|
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
||
You may use |
||||
|
||||
Definition of edit warring | ||||
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. | ||||
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) | ||||
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. | ||||
Noticeboard archives |
Contents
- 1 User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: )
- 2 User:Gumanthakur reported by User:Dudel250 (Result: Declined)
- 3 User:94.55.39.189 reported by User:IJBall (Result: Semi)
- 4 User:Central Casting reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: IP blocked)
- 5 User:MiG29VN reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: 2 weeks)
- 6 User:75.62.20.174 reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: blocked as sock)
- 7 User:Roscelese reported by User:BoboMeowCat (Result: )
- 8 User:MartianColony reported by User:Calidum (Result: )
- 9 User:LibDutch, User:Michaelwuzthere and User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result: )
- 10 User:Mosfetfaser reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )
- 11 User: DerbyCountyinNZ reported by User:Calidum (Result: )
- 12 User:Ring Cinema reported by User:LazloFeelo (Result: )
- 13 User:Smartestmanonearth reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: 24 hours )
- 14 User:79.176.152.55 reported by User:DendroNaja (Result: )
- 15 User:Admiral Kahn reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )
- 16 User:79.176.152.55 reported by User:DendroNaja (Result: )
User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: )
- Page
- 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Page
- Mohammed Burhanuddin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Summichum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
I request Admin to better look to the edit pattern of user Summichum and his history. He is assuming ownership of the above mentioned article. and other related articles. his POV is clear. and refering to Notice board, good faith editors has become his habit.he is assuming bad faith of other editors. his sole purpose in joining is to promote his POV and reverts any other good faith edits. Infact I request user:summichum should be blocked again, he never seems to learn from his previous blocks.Rukn950 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please refer COI NB [1] and succession talk page [2], intention of Summichum would be clear, may please consider accordingly. He has reverted the matter immediately twice and stopped doing third, only after my advice of not to get blocked and avoid 3RR case. He wants to support only his POV irrespective of Wiki norms at any cost, and disrupting normal process.--Md iet (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Difference in 53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy
Diff:[3]
Diff:[4]
Diff:[5]
Difference in Mohammed Burhanuddin
Diff:[6]
Diff:[7]
Diff:[8]
Along with his reverts please see the matter he tries to impose.Rukn950 (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Diff:[9]
Attempt to reason and resolve this dispute:
Please Refer [10]
Summichum kept on inserting Pritish Nandy qoute even after reasoning with him about its WP:BLPGOSSIP violation as same was removed from another article Diff:[11] by Admin Mr. Stradivarius
The qoute by Summichum showing his POV
‘The much cited ghadir khum incident was not a succession deed (Nass) but rather to resolve misunderstandings between a group who complained about Ali to the prophet , and the prophet said "Whoever takes me as his patron , should also take Ali as his patron" and this was said in ghadir and not in the final Haj. If there had to be a succession then it should have been made at a place where all people gathered and not ghadir khumm. In short the prophet did not say that after me some person like Abu Bakr, Ali etc would be the caliph\Imam. The fatimid bohras like dawoodi bohras are a minority group who have invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims’... Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
' Comment 'This is a Serious allegation against Islam as whole. Summichum should be strictly restrained in interest of integrity of Wikipedia and prevention of Vandalism.Rukn950 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- As usual, seems like Summichum is not going to stop using Dawoodi Bohras or Mufaddal Saifuddin's page as battlefield. OccultZone (Talk) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- The above users are reported at COI noticeboard and one of them also have a track record of sockpuppetry . The above users all belong to one partisan group and they are trying to use Wiki as advertisement propaganda page , selectively hiding important information . I was the one ho sought third party intervention of User:Anupmehra , I suggest ruqn , md_iet should be blocked from editing bohra articles. A lot have been written about their behaviour in almost all the major notice boards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Summichum (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
— Summichum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
now summichum is getting personal. and accuses us of propaganda when he himself does so. I am surprised at his audacity.Rukn950 (talk)
-
- may please see discussion at[13], Summichum has accepted that he is from one of Ismaili shia group, and started behaving somewhat in cordial manner, but his tone is still too much offencive. Nizari are Ismailies but they follow Fatimid, have their Imam and almost no competition with any Bohra group. Alavi group Mazoon came to Mufaddal for condolences, and they principally have no differences. Now left out are Suleimani and progressive one. Sulaymani are also accepted the facts and happy with their group. This fellow claims that he is not born in Dawoodi Bohra, let us believe him and there is full possibility that he is from young progressive group , born after seventies, after separation from DB. This group don't have their Dai or any leader. They are feeling isolated, frustrated and very zealous of their fellow DB. They also want to get attached with Khuzaima to have something of their own and eager to form Qutbi Bohra. Khuzaima group is clever, he don't want to have separate name and want to get hold property of mass DB group and wanted to call themselves DB, but only few hundred real DB are with him.
Being disciplined follower of Wiki, and being DB also, we want to honour WIki regulations, but some how doing attempt to bring the real truth to public. We are not against having well published matter, although not a fact to have NPOV here at Wiki, but this fellow is adamant and somehow not able to sustain anything just written not in his favour. He has gone too far blaming Shia faith itself, to prove him right although claiming himself a Ismaili shia follower of Ali.
This fellow seems to be learned man, and trying to get cordial with us. We also don't want any personal harassment to anybody, as well principled by Wiki. We request him to not to take matter up to community level involving complete Shia community just for blaming DB. He may be having opinion difference, his opinion is his choice , we honour his freedom, but not this way please. Hope it is still time he respect Wiki principles above all. We are soldiers of Wiki and as being DB also we will further try to keep wiki above all and restrain us to the extent possible. Conduct of accusing complete community above is beyond any limit, and we all hope that situation to have edit restriction on DB topics is not good, not reflecting the principle of tolerance DB community have towards other faith. Hope we all including me will further restrain so to abide wiki rules completely. You Sumichum, searching our old accounts and finding our mistakes. Our intentions were never bad. I was just helping my nephew to open his wiki account with full of his agreement, when I was on visit to his place. He never continued further and I was trapped, which I have openly accepted.
Mr. Sumichum , please cooperate. You are blocked twice recently. No one wants there name on notice board. You put your claim on talk page with proper citation( for the god sake don't bring Azad or Bohra Youth forum news which are purely written to propogate hate propaganda), we will definitely cooperate. We have quoted from 'BM' theinternational DB magazine, published by private publication. It's authencity was questioned ,so we have put up the case in 'reliable source NB' and never reinstated the material. Shiv Sena has it's controlled news paper, having vide accepted circulation in Mumbai, whether Wiki will object to it's news inclusion, if not then BM case is similar and to be discussed comparing that. We will never oppose any matter if it is as per wiki rules even though not true. Let Ajay Mehra be our umpire till your aggression calm down, as he is having in depth knowledge of wiki guidelines and a true third party editor.--Md iet (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Gumanthakur reported by User:Dudel250 (Result: Declined)
- Page
- Goldrop Adventures ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Gumanthakur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC) "Goldrop Adventures"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 08:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
- 08:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
- 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
- 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Had recreated the page after it got deleted one time before under G11 Dudel250 (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Declined This has nothing to do with edit-warring the panda ₯’ 23:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
User:94.55.39.189 reported by User:IJBall (Result: Semi)
Page: List of metro systems ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.55.39.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: diff
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
(And, earlier: link )
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a
Comments:
IP user 94.55.39.189 has been reverted by at least one other editor besides myself since April 13, and has been warned multiple times at the IP user's Talk page that this behavior constitutes "edit warring" and that they should go to the List of metro systems Talk page to discuss this issue - the IP user has ignored all such entreaties. Worse, IP user 94.55.39.189 went so far as to delete the entry in question (diff) back on April 20 in retaliation for a previous reversion, which could probably be considered article vandalism.
- Result: Article semiprotected one month. The talk page is almost entirely a discussion among registered editors. If IPs will participate more actively there and will wait for consensus on contested items, the protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Central Casting reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: IP blocked)
Page: Vader (band) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Central Casting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 217.96.115.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]
Comments:
User was blocked previously for this exact behaviour: making changes without discussion or sources to the same Polish death metal bands, and constantly reverting to their preferred version. User shows no interest in working collaboratively on this project, refuses to discuss their edits, etc. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Stale They have not edited in over a week the panda ₯’ 23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- They edited today, see [20]. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Result: The IP has been blocked one year by User:DangerousPanda. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:MiG29VN reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: 2 weeks)
Page: Massacre at Huế ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MiG29VN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [21]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]
Comments:I've been working hard fixing the cites on this page and adding missing ones. This guy keeps removing some and reverting others to improperly formatted cites. I've asked him to stop it. So have others. But he persists. He's already been warned about edit warring and blocked for 30 hours, but he continues. It's getting quite old.Txantimedia (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't revert his edit. I only ask him "Add the link for his source" and i will revmove the "fact", but he didn't do thatMiG29VN (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please see (http://www.vlink.com/mauthan/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1236530105&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&). This is Self-published, it isn't a reliable source, and i removed it. But Txantimedia reverted it. Addition, he claimed that he used FAKE figures in other source (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF#Unreliable_sources.3F (3-7th lines)) MiG29VN (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- I have NEVER "claimed that I used FAKE figured in other source". What I said was I added up the numbers that Vennema provides and wrote the total. I can't reprint the entire fucking boook inside the Wiki page to shut your stupid mouth up. The Massacre is covered from pages 129-141. Each grave site is discussed individually and a total given. A third grader can add them up. Providing the total is NOT FAKE FIGURES. GAWD this is getting old. I'm trying to provide facts that I've uncovered in my research, and this jerk is claiming I'm lying because he doesn't have a copy of the book.
- I quoted as you said: "Vennema does not provide a total number of graves or a total number of bodies" - As you said, So, WHY do you add that EXACT NUMBER in there (27, 2,397, etc...)? I don't said you "reprint the entire a book", you only scan (or use camera) this page, which have this number (27 graves, 2,397 bodies)MiG29VN (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have NEVER "claimed that I used FAKE figured in other source". What I said was I added up the numbers that Vennema provides and wrote the total. I can't reprint the entire fucking boook inside the Wiki page to shut your stupid mouth up. The Massacre is covered from pages 129-141. Each grave site is discussed individually and a total given. A third grader can add them up. Providing the total is NOT FAKE FIGURES. GAWD this is getting old. I'm trying to provide facts that I've uncovered in my research, and this jerk is claiming I'm lying because he doesn't have a copy of the book.
-
- I've already explained to him on the Talk page that it is an eyewitness account that falls into the exception for self-published content. The author was a member of the lower House of the RVN congress and was in Hue during Tet. He witnessed the events and interviewed a number of his constituents. Yet he's removed it every time I've fixed it. Without explanation and without notice. It's getting very old. He just keeps claiming the cites are fake and removes them. [28] Txantimedia (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Jeezus, he's done it AGAIN!! PLEASE tell this guy to stop it. [29]
-
-
- Please: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
-
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Remember, this is a battle in history, not "information about themselves", not "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"MiG29VN (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are you serious? the material is not self-serving or an exceptional claim, there is no reasonable doubt about its authenticity and it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source. Can you not read??? Txantimedia (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
What needs to be made clear here is that Txantimedia is an extremely new user who has been given an extremely hostile reception by MiG29VN, and that MiG29VN has a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry at this article. MiG29VN is simply far too quick to revert, and his edits are often sloppy. Even if VLink is a questionable source, there is no excuse for MiG29VN to delete references to Vennema's book (and tag the material cited to Vennema) on the grounds that he doesn't have access to the book, or to perpetually replace the neutral term "accuracy" with the POV "truthfulness". From issuing random threats and ultimatums to screaming that a source is "FAKE" because an editor combined its numbers with basic addition, MiG29VN has not been conducting himself in a very civil manner--and the way his careless edits constantly disrupt the formatting and language of the article makes any progress impossible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please, I didn't removed all of Venemma source. I only remove some words, which none in this figure (I ask him "add the quoted and i will agree", but he did't quote)MiG29VN (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- That's a DAMN lie. You have REPEATEDLY removed the Vennema cites. Now you have labeled them as unreliable. How many God Damn times do I have to tell you I HAVE THE FUCKING BOOK. Just because you can't find it in Google books does not mean it's not there. If you have a damn problem, bring it up in talk instead of arbitrarily removing cites without justification. Furthermore, every time you edit the page you fuck up the cites I have repeatedly fixed. I'm getting damn sick and tired of it. You obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works.
This user, MiG29VN, has:
- Used fake references to cite his content, references which don't even mention anything about the content he claims it supports. e.g. here, here, and here. Yet, he runs around and deletes other people's references, calling them "unreliable", "fake", or "self-publish".
- Removes references to content he hates, then later removes the content altogether because "it's unsourced" or "unreliable source"
- Total disregard for other people's contributions, and forces that his version be used only, even if it meant deleting improvements and new content
- MiGVN doesn't truly understand what are reliable sources and what's not. He has made the declaration that "In wikipedia's law, and we agreed History.net and xxx.edu are the reliable sources". An online criminal can create a malware site using the .edu domain, or any fake "educational" institution can create an .edu website, and those will still be considered "reliable sources"?
- Tried to falsely, deceptively frame opposing editors (myself and Andreas Philopater) as "vandals", in order to get unsuspecting, unaware users to delete content that I and Andreas have contributed that MiG dislikes. MiG wants other users to delete content for him, so that way he's not on the hook for edit-warring.
- Engaged in extensive copyvios, by copy-and-pasting whole swaths of text into the Massacre at Huế#Dispute and denial section. Esp. his English is poor, yet how does he manage to "write in flawless English" in his article contribs??? Evidence of poor grasp of English: Here and all his responses in sections below When TheTimesAreAChanging paraphrased and summarized his content, MIGVN insists that the original copy-paste version be used. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Correction, you referenced David Hunter, a US Unionist military commander in the US Civil War, not Hunt, then you changed when you're busted. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – 2 weeks to MiG29VN for violation of WP:3RR. Editor has already been blocked twice in connection with this article. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard may be consulted if the quality of a source is in question. Admins should consider fully protecting this article if people continue to revert without adequate discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- He's done it AGAIN! Either this guy gets banned permanently, or I will quit editing pages. I don't need this crap. I'm using reliable sources and typing factual information, and this asshole keeps deleting the references or marking them as unreliable when he doesn't have the fucking book or altering the text to suit his POV. I've HAD it. Either fix the situation, or I'm done.
User:75.62.20.174 reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: blocked as sock)
Page: Afro-Latin American ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.62.20.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [30]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]
Comments:
75.62.20.174 has made persistent reverts, disregarding numerous attempts to settle it through the talk page all throughout its process and have had a fair share of warning. I have also included a "citation needed" where the topic of conflict lies.
- Blocked – for a period of 6 months. This is JohnnyOrgseed evading his block. Kuru (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Roscelese reported by User:BoboMeowCat (Result: )
Page: Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (subject to 1RR, like all abortion-related pages)
User being reported: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [35]
Diffs of the user's reverts: 4 violations of 1RR rule in past 4 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45] [46]
Comments: I was originally hesitant to bring this to the noticeboard, because today's revert violated 24 hour rule by only 1 hour, but a review of the article's edit history showed *four* violations of the 1RR rule, by this user, in just the past 4 days. User repeatedly reverts and/or deletes contributions of other editors, instead of consensus building on talk page. History of disruptive editing on this page by this user.
User:MartianColony reported by User:Calidum (Result: )
Page: Gettysburg Address ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MartianColony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 11:51 p.m., 4/25
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:58 p.m., 4/26
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 12:58 p.m., 4/26. I also notified the user about this thread prior to his fifth revert [47]. Calidum 17:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yet another revert by this user and continued refusal to address on the article's discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:LibDutch, User:Michaelwuzthere and User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result: )
- First, LibDutch is removing material from WP on the basis of the Wikipedia:Citation needed tag (a user has complained about it on my talk page, believing it to be unconstructive, I concurred). I've been proven to him that Wikipedia:Citation needed and Wikipedia:Verifiability don't condon mass removal of chunks because they lack sources (especially when large chunks of that article lacks sources).. For instance, in the History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi LibDutch seeks to remove a large chunk of information on the opposition (albeit unreferenced) from the article, even if I proved to him that it was true.
- Second, I and Michaelwuzthere are now currently waged in an edit war because he's opposing the consensus.. The edit war is simple; he wants to have Communism and Marxism-Leninism in the infobox, the consensus is only Marxism-Leninism. The reason? They are superfluous if both are in the same infobox since they mean exactly the same thing. To make it clear, I'm refering only to the infobox. Communism is mentioned throughout, but in a bid to make the infobox as clear as possible the consensus seems to be to only have one ideology in place (or more concret, the specific ideology and not the ideology in general and the more specific ideological orientation in communism)
-
- There was never consensus over your edit which removed communism from the ideology. No, communism and Marxism-Leninism do not "mean exactly the same thing" and if you believe that then you frankly have no business editing the CPSU article. You may be under the delusion that consensus was ever reached, but there is no trace of consensus other than it not being reverted sooner by your own admission. An edit reversion taking a month on a low-traffic article does not equal consensus. Your edit is obviously controversial otherwise it wouldn't have been reverted by multiple editors. You need to take it to the talk if you want your edit to be restored, and if your argument is that Marxism-Leninism and communism mean the same thing, then your edit is not going to be restored because it is blatantly false. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Its been reverted by you (and the only reason why LibDutch is joined in is because of the edit war at the libya page).. Just you, in other words.. Are communism and Marxism-Leninism the same thing? No, but in the Communist PArty of the Soviet Union they were the same thing; Marxism-Leninism was theory in which the Soviet policy based its policy, it was Marxism-Leninism which was used to reach pure communism. Marxism-Leninism was the only official ideology of the CPSU from 1927ish(?); Marxism (or more correctly, Marxism as interpreted by Lenin) being the sole before that... When regarding the CPSU they are one and the same thing.--TIAYN (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC) --TIAYN (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- There was never consensus over your edit which removed communism from the ideology. No, communism and Marxism-Leninism do not "mean exactly the same thing" and if you believe that then you frankly have no business editing the CPSU article. You may be under the delusion that consensus was ever reached, but there is no trace of consensus other than it not being reverted sooner by your own admission. An edit reversion taking a month on a low-traffic article does not equal consensus. Your edit is obviously controversial otherwise it wouldn't have been reverted by multiple editors. You need to take it to the talk if you want your edit to be restored, and if your argument is that Marxism-Leninism and communism mean the same thing, then your edit is not going to be restored because it is blatantly false. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Third, I agree, the edit war between me and Michaelwuzthere is stupid (and we both deserve to be blocked for it), but LibDutch is actually breaching Wp policy and is on a manhunt to remove all information he deems false (he doesn't remove all unreferenced material, only the one he doesn't like...) --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- If you believe it is true then you can just add the source to the article instead of reverting my removal of text that lacked a source for 2 years. And you removed the word communism first, as you did to other articles like the 'Communist Party of Vietnam'. --LibDutch (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- In has stood like that on the Communist Party of Vietnam article for over a year now, if thats not consensus I don't know what is... If you believe it is true? What, I showed you a source from Cornell University Press; this is not a discussion of what is reliable or not, it is reliable according to WP policy, and you're edit-waring doesn't making anyless so. Stop being so abstract, and follow WP policy. --TIAYN (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you believe it is true then you can just add the source to the article instead of reverting my removal of text that lacked a source for 2 years. And you removed the word communism first, as you did to other articles like the 'Communist Party of Vietnam'. --LibDutch (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is a huge violation of WP:3RR at History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi by both LibDutch and TIAYN. It looks to be seven reverts apiece on April 26. In my opinion both parties should be blocked. Removal of unsourced material is sometimes justified but you can't edit war while doing so. There's also a three-way edit war among the named parties to this report at Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Can any of you explain why you shouldn't be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Mosfetfaser reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )
- Page
- Dana Nuccitelli ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Mosfetfaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "blanking - requesting deletion by article creator"
- 19:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "blanking - requesting deletion by article creator"
- 19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "blanking - requesting deletion - creator"
- 18:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "creator blanking not notable"
- 15:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "this is not a slur, it is simply another notable bloggers opinion presented as such"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dana Nuccitelli. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "/* bloggers */"
- Comments:
trying to get this article I created deleted - I tried to create the story but its not notable - I am the major creator - almost all the content is mine - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Nuccitelli&action=history I think en wiki guidelines alow me to delete such articles? I am not well uunderstanding of the mark up here and I tried to send to article for deletion but did it wrong and although I got some help I also got this user reverting me without any assistance. Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User: DerbyCountyinNZ reported by User:Calidum (Result: )
Page: 2014 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 8:55 p.m., 4/25
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2:19 a.m., 4/26
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, see below
Comments:
Five different users have attempted to list Tito Vilanova's death in the 2014 article, but Derby has reverted each time. To their credit Derby started a relevant thread on the talk page, but reverting five different editors in 18 hours is the definition of edit warring. I am not involved in the dispute on the page but did warn Derby after four reverts. They replied to me that their actions "overrides 3RR" [48] Calidum 19:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
As an addendum, it also appears Derby is engaged in a separate edit war with 210.56.86.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on the Arturo Licata article. I count five reverts by Derby (and four by the IP) on that page's history. [49] Calidum 19:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Ring Cinema reported by User:LazloFeelo (Result: )
Page: The Godfather Part II ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [50]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]
Comments:No actual 3RR violation (yet) but certainly an ongoing edit warring problem over the past couple of weeks with this editor who is perpetually added unsourced material to the article with regards to its box office performance. At first another editor correctly removed an "adjusted for inflation gross" figure from the infobox and User:Ring Cinema reverted it. We do not use "adjusted grosses" for film article infoboxes as an adjusted gross is simply a hypothethical figure that loosely estimates what an old film might have made in today's market. WP:MOSFILM clearly states that we should only be using the gross, not the adjusted gross, and this was even discussed on the [MOSFILM talk page]. User:Ring Cinema then persistently put up another figure which was unsourced. Neither myself or two other editors can find a valid reliable source for it anywhere. The only reliably sourced figures for this film's gross we can find are for the domestic gross (i.e. North America) only. In lieu of finding figures for a worldwide gross that pass WP:RS, we have used only the domestic gross, but Ring Cinema keeps reverting it. Discussions on User:Ring Cinema's talk page have had no effect and s/he has also refused to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. It also appears that this user has a vast history of edit warring and has been blocked on several occasions in the past for similar offences. I feel a longer block may be warranted to prevent further repetitions. L@zloFeelot@lk 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is no edit warring, except perhaps by LazloFeelo. The consensus on the content of the infobox extends back to 2009 and he is not respecting it. Instead, he substitutes a box office figure that is outside of the guidelines because it is a domestic box office number where an international box number is called for. Of course I am open to updating the number if one is available. In the meantime, the current consensus obtains and that is what I am restoring. I have added a call for a citation on the current number. I have participated in discussion and quoted the relevant guideline. Perhaps LF is not aware that, according to wp:consensus, a new consensus is required to make a change like this. It would be helpful if he would provide an international box office figure that satisfies him, but he has not. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- As has already been pointed out to you on more than on occasion, you cannot add unsourced material to Wikipedia articles. It is up to you to find a source for a figure that you want to include as per WP:BURDEN, and any source that you do add has to pass WP:RS. If you can't do this, the figure cannot be added. Please provide a link to the alleged discussion in 2009 where a consensus to do this was supposedly reached. L@zloFeelot@lk 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Smartestmanonearth reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: 24 hours )
Page: Bundy standoff ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smartestmanonearth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [61]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
The article is under 1RR, detailed at Talk:Bundy standoff/General Sanctions
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion seems to be at [65].
Comments:
This was originally reported at ANI, but I thought I'd move it here. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Clear breach of 1RR after having been notified of the sanctions. As such: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety talk 03:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
User:79.176.152.55 reported by User:DendroNaja (Result: )
- Page
- Venomous snakes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 79.176.152.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 02:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Snakebite. (TW)"
- 03:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Venomous snakes. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The above editor is trying his best to game the system. He has edited much of the black mamba article. and is trying to rewrite (snakebite article, venomous snake article) and erase the scientific consensus on snake venom toxicity in order to support his personal view. it has been elaborated in detail using authoritative sources why he is wrong. he knows he is wrong but he is very invested in his favorite snake79.176.152.55 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Admiral Kahn reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )
- Page
- Template:Primetime Emmy hosts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Admiral Kahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 05:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC) ""
- 06:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "This doesn't make any sense? I added new host of the emmys"
- 17:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "False // STOP your abusive reversions"
- 03:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Also: Matt Stone, Trey Parker. Have already filed an SPI/CU request for this account (see here: [66]). Believe it to be a sock of User:Monterrosa. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
User:79.176.152.55 reported by User:DendroNaja (Result: )
- Page
- Black mamba ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 79.176.152.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 01:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "reverted back to Materialscientist. The consensus from WP:RS ld50 is around 0.30 mg/kg. the book cited is errouneous see talk page"
- 04:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605980197 by DendroNaja (talk) Zug et al is not subcutaneous. 3 sources say LD50 is 0.30. its all in the talk page"
- 04:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605987036 by DendroNaja (talk)You should be ashamed of yourself trying to "fix" scientific data to your desires. Black mamba has LD50 of 0.30 mg/kg subcutaneous."
- 04:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605987454 by DendroNaja (talk) all the sources say you are wrong, and that zug book is incorrect. all the published sientific sources say LD50 of 0.30. what's wrong with you ?"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 02:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Snakebite. (TW)"
- 03:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Venomous snakes. (TW)"
- 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
- 04:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Black mamba. (TW)"
- 04:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Black mamba. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This user is known by several admins as a vandal and disruptive edited warrior. He was caught plagiarizing an entire article. Admin Diannaa tried to block him, but due to the type of IP address he's using, it wasn't possible. Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 04:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)