me. Was I wrong to think an edit summary like that shouldn't be allowed to stand without pushback?)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: very extensive, e.g.[96]
Comments:
This is not a 3RR violation. This is edit warring against clear consensus, which was established by a near-unanimous RfC that can be foundhere. Crillfish is an SPA whose sole purpose is to oppose any effort to describeRichard B. Spencer as a white supremacist. They brought this issue up over and over again in different discussions on the talk page while the RfC was pending, even after consensus was clear. There are too many diffs to count - just go toTalk:Richard B. Spencer and do a quick skim for this editor's comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk)21:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately "Dr Fleishman" and other editors appear obsessed with labeling Mr. Spencer a "white supremacist," even though no currently reliable sources do so. An RFC "consensus" doesn't change the facts: wikipedia's Richard Spencer lede descriptor is misleading and appears to be the product of editors who have a personal problem with Mr. Spencer and wish to describe him misleadingly. Please see my edit sourcing. My sources are more current and reliable. I think admin intervention to correct the page is necessary.Crillfish (talk)21:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments: User was blocked for 24 hours yesterday for edit warring and violating the 3RR rule. As soon as the block is lifted they come back and do the same exact action. Rather than joining the conversation ongoing on the talk page, they again decide to unilaterally move the page. -GalatzTalk02:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Restores unjustified tag despite explanations. Calling editors "terrorists" on the talkpage. Will not stop.Dr.K.00:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This report is baseless, and only being made in retaliation for the above one. Stop deleting content you don't like, and allow discussion to take place.Cecoppola (talk)00:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a strong bias among some editors on en.wiki about these issues. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that these changes are justified.Cecoppola (talk)02:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
His username has a period at the end, which breaks the wikipedia user linking. So you have to click on the name here. I don't know how to make the title format work.
This user is reverting my suggested tag on the article, without any justification or resolution of the problem.This user is ALSO deleting comments on the talk page because he disagrees with them! Please restrict his ability to make any more changes. I cannot possibly have a discussion about the page if he is deleting everything!Cecoppola (talk)23:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Please note: Not commenting on this user's clueless report here, I reverted this user's comments on the talkpage per FORUM, NPA and CIV, because s/he is calling editors "terrorists" for using the ENGVAR version "metre" on the talkpage ofMetre (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Dr.K.23:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Please note: You should comment on name-calling, not delete whole posts. I took out the word that offended you. Stop trying to silence disagreement. You're revealing your hypocrisy by insulting me here because you got caught breaking the rules.Cecoppola (talk)23:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
07:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "The correct name of the police force is the "Hong Kong Police" not the "Hong Kong Police Force". The name listed at the head of its official website is actually wrong!"
07:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "This is a more accurate and balanced version of the history of the HKP post war."
ReplyI object and counter the complaint ofUser:Clubjustin. This may sound petty but anyone, like me, who has served many years in the Royal Hong Kong Police and then subsequently, the Hong Kong Police, will know that the proper name of the organisation is "Hong Kong Police" without the suffix "Force", which is even erroneously affixed to the heading title of the organisation's homepage on the internet and which should be corrected! To be fair, many people refer to the organisation as the "Hong Kong Police Force" but this does not mean they are correct to do so.Secondly, I edited the section describing the post-war reputation of the HKP, which was poorly written and contained some misleading statements. I attempted to provide a more accurate and balanced perspective, providing dates and detail to lend context to this important period of history. I regret to report thatUser:Clubjustin not only refused to comment constructively on my edits but rather chose to simply reverse my edits. His conduct, to my mind, demonstrates a stubborn, rude and ignorant attempt to destroy my well-intended contributions. Having just read Wikipedia's editorial rules, I now recognize that making three editorial reversals within 24 hours may constitute a technical breach but I stand by my guns and will continue to constructively and fairly edit the Hong Kong Police page in the coming weeks. I trust the administrators will play fair and adviseUser:Clubjustin to back off. With thanks, --Stoatmonster (talk)10:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation. I'm taking a stand against incomplete reports and letting the user off with awarning. The report has six fields, three of which were left blank. That's not acceptable. Especially with new users, we want to see evidence that there were warned about3RR andedit warring. And seeing an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page (or wherever) is also important.El_C10:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Both users violated 3RR, I warned both because your report was too incomplete. This makes it difficult for us to evaluate the reports, Those fields you left blank are not optional. It's too late now. Lesson for next time. I'm not going to go back on my word. Both users arewarned and the page isprotected for three days.El_C11:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of48 hours Disruptive editing.A Great Catholic Person, you might want to report before the reverting goes crazy. "Not adhering to Neutral point of view" does not give you free reign to revert but the IP broke the editing restrictions for that article so you're in the clear here.NeilNtalk to me17:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
11:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "You are half right, this was the case in 1964 (sool being former burco district), but regions were reorganised in 1982, as the timeline shows. Look under changed "change history""
08:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Did you read your own source. Source provided sites Sool as being "Split from from Nugaal" in 1984 meaning it was once a part of Nugaal. In line with previous version"
Editor is unreasonable and very disruptive, tried to reason with them in the talkpage but to no avail.Kzl55 (talk)12:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment. User seems to be engaged on the talk page currently. Note: I am actually precluded from evaluating this report because I recently edited the page.El_C12:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[109]
Comments: I think this is just vandalism (7 reverts today), as no attempt has been made to justify the reverts, despite repeated requests. Restorations of the original version are therefore anti-vandalism (in my view).EddieHugh (talk)21:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[118] (and edit summaries and page protection)
Comments: Editor notified of ANI (seehere). This issue revolves around whether or not a judge's ruling regarding a year of birth is a judgment to which Wikipedia must adhere. A judge ruled that Charo's legal year of birth is 1951. That's bull, of course, but the ruling is final. I understand that@TeeVeeed wants the true year of birth to be listed. My concern is that I do not want Wikipedia/Wikimedia to be accused of any malfeasance or violation of a legal judgment. As simple as that. Why endure complaints, rebukes, sanctions, threatened lawsuits, etc (none of which are guaranteed but any are possible), unnecessarily? I am not a legal expert so I do not know what the ramifications are but the other editor has left me no choice (see[119],[120])
Statement by TeeVeeed NO- Quis separabit? I most certainly do NOT want her true year of birth in the article as I have said repeatedly in my edits and on the TP since it is disputed so we don't know. I want the fake year left out of the infobox where it is producing "65" as her "age". I am sorry that you don't understand my points here. Also I am taking offense at your fake legal threats as well.TeeVeeed (talk)02:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN -- I participated in the Joan Crawford YOB "negotiations". This is different. Joan Crawford is deceased. Charo is alive (WP:BLP comes into play) and kicking. And, most important, there wasno legal judgment to deal with in Crawford's case.Quis separabit?02:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, seeTeri Garr for instance. Just because some judge fifty years ago allowed Charo to falsify ID documents does not obligate us to anything here. Those documents are a primary source anyhow-right? I don't think Charo herself is even trying to force this falsehood anymore, and even if she did not want her real age revealed, that STILL does not mean that we have to include the wrong information---we can LEAVE IT OUT. I have also asked repeatedly for Quis separabit? to show me where it says that we are legally forced to put this specifically in the infobox to please show me, I cannot believe it.TeeVeeed (talk)02:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@TeeVeeed "Just because some judge fifty years ago allowed Charo to falsify ID documents does not obligate us to anything here." -- 1977 was not 50 years ago and a legal judgment is a legal judgment. I don't see why you can't just include the 1941 year and all supporting info in a referencelink or a footnote.Quis separabit?02:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
This IP user (172.91.91.69) is engaging in (1) vandalism of article and (2) edit warring (he has now 2x reversed the restoration of content by two, different editors) in theCarol (film) article:
I left a message on IP-only user's talk page on 27 February 2017. Since this is a non-registered editor there is no way to send a message other than leave comment in its anonymous talk page. Since this is an editor hiding behind an anonymous IP address to engage in vandalism and edit warring, I do not expect this IP address-only editor to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page.Pyxis Solitary (talk)05:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation. You needfour reverts to violate3RR. Also, report is stillincomplete—you need to fill out all the fields, especially the warning and the attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page. Vandalism reports go toAIV, but this isn't vandalism: the IP is changing your edit of "making love" into "having sex"—that, then, looks like a content dispute. (In fact, on the talk pageNinjaRobotPirate writes:"make love" is a euphemism for "have sex". I would ask that to be changed in a GA review.) Obviously, there shouldn't beedit warring, so I hereby warn both participants about that. And that further edit warring, even if it dose not contravene the three revert rule, may be subject to immediate sanction without further warning. Please use the article talk page (at least show me that you tried).El_C05:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I will post the "make love" vs. "have sex" topic in the Talk page. However, I doubt that anything will come of it with this particular IP-only editor.
As for the terminology: There is a difference between "making love" and "having sex". The difference is in the emotions involved. Making love involves sex -- but having sex does not necessarily involve love. And what you see in the film is two women who, after several days in each other's company, express their love for each other through the emotions involved in the sex they engage in. They stop to look lovingly at each other and one whispers an endearment. Big difference. To describe what happens as merely "have sex" is a pedestrian description.Pyxis Solitary (talk)08:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Definitely articulate that on the talk page.Assume that the editor will respond with their own argument, but let say they prove unresponsive, we can then compel them to stop reverting.El_C09:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Discussion on editor's talk page shows an attempt by the other editor to warn him that he should stop with edit warring as well as a desire to resolve the issue. The editor being reported completely rebuffed the other editor and was borderlinepersonally attacking him in both the talk page comments (seenhere) as well as the edit summaries he used (seenhere). Ironically, the editor being reported is accusing the other editor ofWP:OWN.
Happily, the other editor reverted himself and stopped reverting. The editor being reported, not so much. This has been an issue before with Calibrador: infobox (and other) image wars. Previously, this type of edit warring has been mostly limited to his own submitted images. Recently, however, he has branched out to IP edit warring and now, as we can see here, to infobox images that aren't his own. I think it's worth mentioning that Calibrador was the editor who uploaded the image he has been edit warring over. Thebattleground mentality of this editor over photographs and other artwork continues. --WV ●✉✓00:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
As Winkelvi was not even involved in the situation they are reporting, their past confrontational behavior with me including their blocking for reverting my edits across many articles, and ability to hold a grudge, this report is not based on much merit other than wanting to block me at any and all costs. I suggest Winkelvi look at their own personal problems, or take some sort of anger management classes instead of looking at and obsessing over Wikipedia. It has been proposed in the past that Winkelvi and I have a topic ban that disallows us from conversing (I don't believe it's called topic ban, but can't recall the actual name.) As for AlextheWhovian, there was a previous dispute, which can be found on the article's talk page. AlextheWhovian regularly reverts people until they get their way. The color of an infobox is an example of something they will revert and revert until it's their choice. I do not have good faith for their editing pattern, and challenged it. I made three actual reverts. The final edit was not a revert, it was a regular edit. If anyone else had made the same edit, I would have assumed good faith and accepted the change. But as I stated on my talk page discussion, I predicted they would change the color of the infobox, it was unfortunate that I didn't include it in my original edit summary. As the user Winkelvi has hadno contributions to the article in question, I'd put forward to any reviewing admins that the user Winkelvi is monitoring my contribution history, something they were blocked 60 days for in the past. Granted, that block accompanied them reverting my edits across several articles they also had never contributed to prior, I hope this would serve as proof that they still regularly check my contribution history in order to either confront me, or in this instance report me in an attempt to make me go away.Calibrador (talk)00:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, so there's no confusion, Winkelvi included two unrelated edits, one of which was simply adding a reference, as well as where I added a caption, both unrelated to the reverts performed by AlextheWhovian, I guess in an attempt to make it look like I reverted more times than I actually did. And the final edit wasn't a revert of AlextheWhovian, or anyone for that matter.Calibrador (talk)00:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I think that this report isn't going to go anywhere, but don't attempt to deflect a report against your reactions to lay the blame entirely on others. Winkelvi is able to interact with all editors and make reports as they please. Your accusations that I constantly revert are clearly false, given this particular situation thatI was the one who ceased to make the edits to take it to a discussion, a discussion which (clearly per your talk page) you refuse to assume good faith for any of my edits based upon your previous grievances with me. I attempted to notify Calibrador that I wasn't even aware that they'd made the initial edits, but hey, apparently they're important enough for me to hound them. Who knew, amirite?Alex|The|Whovian?11:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian andCalibrador: You're both edit warring; one of you in the short run and the other in the long run. Stop this and go to the article's talk page. Bring in athird opinion or open an RFC.@Calibrador: Nobody here cares about another editor's motivation for reporting edit warring. You shouldn't be edit warring. Period. Finally, thank you,Winkelvi, for taking the time to file this report. --slakr\ talk /07:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Slakr: This got turned into a report. Huh. Now, to specify: I made one adjustment[121], then when Calibrador changed it with their uncivil summary[122], I restored it to once more match the hidden episode table in the article[123], not expecting it to be such a massive issue. Apparently it was. Why? No idea. Count only two edits for me, as my third was only to restore itback[124] to the same colour that Calibrador has initially used[125], and I then ceased to partake in the issue outside of a discussion. No edit-warring on my behalf. But I agree withClpo13: what a stupid thing to edit-war over; my thanks toWinkelvi for the report as well.Alex|The|Whovian?11:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Coffee: Noted, but I would also recommend noting my post above yours, noting my lack of edit-warring.Alex|The|Whovian? 5:14 pm, Yesterday (UTC+10.5)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[132]
Comments: The user has reverted four separate times on the article within the last hour or two. I added a COI template to the article, as I believe the person reverting has a close connection with the article subject, but this was reverted by them as well. There was already a message on the article's talk page about the article appearing as a promotion of the article subject, rather than encyclopedic. Looking at the article history, it appears to be an IP user (from the Phoenix area where the subject lives) who has continually either added content or had tight control of the content added to the article in this instance. According toWP:3RR, it doesn't matter if it is the same content being reverted, as long as more than three reversions in 24 hours are performed it is a violation of 3RR. An IP range ban may be something to look into, as it appears to be a different but similar IP address every few months, but I trust the judgment of an uninvolved admin.Calibrador (talk)01:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be a case of an "anarcho-capitalist" POV-warrior deliberately taking sources (first two, later just one) out of their intended context, against consensus. This (most recent)talk section summarizes the nature of the "misunderstanding"; trying to explain why the edits violate WP:OR (specifically: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context") hasn't done any good, and warning the user has done nothing either. User will just repeatedly revert myself,@Somedifferentstuff:,@Toddy1:,@Saturnalia0: and anyone else who removes his/her favored opening statement from the lead, insisting that he/she either has or doesn't need consensus. Requesting topic ban.fi (talk)03:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
As the warning on your talk page states: "you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly"fi (talk)03:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[150] (after 3rd revert). Was also recently notified of discretionary sanctions in the topic area[151].
Comments: User has a record of edit-warring on multiple pages. Was previously blocked by myself, but on this page I consider myself involved.Fut.Perf.☼16:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
First of all I do not have a "record of edit-warring on multiple pages". You just saying that in order to got me blocked cause you always wanted to block me as you did also some months ago without any real reason. Also I have to say thatDr.K. who is an administrator supported my edit but this person here justignored him. Well done Ft.Pf., you made it...NickTheRipper (talk)16:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
18:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769974024 byAlexbrn (talk) (Edward Feser is a real philosopher with a PhD in Philosophy and author of numerous books; he knows Natural Law; why did you delete the whole section also?)"
03:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769874367 byDavid.moreno72 (talk) This section is relevant and important because it helps delineate the "fallacy" from non-fallacious forms"
Additional comment: it is obvious that the person behind this IP then went on the create an account,User:Fsdfsdfsdfsdf, to evade their block and continue the edit war. I've blocked the account indefinitely.Bishonen |talk19:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC).
User is an employee of the R.J. Corman Railroad Group; has attempted to add a promotional company profile to their company's article. They discussed the issue for a time but decided to readd the text in question after being told by me that it seemed too promotional. I had invited them to write a nonpromotional version and indicate other specific inaccuracies, but they have not done so.331dot (talk)18:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
User 331dot has no idea what my employment is or is not. I did not intended to provide promotional information to the company profile. The text I re-added was edited - as requested by User 331dot, and contained no promotional data whatsoever. I did write a non-promotional version. User 331dot has been extremely rude in conversation, and has made no effort to seek out true facts about the page in question in order to make the proper edits.— Precedingunsigned comment added byPkmathis (talk •contribs)18:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Please indicate specific edits where I was "rude". I have tried to be nothing but respectful and pleasant. Also, you posted on your user talk page that I was "causing people headache for simply doing their job"; I then pointed out that if you were "doing your job" by editing here that you were a paid editor, and you then posted "paid" and your username to your user page- and you had the name of the company as your username before you changed it. If you are not a paid editor and/or not an employee of the company, please indicate that, and I will apologize.331dot (talk)18:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments: {{subst:void|OPTIONAL: User has been rudely spamming me for the entirety of the day. I am simply trying to update the page in question, add photos and additional details about the company. I apologized to the user for failing to notice the advertising material in one portion of my original post. Instead of politely discussing this matter with me, User 331dot was curt, insulted my intelligence and reported me. I made the edits - per their suggestion, which contained NO promotional material. They asked for a "summary", which does not accurately depict the layout of the company. Their layout as a limited liability holding company, which owns and operates 9 additional companies can be found on their website.
Legitimate discussion with you is not "spamming". I have also not breached 3RR, and I have already pledged not to revert that page any longer. This is the edit warring noticeboard, not a general grievance board.331dot (talk)18:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
15:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 770123989 byCanterbury Tail (talk) The edit conforms to other edits on Wikipedia. It is not a how to, it is providing relevant and useful information."
14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC) "advising that there are CICA calculators available to check compensation payments"
11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 769732808 byEmeraude (talk) The calculator is free, unique and has benefit to users. Until CICA provide transparency by providing it's own calculator it should remain."
Comment: Since discussion is ongoing, I'll give Gucci a chance to respond. But this does look like an open and shut case.El_C23:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That warning was from a totally different dispute (one that was based on a misunderstanding I think).@BrxBrx: can verify this. I didn't knowingly violate 3rr and eventually came to an agreement with@Snooganssnoogans:. But this is a formal 3rr vio, and Wishes has finally stuck gold (he's reported me several times before, and we've had lots of disputes). I am not going to plead extenuating circumstances cause I don't really care.Guccisamsclub (talk)23:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of36 hours. On the one hand, the matter seems resolved for now, and that counts for a lot—otherwise, it would be a week-long block. On the other, this isn't the first time (I already blocked the user for breaching 1RR). There needs to be a deterrent factor for3RR/1RR.El_C00:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Tahc failed to let me know that s/he initiated a discussion, the editor neither left me a message, nor linked me to the discussion, and the time stamps show that s/he only started the 'discussion' after having reverted my edits twice ([[165]] and [[166]]). Therefore this is a clearly malevolent report on his/her part as s/he made no good faith effort to discuss the situation.ZBukov (talk)16:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@El_C The very editor who accused me here of edit warring,Tahc, proceeded the revert yet again [[167]] while this time there is actually a discussion going on about the changes he proposes.ZBukov (talk)19:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not happy about that; but that does seem to be the older version, while yours is the newer one. Anyway, page protected (sorry that it's on them:Wrong version).El_C10:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
User (who may be affiliated with this company, "Tpt" standing for "Transperfecttranslations") is removing information about legal matters the company is involved in. Has not responded to inquiries. User has possibly done so under at least one IP as well, based on the page's edit history.331dot (talk)10:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
They may have just innocently registered an account afterward. The main issue is the COI, which is why I suggested going to COIN.El_C11:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
12:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC) "/* External links */ these links provide parents with a snapshot of the hundreds of supportive articles and studies regarding PANDAS readers entitled to all info not just one individual's perspective"
00:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC) "/* External links */ once again posting the reliable, credible links that Doc James deleted."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User keeps adding a series of link to the PANDAS article. Reverted by 3 different users. Warned on their talk page; has not contributed to talk page discussion started by another user.331dot (talk)12:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[170] (edit warring warning given to me by Debresser, which indicates he is aware of edit warring)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[171]
Comments: This is not a 3RR case but a more general behaviour issue. As is known, an editor can engage in edit warring without violating 3RR. The last two reverts violate 1RR to the extent this article is under the ARBPIA sanctions ("when in doubt, assume it is related" as provided by the sanction, of which Debresser is aware. The way the diaspora came about has been a bone of contention as some people feel it relates to the strength of the Zionist case/ideology, which is probably why the "myth of exile" is bandied about to begin with. This should bring the article under the purview of the sanctions, however, this report doesn't rely on the article being under these sanctions).
In the reverts above, Debresser is reverting material which has been in the article for several years (2017,2016,2015,2014,2013 and2012, the last one being in briefer form.) The provided reasons for reverting change, from an incorrect assertion there is only one source for this material (there are three, or four including the one from the following paragraph ("non-exilic")) to an incorrect assertion Debresser's version is the stable one, and I would need consensus to return to the version which has in fact been in the article for several years. In particular, Debresser repeatedly reverts while insisting his version is the stable one, despite being made aware (diffdiff) that this is not the case. He provides no reasoning, why his version would be the stable one, beyond saying "Revert to stable version as I understand it", "The stable version was this one, as a matter of fact".
Further, Debresser made his revert ofMarch 11th without responding to source interpretation argumentspresented to him. In the edit comments of this particular revert, he nonetheless implores me to discuss, even though in reverting he ignores the reasoning presented to him.
As a final point, although this verges toward content, the version Debresser is reverting to is transparently wrong.Debresser's homepage claims he has a near-native command of English, however this experienced editor now suggests that the neutral rendering of these sources would amount to "Some scholars argue", despite the sources clearly presenting this as the consensus view among scholars ("The concept of exile is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions", "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine").--Dailycare (talk)18:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the edit summaries I've provided, I believe my edits are quite proper, e.g. I've corrected Debresser's incorrect assertions concerning the number of sources and explained that he needs to have consensus for changes, instead of trying to ram them into the article. I am also the editor toinitiate content discussion in this issue. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk)18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Let's apply therule of three. Three observations: 1. Both editors edit warred; 2. but Debresser may have contravened the provision-that-keeps-on-giving, by supplanting something longstanding without consensus; 3. This may therefore belong in AE. The potential resolution is also threefold: 1. Debresser is blocked for edit warring and for violating the ARBPIA provision; 2. Both editors are blocked for edit warring; 3. page protected, both editors warned. I'd like to hear from other admins before deciding.El_C18:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't apply option 2/3 because I don't think we need ARBPIA content scope. I would recommend page protection, reverting to last stable version, and both editors warned. Dailycare has started a talk page protection and that's where the discussion should be, not through edit summaries.Sir Joseph(talk)19:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, an important question is whether ARBPIA applies. I agree that in this case, it's a bit of a stretch, but welcome contrasting opinions. Also, what is the last stable version?El_C20:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
For stable version, I would most likely go to a version before Debresser or Dailycare started their back and forth. (I would love to have some sort of edit filter put in place where if the bytes are the same but negative, then it flags you to use the talk page first.)Sir Joseph(talk)20:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
According to the links I've provided above, the version Debresser is reverting the article away from has been in the text for several years, so I think it's clearly the stable version. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk)06:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The content was first changed on 27.12.2016 by an IP. Theversion predating the IP's intervention (an edit which has been adopted by Debresser) is the current consensus version. --Dailycare (talk)15:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
There is one editor there who supports Dailycare's position, as I knew already from another discussion I had with him a few years ago. On the other hand, I brought sources for my position, to counter his source. We are lacking a bit of outside input there. On the other hand, if there are various opinions, usually the right thing to do on Wikipedia is to state opinions and use attribution. That is precisely the previous version, using attribution of the statement to its source.Debresser (talk)05:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is ongoing on the talk page, yes, and the content issue is not really in doubt as the source interpretation is here very straightforward (Debresser's sources don't address the content being discussed, but that's not in-scope of this report). I filed this report, which I didn't very much enjoy doing, since Debresser's conduct on the page was out of line and he had failed to justify e.g. why his version would be the stable one despite being repeatedly challenged on that, and continued reverting, which I didn't feel like doing. --Dailycare (talk)06:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: See what I wrote below regarding some of the options available to you two to resolve the dispute. But I recommend the nexus remaining the article talk page. As far as I can see, you both edit warred, and you can both be blocked over it, or warned and allowed to proceed with hammering out a compromise that willl represent an emergingconsensus. Incidentally, I'm still looking for a 2nd opinion from another admin. But if that is not forthcoming, I'll probably just close these two reports asusers warned.El_C17:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Has there been an actual determination of the "stable version", or at the very least when the content was originally added?I don't want to swim through the diffs if someone already has... and I can't seem to find it using the WikiBlame tool.—Coffee //have a cup //beans //20:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I am leaning toward Dailycare version being the older (stable) one—see his 2012-2017 links—but am not 100 percent on it, either.El_C10:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
See below that it is not all that simple. The text was added by another editor in August 2015, formulated in a more balanced way, and then Dailycare soon turned it into a less qualified statement, which stood for slightly over a year, till it was changed a few months ago in December 2016 by another editor, who changed it into a version closer to the original version. It is that version which I am defending. There is no support in versions from before August 2015 for Dailycare's edits, which in either case stands at odds with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding how to represent information in sources.Debresser (talk)14:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, if that's the case, that is fair enough and is noted for the record. I still don't think who was there first and whose version is the prior one is that key (because ARBPIA dosen't apply)—let's instead of examining edit dates, look into resolving the content dispute directly.El_C14:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
15:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC) ""right now you are editwarring against more than one editor." No, I'm not since you are the only one who deletes my addition. You want to HIDE information from an encyclopedia (the assist from Pedro) and that is highly biased. An encyclopedia cannot hide."
15:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC) "Yes it is standard since it has been done in other Wikipedia articles about UCL finals, including that Ribbery gave an assist to Robben. You act like a Pedro hater and Neymar fanboy, like he did all the job alone."
15:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC) "No reason to hide information, in particular that Pedro gave an assist to Neymar. It is normal to include information about assists. The Spanish Wikipedia also include in the first paragraph that Ribery gave an assist to Robben in the 2013 UCL final.) (un"
01:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC) "No reason to hide information, in particular that Pedro gave an assist to Neymar. It is normal to include information about assists. The Spanish Wikipedia also include in the first paragraph that Ribery gave an assist to Robben in the 2013 UCL final.) (un"
Comment. There needs to befour reverts in 24 hours to violate3RR. But we do have some seriousedit warring today, which needs to stop. Please use the article talk page. I also note that the field markedDiffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page is blank. Also is March 7 edit a revert, or just the contested edit being added.El_C15:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: It is the contested edit, and I would appreciate if the edit wass removed while discussion takes places as more than one editor has opposed it and there is no consensus for its addition.Qed237(talk)16:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was an unecessary edit, but didn't care enough to revert again. Didn't think I needed a summary because red link users usually don't fight back with reverts.Vaselineeeeeeee★★★16:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee: You might want to readWP:ROLLBACK: "Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed." --NeilNtalk to me16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN andEl C: I have started a discussion at the talkpage now, calledAssist in lead. I dont see why we should mention something in the lead that is not mentioned in the source or in the article itself. At least there is a discussion now but I doubt the editor will answer as long as their preferred version is still active.Qed237(talk)16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[176]
Comments: User is constantly reverting major improvements made to the article's grammar, formatting, and just general appearance on the grounds it removes valuable information. No information from the previous versions was removed. User also engaged in an edit war with an anonymous IP editor, I did not include those reverts as I am not sure if I can use them in a report not concerning them. User has been blocked for edit warring one time before on a page of similar subject.BedrockPerson (talk)22:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit nr 1 is a revert of User:BedrockPerson. The two next edits are reverts of an IP, and an editor with 6 edits, and according toWP:ARBPIA3, I can revert such edits as many times as I want. And I revert, (as is clear from the talk page) because the edit remove all information about religious affiliation, while falsely claiming that they "just integrated better”.WP:Boomerang? A CU of those two ”others” I reverted would also be in order, IMO.
(And my one previous block was admitted to be a mistake from the admin in question (and he was battered onWP:ANI for it….)
No violation. You needfour reverts to violate3RR. You can use any reverts (in ~24 hours) that are not reverting vandalism or serious BLP edits, or Indeed, Arbitration Committee mandates. Feel free to resubmit. BedrockPerson is, however,warned for that personal attack.El_C23:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: No, ARBPIA mandates that you're allowedup to 1RR. You are being too strict with yourself (that's, of course, to be commended).El_C23:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
You also exceeded 1RR, according to those diffs.El_C 02:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC) —No, never mind, that was an IP you reverted.El_C02:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: It is my understanding that only when the ARBPIA notice is attached to an article's talk page do 1RR restrictions come into effect. You can ask any administrator to attach it to any related article. I was misled thinking you knew that and was under the impression one was attached in this instance. I blocked BedrockPerson for it, only to promptly unblock him once I realized no such notice exist. I will be attaching it momentarily, however. I realize you just didn't know this was a prerequisite and been editing all along as if it were in place. That's fine. Continue to do so, it now applies. Sorry for the confusion.El_C02:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Now that I think about it more and am further questioning myself, I am voicing my reservations and self-doubt more explicitly. Though I chose to err on the side of caution, I more emphatically note that this is justmy understanding of the restrictions, and I actually am unsure—maybe Huldra didn't know it was a prerequisite because it isn't. It may be that any user can invoke the ARBPIA3 restrictions on any related article.*** Perhaps an admin more versed in ARBPIA3 can clarify this for me once and for all. At any rate, I attached the notice to the article talk page, so now the restrictions are definitely in effect. Sorry for all the confusion, that's entirely on me.El_C02:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: In theory, "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are underWP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).When in doubt, assume it is related." (emphasis mine) So assume all affected articles are automatically under ARBPIA3. In practice (forWP:ANEW), give me a break. No IP or new editor is going to know about those restrictions if the article isn't under ECP. So, for me, experienced editors get a pass when reverting non-ECP editors (helps if they note that in edit summaries) and new editors need to adhere toWP:3RR until they are explicitly informed about ARBPIA3. Hopefully by that time an admin will wake up and apply the necessary protection. --NeilNtalk to me03:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. Looks like my block was valid, after all, since the editor in question knew that 1RR/ARBPIA was related to the article. But it would be am:dick move to reblock them now. (Unless, EdJohnston, is right and it dosen't apply—I think it's borderline.)El_C03:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Not all articles on Israeli topics fall underWP:ARBPIA3.Yarka is an Israeli Druze town. Per the article on theIsraeli Druze, they are not considered Muslims, they serve in the Israeli army and they have representatives in the Knesset. So nothing in this article seems related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. My vote is to remove the ARBPIA3 banner and assume that normal 3RR applies to the article.EdJohnston (talk)03:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
As an editor who regularly edits in the WP:ARBPIA area, I couldn't find anything that might give rise to issues. I'd remove the ARBPIA banner.Debresser (talk)08:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, this whole edit dispute was because BedrockPersonremoved the religious affiliation of the citizens in a certain village in Israel, namely that they are Druse, Christians and Muslim. And this hasnothing to do with WP:ARBPIA? Seriously? (And Arab Israeli also have some representatives in the Knesset, even some who serve in the IDF.... this does not change the the fact that the place is non Jewish is one of the most defining things about it.)Huldra (talk)09:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, seriously. That was just a minor part of his edit. In addition, perhaps he decided that in view of the fact that the article already said clearly that the village is Druze, and the total number of villagers was already mentioned, that there was no need to mention the precise numbers of the about 5% that are not Druze. I can understand that logic very well, and no ARBPIA involved.Debresser (talk)10:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed the restriction since three people already raised objections over this dispute not falling under ARBPIA, and it is a borderline case. But I may reintroduce the restrictions if related disputes arise, or if this current dispute does evolve so as to be falling under thebroadly construed restrictions.El_C13:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, of those editors saying that this does not come under ARBPIA, all (with one notable exception: EdJohnston) are what I would say noted for their pro-Israeli views. This is not a coincidence.
I wonder, would these pro-Israeli accept removing Jewish history from Israeli/Palestinian places as easily as they accept removing Christian/Muslim/Druse history? If you look at history, I would say: Heck, no. Absolutelyno detail of Jewish history is too small, or irrelevant for Wikipedia. If 5% ofYarkas population had been Jewish it would have been 100% notable. If 5% ofYarkas population is Muslim/Christian it is 0% notable. Take a look at articles likeRamla#Crusader_Period orTiberias#Ottoman_period...whereall the early Ottoman history isJewish history...... even though according toTiberias#Demographic_history no Jews actually lived in the city at that time! Or take a look at talk pages likeTalk:Peki'in, where editors, seriously, think thatonly the Jewish history of the place has any relevance.
For the record: I never remove any info about Jewish history in a place (if it is supported byWP:RS)...I try to add history about the Christian, Muslims and Druse, instead, to make a more balanced picture.
It is rather frustrating to experience again, and again that pro-Israeli editors find such info "irrelevant details".
Of "outsider" views, one (EdJohnston) thinksYarka is not included under ARBPIA, while another (NeilN) think it is. While a third (El C) seems to be half way between these two opinions. Fair enough. Those opinions matter. But that a group of heavily entrenched pro-Israeli editors say that non-Jewish history is "details", or "irrelevant"...frankly, that isexactly what I have learned to expect.Huldra (talk)21:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: sorry if I misunderstood you. But I really need to have this clarified: I reverted IPs as one is allowed to do that, under ARBPIA. Does this mean that I would have risked being blocked *if* I had reverted another IP, thereby bringing my total reverts up to 4 in 24 hours? I have taken that "broadly construed" quite literally, as in "If in doubt, it is under ARBPIA". But obviously, if Im wrong here, I cannot just revert all IPs, say onYarka?Huldra (talk)23:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: Broadly construed generally means any reasonable editor would be able to look at the article content and see a connection. If you are constantly reverting on articles that are not found to be under ARBPIA then you'd probably be told to narrow and tighten up your definition of "broadly construed". --NeilNtalk to me01:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: You don't make sense. Why would an editor be in favor or against restrictions based on which camp (you think) they are in? Restrictions are always impartial. Another[177] bad faith question of you.Debresser (talk)05:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Huldra, since you are casting aspersions on my statement, allow me to expand a bit. I didn't even look at what was being reverted, I was just commenting that the article is not under ARBPIA. You made a statement that you treat all places as under ARBPIA and that is incorrect. We should not strive to place articles under ARBPIA if we don't have to. Just being a city in Israel is not enough to be under ARBPIA.Sir Joseph(talk)01:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
That was another bad faith assumption. You may not be sanctioned here, but you are definitely an unpleasant editor. Well, I suppose any society has its rotten apples.Debresser (talk)14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Not uncalled for at all. This expression of my personal opinion was a reaction to that editor's continued bad faith accusations.Debresser (talk)17:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I actually think that the truth is precisely the other way around. The last stable version was the one before Dailycare started edit warring. He is therefore reported for edit warring as well, his edits being:
As you can see, 1. Dailycare's first edit changed the consensus version. His first edit predates mine. QED. 2. He made no less than 5 reverts, and that despite numerous warnings:[178],[179]. Please notice that in my first warning I already explained to him that he is changing a consensus version. In addition there is a discussion atTalk:Jewish_diaspora#re._Debresser (rather an awkward header, which anybody please feel free to change to something more indicative of the issue), in which I also right away explained the issue.[180] Also please note that Dailycare's last revert was made after the start of that discussion and in spite of it.
WP:ARBPIA has nothing to do with this article or the specific edit in case. See[181] and[182], consider the lack of a WP:ARBPIA warning on the talkpage of that article, and apply common sense.
In short, all there is here is a slow-burning edit war, without any violations of WP:3RR or WP:ARBPIA, instigated by Dailycare and his ignoring repeated warnings "Do not edit war even if you think you are right". Regarding sanctions,I think that reminding Dailycare of the error of his ways should be enough, and do not see reason for a block.Debresser (talk)19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think all the necessary fields are here: diffs of edit warring, talkpage link, diffs of warnings. In any case, I opened this as a section of the previous report, and it makes imminent sense to keep it there, since these two reports are interrelated. I don't see this as a report as such, but more as an attempt to show theWP:BOOMERANG effect of reporting a user when the reporting user is himself the one who started the edit war. As I said in my very first warning to him on his talkpage, it takes a lot of chutzpe to revert an edit as edit warring when you yourself are the one who started the edit war.Debresser (talk)21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment:No subsections please(!). One report at a time. It's easier for us if you stick to the standard formatting.El_C23:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Isn't your version newer, thereby a stable (2012-2017) version was already existing before you added you changes?El_C23:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I can try and support my position with some diffs later, but there can be no doubt that Dailycare's first edit preceded mine, as you can see above. That alone would lead to a tentative conclusion that the version I reverted to was the stable one. Again, I'll look at it in another 12 hours, after my working day. It is early morning here.Debresser (talk)05:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The wording was changed first changed on January 9 by Dailycare inthis edit. That edit was reverted in thenext edit to this article two days later, which Dailycare undid another three weeks later in what we now know to be hisfirst revert. There was one more challenge of this material three hours later,[183][184] till Dailycare restored his version a month later and started what developed into an edit war with me.
In view of the chutzpe of Dailycare, to make an edit and then start claiming it is a consensus version even though it has been challenged every time within a short time span, I now have come to the conclusion that Dailycare is simply being disruptive. His unfounded and unsupported claim of a WP:ARBPIA violation and his report here seem to indicate that is trying to game the system. Add to that the fact that he has not edited much outside of this article. I therefore now propose a block or topic-ban, to bring home the point that this is disruptive behavior and that this project will not tolerate disruption.Debresser (talk)14:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment:I take your point about the stable version—that 2012-2017 claim may be misleading if what you say truly represents the entire picture. Still, I suggest you take it to the article talk page and try to figure things out from there. I could block you both, or I could warn you both. Anddespite making your point about the stable version, I don't see convincing grounds to topic ban due to over-focus (even if that was the case, buthis contribs show s/he edits many other articles), nor even that there's disruption on his part, to begin with. If s/he misunderstood the application of ARBPIA, it dosen't mean s/he is trying to game the system—assume s/he made a mistake. Might I suggest that you two try one or more of the following options: seek aThird opinion; list anRfC; go to theReliable sources noticeboard; or tryDispute resolution requests.El_C16:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I'm looking at the 2012-2017 links more closely and I'm no longer confident that you made your point regarding what constitutes the stable (prior) version. But I'm not sure it's that key, to begin with.El_C17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Each of this issues alone might have another explanation. The whole picture however shows a typical pattern of a disruptive editor: makes an edit, then claims it is consensus version, when reverted starts an edit war, in the course of that edit war resorts to WP:ARBPIA accusations and a WP:3RR report. When seen in the perspective of this editors overall behavior, these should boomerang back to him perWP:BOOMERANG. The issue itself can be resolved in other ways, but the behavioral issue should be resolved here. You statement that "I could block you both" I perceive applying pressure on me to desist from seeking that appropriate measures be taken regarding Dailycare, because there is absolutely no justification to block me, in view of the fact that I am protecting this article from inappropriate edits by a disruptive editor. Dailycare however needs to receive a clear message hat his edit warring, his false claims of a consensus version, and his gaming the system will not be tolerated.Debresser (talk)17:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to be convinced, if you could show me that I am wrong. The way I see things, and the way the diffs show, Dailycare is pushing his own version. But again, please try to convince me. That would of course change my whole stance on the matter.Debresser (talk)17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The way I see it, those old version donot support his precise text. And in any case, attribution of statements to their source is a normal thing on Wikipedia. I'd almost say, it is the standard. And that is all the stable version (I reverted to) is doing: attribute the statement to its source.Debresser (talk)17:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: All I can say is that it takes at least two to edit war. How has s/he been more disruptive compared to you? Because s/he claims the consensus version? It is a content dispute, each side is making claims to bolster their prospective position. But what I am not buying is there being disruption from only one side. I'm just not seeing it.El_C17:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, then let me try to convince you. The one introducing the edit, is the one with burden of proof. As soon as their edit is challenged,WP:BRD, and plain logic, are clear that they should first establish consensus. Add to that the unfounded WP:ARBPIA accusation and the WP:3RR report here, both in bad faith as evidenced from the deceitful claims as though I am the one who is edit warring about a newly introduced version of mine, while the precise opposite is true. Not convinced yet?Debresser (talk)19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, the IP changed the text on 27.12.2016. The version preceding his/her edits is the stable version since several years ago. You have adopted the IP's edit and are edit-warring it into the article despite being reverted. It's ok to admit you're wrong when you realize you've made a mistake. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk)20:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I see that you are partially correct. You are referring tothis edit. You neglect, however, to mention the history of that statement. It was first added inthis edit from August 22, 2015, and at that time it read "The popular belief that the Diaspora occurred in only one sudden complete expulsion of Jews from Judea in either 70 or 135 CE is a great oversimplification, although theBar Kochba revolt holds great symbolic importance within it" etc. However,you edited that statement twice into its present form:first major change on August 23, 2015, andsecond minor change on September 1, 2015. That first major change is precisely the unqualified and unattributed statement that is the root of our disagreement. So we are back to the fact thatyou made a change, which goes against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and then claim it is the consensus version.Debresser (talk)10:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, as has been repeatedly discussed, the text has been in the article, in slightly changing form, for several years and far predating 2015. We are making progress though, since you now agree the version you've been reverting to is not the stable text. Concerning specific versions,here is another text from August 2015. --Dailycare (talk)16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dailycare That is incorrect. The paragraph was newly introduced in August 2015, as the diff shows, and no foundation for your changes to it was present before that. In any case, convinced now of your good faith, although deploring your methods (edit warring, making wild accusations and filing reports), I retract this report. I hope we can reach a consensus on the talkpage, although your rejection of my compromise proposal does not imbue me with faith.Debresser (talk)17:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
13:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 770605962 byCarlstak (talk): Editor started this. Doesn't matter how long-standing inferior passive voice constructions have been in article. (TW)"
No attempt to actually discuss, rather, to just push through his preferred version by aggressive edit warring. Has yet to say anything specific about why the edits are better than what's been in the long-standing version of the article (an article he's been watchlisting for quite some time, I might add) - his solution and/or idea of consensus is one editor sort of agreeing the edits should remain ("minor improvements of style"). Consensus isn't built in a few hours and less than a day with only one other editor chiming in. No discussion from this editor whatsoever. JustWP:IDLI and edit warring. --WV ●✉✓20:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@El_C: To answer your question, this particualar IP address has also altered the article under another IP address. Take a look at the edit log recently.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJohnnysama (talk •contribs)22:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation: Yes, you need to go further. The onus is on you to do the legwork for the report. You need to listfour reverts to show a violation to3RR, but you haven't listed any reverts in this report.El_C22:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Long story short, the Best Sci-Fi Show gets changed from The Walking Dead, to the real winner of the award, Outlander.Johnnysama (talk)22:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Those are notdiffs, those are revisions. I can't tell what's happening from that. And I shouldn't have to ask, any of this. The way the report is formatted is not a suggestion. Please follow the formatting as closely as possible.El_C22:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments: Editor has only edited this article and has only made the edits listed above and edit warred with four different editors.ElKevbo (talk)01:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours. I warned both involved foredit warring as I don't think that the edits to the page by the IP wereblatant vandalism. However, the edits made by the IP were disruptive due to the fact that important sections (see also, reference list, categories, and more) were removed with the edits repeatedly reverted by the IP. Using my better judgment, I blocked the IP for 24 hours, but kept the warning left onUser:A Great Catholic Person as a reminder to be careful -- I don't think the reversion of the IP's edits fall into a3RR exemption. I think this is all that's needed here.~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Editor has repeatedly been vandalising the article and has been edit warring over the names, Many editors to date have been changing various names to fictional ones, I had the article semi'd and then extended-protected however all of been useless as it seems they're an extended user as well, ANyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk03:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well unfortunately I've just found out their edits were correct - It's a shame they didn't bother to use edit summaries and or talkpages to explain why they were reverting, Ah well, Thanks anyway. –Davey2010Talk03:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Had the user stated this in any way, shape or form they wouldn't of been reverted nor would they have been blocked, Being a lenient person they had ample opportunity to explain the contents were vandalism however they chose to smack revert whilst assuming I'm a mind reader, They edit warred and didn't communicate in the slightest so blocking is the best course of action. –Davey2010Talk04:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
As you can clearly see, this is a retaliatory report from the editor in the report directly above this one, which details their mass edit-war, having been reverted by no less than three separate editors. Linked are copied directly from my report to this one, and no such diff for edit-warring was given. --AlexTW06:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC) "clean up puffery, uncited parts, speculation, run-on sentences and unencyclopedic language. also, it is not a "second campus", it is a new university founded jointly and governed jointly by CUHK and SZU."
The user has significant intention to defame the university based on its own interests. It has strong political stance and distort the information on the page of CUHKSZ from neutrality to negative. William Qichao Wang 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not aWP:SPA. Edits I made on pages are neutral without promotional purposes. Also, copyright violations years ago are not relevant to this dispute. William Qichao Wang 05:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byWangqc (talk •contribs)
No violation. You needfour reverts to violate3RR. Charges of racism are completely unacceptable and constitute apersonal attack. This is your one-and-only warning about that, Wangqc. Please don't do it again. Both of you take a week to discuss your differences on the talk page,politely.El_C06:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The editor is attempting to force an unrelated guideline on multiple articles, against the consensus gained in the above linked discussions. This doesn't yet violated 3RR, but this amount of edit-warring across multiple pages is unacceptable. At the point of making this comment, the discussion on my own talk page is ongoing. --AlexTW05:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours. The IP may not have broken or violated3RR on any of the articles, but the history of his/her contributions clearly show that the IP:
1. was aware that he/she had been asked to stop adding this template to articles (seeAlexTheWhovian's talk page), shown a previous discussion over the matter, and asked to discuss the dispute before proceeding further. The IP responded to the discussiontwice (here and againhere), and continued to hold his/her position and without acknowledging the objection or making an attempt to discuss it.
2. proceeded with adding the template to additional articles after making these two responses to the discussion above and knowing that there were objections, and added the template back to the articles repeatedly after it had been removed by multiple users.
These two facts clearly show that the user would have continued to edit disruptively and against objection by adding the template to additional articles, and would have continued to revert the template addition back to those articles repeatedly unless action was taken to stop it. This is a clear case ofedit warring, even though thethree-revert rule was not broken.~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)06:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I still would have rather they'd go through the format. The onus is on the one doing the reporting to compile the evidence. There's so many incomplete reports here, often because editors can't be bothered to take a minute or two and fill out the fields.El_C22:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment:@El C: "If a rule prevents you from maintaining Wikipedia,ignore it." (WP:IAR) I didn't block the account because a report was filed here, I blocked them becauseour policies were violated.—Coffee //have a cup //beans //23:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: That's just a bad policy, to do the legwork for those submitting the report. Why even have the format? Users can put the history of the article and say go investigate everything.El_C23:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's a malformed report I still look into it. If I can't see the violation within 10-15 seconds then I ask for proper diffs. --NeilNtalk to me23:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I just think it sets a bad example, to have users not think they need to do the legwork. (Take my insistence one report above that the user provides diffs instead of revisions—I could have just found the diffs myself, but next time they'll know to provide diffs instead of revisions, thus saving time for the next admin that has to deal with them.)El_C00:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a team effort - admins and editors. You're supposed to provide diffs when you make a report to ANI but if someone says user xxx is attacking them without providing diffs, and I can immediately see that's true from a quick perusal of contribs, I'm not going to make the reporter jump through hoops and make them provide diffs. It's the same thing at AIV which is supposed to be for vandals and spammers only. Socking reports are supposed to go to ANI or SPI. But if the AIV reporter provides clear, simple evidence of socking then the sockpupppet is going to get blocked.WP:NOTBURO plays a part here. --NeilNtalk to me00:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I just think admins' time is precious, too. But you two are free to do as you please. When an editors says just go look at it,they could have spend that amount of time it takes me to look at it, providing the evidence directly so I don't have to. We're servants of the community, but there's a limit. My model saves admins time in the long run, because editors come to know they are responsible for their own affairs.El_C00:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
If a fairly symmetrical edit war ends with blocks for 1 day and 3 months, there is something badly wrong somewhere. To do so on the basis of a one-edit wonder IP address is pretty terrible.Andy Dingley (talk)09:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Another user reverted twice, and I removed perWP:BURDEN after seeing a request posted at Diannaa's talkpage[224]. I posted an additional note on the users page after warning them urging them to engage with the other editor on the talk page[225] , and they reverted again after that in violation of 3RR.TonyBallioni (talk)02:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Both users are edit warring at the above article and atVisa requirements for British Nationals (Overseas) Norvikk has been using edit summaries however both have made no effort to discuss it with each other, Norvikk had come to my talkpage[226] asking for help however I believe these 2 are way beyond my (or any non-admin's) help Thanks, –Davey2010Talk13:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
17:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC) "I added Nationstar mortgage service details, then I removed consumer affairs, promotions. I reference 2 links below. I'm not paid editor"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Editor commentedhere that "my job depends on it", referring to the edits, strongly suggesting paid editing or at least a strong conflict of interest.Ravensfire (talk)17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
User keeps adding a tag in an attempt to turn the See also list into prose. Myself and two other editors disagree that it is needed.El_C08:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – 24 hours. If the user does not like to see See Also lists they should work with others to get their support to relocate the material. There is no unlimited right to keep re-inserting a tag such as{{list}} if others prefer to retain the See Also section as a list. SeeWP:DR for how to proceed when people disagree.EdJohnston (talk)18:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Not technically a 3RR violation, IMO, as it is split over several days, but also not constructive on the IP's behalf. I've protected the article for a couple of days to try to break the cycle. Regards,AustralianRupert (talk)05:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
No violation. Report only lists three reverts—you needfour to breach3RR. Please discuss the issue on the article talk page; if failing to reach a compromise, you may wish to set up anRFC, or list the dispute onDRN.Addendum: I have also protected the page for a few days to discourageedit warring and encourage discussion.El_C21:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours ByMaterialscientistNeilNtalk to me01:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitelyNeilNtalk to me05:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment I've reviewed this report; the content in dispute is the statement that "... [the subject of the article has been criticized] as being similar to lists of 'Jewish' crimes publicized in Nazi Germany." The statement is sourced tothis article. The source is an "analysis" piece from the Washington Post "WorldViews" section—an editorial. It's a professional article written by a staff writer for a credible journalistic institution and thefacts presented needn't necessarily be questioned, but I don't see anything within the article to support the actual claim that is in dispute. It's the author herself who is drawing the parallel and even she does not draw the comparison unequivocally. Since this is dangerous BLP territory, I'm declining to action and will be involving myself on the talk page instead. PerWP:INVOLVED I cannot rule on this report but it is my opinion that the content in question is dubiously sourced and solidly under the purview ofWP:BLP and thus the reverts are exempt. Will expand on the talk page.Swarm♠21:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
WarnedTheBD2000, I came close to blocking you when this report was opened for your misuse of warning templates and the "notes" you tried to add to the article. Please note that discretionary sanctions coversstandards of behavior.NeilNtalk to me05:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Page protected for a period ofone week. Clearly, there'sedit warring. But to violate3RR there needs to befour reverts in 24 hours.El_C16:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Stale. Most of the reverts are from days ago. That said, I caution all participants no to edit war.El_C21:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Done.El_C23:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)