Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive371

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Nosebagbear and Coryphantha reported by MC (User:141.131.2.3) (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Gun culture in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nosebagbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Coryphantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Comments:
Basically there are a couple of users that seem to want to start an edit war. I made a simple edit to fix an MOS inconsistency and that was quickly reverted with no explanation. I put that one back saying their needed to be an actual explanation for the revert and then separately added another edit citing a specific reference. Both were summarily reverted with a cryptic "NPOV" as the explanation. Both users left little Wikibullying notes on the user talk page. I started a discussion on the article talk page which neither user seems inclined to participate in. I am guessing their must be some history here that I don't know about. I have not gleaned it from the talk page.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, while on vandal patrol I picked up an edit that I believed violated NPOV. I reverted and dropped a NPOV warning (lvl 2), since use of terminology such as "pervasive part of American society" rather than its predecessing language did not seem either NPOV or a MOS amendment. 141.131.2.3 then, after reverting his own change, dropped a vandalism template on my own talk page - diff: [5]. . I replied with a request to talk to me if he had any issues with my reverts rather than just dropping his own warnings Diff response: [6]. This would appear to be their response to my request.
The poster has also complained about our lack of participation in the talk page comment, but since we weren't linked in that would have been difficult for us to be aware of.
-- Nosebagbear (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the reply. Still at most you have explained that you did not like a word choice, but not why you felt the need to simply revert the whole edit (you could easily have offered different wording to address the concern I was trying to repair). Nor have you explained why you felt the need to start accusations of inserting personal commentary in the article.
And despite the protest about your not being aware of the article talk page, I notice you still have not commented there even now.
Again, I don't specifically know what the motivation is here but I don't really see good faith behind it.
-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi MC 141.131.2.3. It's a shame that this discussion couldn't be had by raising questions on a user talk page (or an article one, we just didn't know of it), rather than the Admin Noticeboard. Speaking purely for myself (I've not read through Coryphantha's) I'll answer your questions in order:
  • Reversion of whole edit - when I read the edit it had a negative bit (the non-neutrally phrased part) and a potential issue part (reflecting highly ingrained). The previous edit, to me, seemed fine, so reverting it didn't seem to delete clear positive alteration.
  • Accusations of personal commentary - the templates used by both me and Coryphantha were standard "Neutral Point of View" warnings. I used it since I felt your change would have made the article read in a less neutral way. It's possible to do this without having a specific personal viewpoint on the issue and I don't feel my use of it by any means indicates either aggressive accusations or wikibullying.
  • Talk page - I've not used the wiki talk page since this board takes precedence and I don't want to split any discussions we might have. It's my first time as the accused party on any admin noticeboard afaik, and given potential consequences I'm not inclined to continue work on the area while it is under consideration
  • My motivation was solely to remove negative (obviously as I perceive them) edits - I can't have more than a couple of edits on gun control out of all of mine, and afaik we've not met before my initial reversion of your edit. If I wasn't editing in GF, what is the (most likely) motivation I was running off?
--Nosebagbear (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me of my inclusion in this Noticeboard, frankly I do not see why either Nosebagbear or I are here. I apologize for having taken so long to reply to this page as I was taking part in the real world which is evidenced by my break in editing for several hours.
  • While on vandal patrol I noticed this unsourced edit regarding gun culture in the United States: "is a pervasive part of American society, reflecting highly ingrained" which appeared to violate WP:NPOV and appears rather to be an opinion which is less than neutral. There are readers and users of various opinions who use and read Wikipedia, and all of the articles should reflect the standard of neutrality that the editors and administrators hold in such high regard. I, of course, am not the only editor who wishes to see WP remain neutral, especially on such a divisive topic as this one.
  • I reverted the above edit and the previous one together, the previous one was most likely acceptable, but given the attitude of the second edit by 141.131.2.3 I assumed it was also non-neutral and most likely should have left that one. My reverts cannot possibly be termed "edit warring", however, since that was the only time I visited that page. I apologize for having reverted the first of the two, although I stand by my opinion that the second edit violated Wikipedia's policy of neutrality.
  • I did not reply on the article's talk page as I was not pinged and I will not be replying there as I will not be dividing the discussion into two places either.
  • About the "little Wikibullying notes on the user's talk page": I use the Wikipedia Twinkle app in my effort against vandalism and the "notes" that were left on 141.131.2.3's talk are prewritten templates that I myself did not write. If 141.131.2.3 has a problem with the message he'll have to contact the person/people who wrote the {{subst:uw-npov1|Article}} template. In retrospect I left a Level 1 warning and Nosebagbear left a Level 2 warning and the two should have been reversed. In my own defense, mine was not the second warning left on his page.
  • May I remind 141.131.2.3 that civility is still an important part of Wikipedia. Had he simply alerted me to my inclusion on the article's talk page I would have at least had the chance to reply and back up my argument there when I returned to WP, and this discussion may not have reached the level of animus that it has even before I've even had the opportunity to take part.
  • As to "the history", I am not aware of any "history" either. I simply do my part to make Wikipedia a better place, and it would be nice if everyone included in this discussion felt the same way, especially where it concerns divisive topics, Nosebagbear notwithstanding.
In summary, I do not feel in any way that I, nor Nosebagbear, took part in edit warring as each of us only reverted once. I defend the removal of the NPOV edit for the reasons stated above. Regards and best wishes, Coryphantha Talk 21:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation This report was premature NeilN talk to me 13:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Alian786 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page
Adam Saleh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Alian786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 17:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC) to 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. 17:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 17:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 17:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 17:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:2405:204:D200:EFF3:23F1:77FC:202B:5CB6 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page
World oil market chronology from 2003 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2405:204:D200:EFF3:23F1:77FC:202B:5CB6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 15:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) to 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Added content"
    2. 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on World oil market chronology from 2003. (TW)"
  2. 15:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on World oil market chronology from 2003. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Reported vandalism by this user. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User Pragdon reported by Ruhubelent (Result: Pragdon warned)[edit]

The user I am going to report is Pragdon. This report is kind of precaution. I have previously reported him for the same issue: He kept on reverting a change I have done without stating any reasons or objections to do so and it seems he started again as he reverted the same article again stating only "VANDALİSM!!!" as a reason where as I have raised my objections a year ago, waited for 6 months and then updated the section with explaining the excerpts I have quoted. I have once reverted his revert but I do not want to end up being blocked again due to the edit-war he launched. I have reported as he started so that I will not violate Wikipedia rules.

Sincerely yours, Ruhubelent (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Pragdon has never posted on any talk page. They are warned that making any further reverts without first engaging in discussion may result in a block. Ruhubelent, in the future please use this link to create a properly formatted edit warring report. NeilN talk to me 14:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Dan the Plumber reported by User:Terrorist96 (Result: Dan the Plumber warned)[edit]

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dan the Plumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. This edit was made by an IP (could be Dan, idk): [8]
  2. It was reverted by another user here: [9]
  3. Dan the Plumber did his first revert here: [10]
  4. Dan's revert was reverted by another user here: [11]
  5. Dan's 1RR violation is here: [12]
  6. I reverted him, based on his 1RR violation here: [13] (three people have now reverted that specific edit)
  7. Dan committed 2RR here: [14]
  8. Dan then committed personal attacks against me here: [15]
  9. Dan was then reverted by yet another person (4 different people have reverted him in total): [16]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This article is under 1RR discretionary sanctions and consensus is needed for addition of reverted edits. [18]

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Dan the Plumber was not previously properly notified of discretionary sanctions which is a requirement prior to levying sanctions. I've now notified them and logged the notification (Terrorist96, you could have done this as well) so any more reverts will likely result in a block or topic ban. Also, the article is not under a consensus-required restriction. NeilN talk to me 15:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:יניב הורון reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: History of the Jews in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Note: This is not a 3RR violation in the sense of a user making 4 revers in less than 24 hours. However, it is edit warring in a sense of a slow-moving edit war with minimal (essentially none) discussion on talk over long period of time, with one user edit warring against five or six other users.

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]
  5. [24]
  6. [25]
  7. [26]
  8. [27]
  9. [28]
  10. [29]
  11. [30]
  12. [31]
  13. [32]
  14. [33]
  15. [34]

(I might have missed one or two because there are so many)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] (user being reported provided a link which is a dead link, another user provided a link [37] which is not). See also [38].

Comments:
Again, this is not a straight up 3RR violation. Rather it is ONE user, Yan (יניב הורון), edit warring against multiple other users over a period of time (since May). Best I can tell the editors he reverted essentially without discussion include User:Yulia Romero, User:Lute88, User:Galassi, and 2600:1700:1111:5940:d9f6:63d1:857a:104. He also reverted User:BrillLyle, although this one could've been simply because he was doing blind-reverts and did not pay attention to intervening edits (i.e. he seems to have reverted Brill just because Brill got in the way of his edit war)

I'm surprised you have reported only me despite other editors are also involved in this. Even though I have reverted three users (and a suspicious IP), this is a borderline vandalism situation on your part, increasing Ukraine's Jewish population from 67,000 to 400,000 (while the source seems to be clearly stating 67,000). An undated Jewish congress web page is not a strong source. In addition, as you can see here (pg 624), there were 100,000 Jews living in Ukraine in 2002 (NOT 400,000), while there's no source to support 400,000 Jews in 2014 (dead link). This might be a question of a range of estimates (beyond the official census) for Jewish origin people. The box should probably stick to one thing (e.g. the official census) while the range of possible Jewish origin people (estimates of whom vary quite a bit) should be stated separately.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Referring to other editors' good faithed edits as "vandalism" isn't very constructive. And yes, there are five other users whom you've been reverting. That should tell you something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I will note that Yaniv has opened a talk paye section on 25 June. RSes do not support 400,000 Jews in Ukraine (true in 198o, but vast majority immigrated - see this, which is a RSor the Atlantic. This may fall under the vandalism exception to edit warring policy - particulalrly when the citations next to the table do not support this inflated time series. Perhaps editors such as VM shoud explain why they have inserted such numbers without apparant RS support.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and he called it "Fake statistics" and claimed that "while there's no source to support ..." which there clearly is (which source is better is a different question). He then continued to edit war against multiple users for another EIGHT days, while referring to other editors' good faithed edits as "vandalism".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
And Icewhiz, WP:VANDALISM clearly states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". And these edits here were not even "disruptive" or "against consensus" (which is clearly against Yaniv). So please don't refer to other editors actions as "vandalism" either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I said "may fall". I'm sure inflating population figures by a factor of approx. a multiple of 4-8 (in relation to generally accepted numbers), without a good source, is forbidden by some policy.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the 400,000 supported by any source or not? If not, who put in that number originally? --NeilN talk to me 19:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
It's 53,000 (2017). Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: (edit conflict) The other users in the dispute are referring to this source [39]. That seems to support neither side in this dispute if we add up the numbers listed, but those only cover major cities (but since 260k > 60k, that would rule out the "lower side" that Yaniv is edit warring for). This source is also used in the article. Quickly looking at it, it suggest that this may be a dispute over whether the "core" or the "enlarged" Jewish populations should be listed (which of course gets into all kinds of issues). A link to this source is also provided in the article, but it's a dead link. The numbers were added [40] in May of 2014 and have been in the article for more than four years. Anyway you slice it, this was not "vandalism" on anyone's part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Current estimates vary (no census since 2001) - but 53k is one of them - 400k is only if you add "extended jews" or crypto Jews - and even there is a very high side estimate. Very. The undated WJC doc is probably not a rs. The stable version is with 67k for 2014. The inflated figures were inserted by an IP on 18 June who just changed the numbers in the table without any refs (and in a manner which does not reflect the some 300+k immigrations in the 1990-2010 period) - which seems like a WP:DUCK.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC) If this were an "extended Jew" issue - then the 1989 should have been updated as well - but it is stuck at 487k - leaving the table at complete odds with the mass immigration of Jews after the fall of the Soviet bloc.Icewhiz (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but this report isn't about a content dispute. You (and Yaniv) should've said all those things on the talk page rather than edit warring. The only reason content issues are relevant here is to establish that you can't use "vandalism" as an excuse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The inflated figures were inserted by an IP on 18 June - The high numbers were inserted in [May 2014 by User:Avaya1. The ones in the table were removed by another IP [41], although the ones in the infobox were left in place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Talk page discussion was opened June 25th. No one defended the 400,000 number. As for the charges of vandalism, editors need to look at the intent of an edit. If a random IP changes 40,000 to 400,000 for example then that's likely vandalism. Established editors reverting to a poorly sourced or unsourced number is likely due to a dispute or carelessness. NeilN talk to me 20:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:YSSYguy reported by User:Deryck Chan (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

YSSYguy went around standardizing airline destination lists between April and May. Since then, he has been displaying heavy WP:OWN behaviour on those list articles. One point of particular concern was his adamant insistence that Hong Kong must be listed under China.

An IP user in the dispute opened an RfC on Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations. YSSYguy has not participated since 23 May but continued to revert any edit that he disagreed with, without providing any edit summary. He hasn't reverted in a few weeks but restarted doing so yesterday. YSSYguy has resorted to incivil language in his edit summary and has refused to compromise despite multiple editors telling him it is inappropriate to lump Hong Kong under China in aviation lists [74][75][76].

Edit warring / 3RR templates have not been used because the pace of edit warring was slow and no single user is close to violating 3RR.

Comments:

I have inspected his edits, I think there exists a broader problem of these list : I check jurisdiction but others may not do so. I hate doing these things and these really isn't a small thing for Hong Kong citizens.--1233Talk 12:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: He is continuing his effort to force his will through a consensus at the related RfC which the majority did not support Hong Kong being listed as a Chinese destination.--1233Talk 10:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello User:1233. The RfC at this link does not have any statement at the top about what question it is discussing. If you think editors have reached a consensus, can you say what it is? EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:, the question is about whether Hong Kong and Macau should be listed as a separate country from China or not. Most of them would not list Hong Kong as a PRC Airline Destination.--1233Talk 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @EdJohnston: The RfC's question is "how should the 'country' column in aviation destination lists treat Hong Kong and Macau". I think the rough consensus is "not under China" and opinions are split about the "think outside the box" solution of renaming the column "Country / Territory"; however both 1233 and I have expressed an opinion in the debate the discussion hasn't been closed yet, so I would leave it to you to gauge the consensus. In the meantime, YSSYguy has continued to change the "country" field of "Hong Kong" to "China" in other lists,[77] even going so far as making such edits in a list where Hong Kong has never been listed under China before.[78]. Deryck C. 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
If User:YSSYguy doesn't continue to revert it is likely this complaint will be closed with a warning, not to revert again about 'country' on those three articles. One problem is that the complaint is not super-clear. (The edits listed above are not all about this issue). Also, in some cases people are putting the country field as blank next to Hong Kong, which seems peculiar. Even if we delegate this whole question to the editors working in WT:AIRPORT, they should be able to state clearly what they want the rule to be. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Would WP:Countries or WP:Lists (or Categorisation) be more relevant than Airports? 124.217.189.141 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: User:YSSYguy is warned not to revert again between 'China' and 'Hong Kong' in the country field of airline destination lists without getting prior consensus on a relevant talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I have been rather busy of late and have not had any involvement with WP since the weekend, hence this has passed me by. I guess it's too late for any of my comments to carry any weight, but nevertheless I offer the following:
The comment "going so far as making such edits in a list where Hong Kong has never been listed under China before" is demonstrably false; the previous edit changed "People's Republic of China" to "Hong Kong", less than ten hours later I changed it back to the version that an examination of the edit history has existed since March this year ([79]), with a brief interlude of it being "Hong Kong" again in the meantime ([80]).
The fact that I am not the only person making changes of this nature, as seen in the two diffs above, is evidence that no consensus exists that Hong Kong should be treated as not being a part of China. Both Deryck Chan and 1233 have self-identified as having a close connection with Hong Kong, which results in both of them having a non-neutral point of view on the subject. I have no connection at all with mainland China, Taiwan, Macau or Hong Kong; I am a middle-aged seventh-generation Caucasian Australian; I have transitted Hong Kong airport a few times, I have transitted Kunming Airport once and I spent a few hours in central Shanghai once, when my time between flights to/from Pudong airport was sufficient for me to do so.
I don't see why I should comply with an injunction to not make changes that others are free to make and have made (further examples: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85] - this last one made more than eight years ago and as far as I can see, never altered since), that is the result of a case opened by a person with a clear non-neutral POV - the reality is that Hong Kong was handed back to China 21 years and a few days ago, I am old enough to have seen the very large number of news reports concerning the handover in the years and days leading up to 1 July 1997, and many more since. I can well understand that Deryck Chan and 1233 (and no doubt hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others) don't want to be Chinese subjects (I wouldn't want to be either), but that is the situation for people living in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. Others have mentioned the existence of the Hong Kong passport as evidence that it is not China, however only Chinese citizens are eligible to hold a Hong Kong passport, and such passports list "China" as the holders' nationality. Are we really going to treat some lists of airline destinations as a special case within Wikipedia because of an RfC opened by an IP troll trying to harass me ([86], [87], [88], [89]), that has had just a small number of participants? YSSYguy (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Mean as Custard reported by User:Emmreads (Result: Emmreads warned, Mean as custard thanked)[edit]

Page
The DMZ at Ryerson University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mean as custard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. [90]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [91]
  2. [92]
  3. [93]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:
The user keeps reverting the entire page without providing examples of issues or making comments on the talk page so that other editors can continue to improve the content. The user notes that there are issues with promotional material. Compared to the previous version the user keeps reverting it to, the page was updated with a significant increase in the number of external sources as well as edits to improve neutral language to combat this. I reverted the page to the newest version but the user continues to revert the page. When asked on the user's talk page (in an effort to avoid edit warring) for specifics surrounding the issues, the user cited only one sentence. A further request for information, or for more direct edits (rather than total reversion) were not returned. It seems this user has a large number of these discussions across many pages on their user talk page. Emmreads (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the thread at User talk:Emmreads clarifies the position. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Which parts of Emmreads comments do you disagree with? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mean_as_Custard_reported_by_User:Emmreads? --NeilN talk to me 16:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't go as far as calling Oshwah a moron myself. I have left them some more advice, along the same lines that SerialNumber54129 has already given them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Elephanthunter (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: We're in active dispute resolution, and this is an experienced editor who should know better.

Diff of ARBIPA Sanctions warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  • Diff: There are a lot of diffs here =/
  • Diff: Again, a lot of diffs.

Comments:
Full disclosure:

  1. This debate started when I noticed User:Adamgerber80 (who was initially involved, but has since been inactive) removed the Khalistan movement from a List of active separatist movements in Asia (diff). He argued the movement was inactive, thus did not belong in the list. We have a difference of opinion (diff) about what makes a movement active.
  2. DBigXray and myself engaged in an edit war-like behavior in Operation Blue Star as well. I'm not going to hide that when I discovered this user was making POV edits to Operation Blue Star (a very directly related subject) during our dispute, I was upset. He added claims that Sikhs were planning a massacre, sprinkled in the word "extremist", etc. I admittedly undid most of the additions.

I am from the United States (as opposed to Pakistan or India.) I am atheist (not Sikh.)

A couple of my edit comments said WP:OR when I really meant WP:STATUSQUO. That was my bad.

Anyway, DBigXray has been engaged in ongoing dispute resolution with me for the last 25 days and 6 hours, and talk page discussion before that. He is well aware that we are attempting to reach consensus for the exact paragraph he removed. I feel like he is acting in bad faith despite not violating the three-revert rule. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that I notified DBigXray before filing, so he filed in retaliation before I was finished. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! That seems reasonable. Since it's already happened once, what should I do if the user continues to edit the page after the page protection is lifted, before we've reached a conclusion on the dispute resolution board? Should I return here, or is there a different avenue I should pursue? --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Elephanthunter: The article is protected for a month. If the DRN discussion isn't done by then, check with EdJohnston or me. --NeilN talk to me 18:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


User:Elephanthunter reported by User:DBigXray (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Recent 2 Difs breaking the 1RR prompting the report.

  1. [99]
  2. [100]

Old difs showing the edit warring behavior on the same article

  1. [101]
  2. [102]
  3. [103]

And again on the same article

  1. [104]
  2. [105]
  3. [106]


Diff of Arbcom sanctions warning: [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]


Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Khalistan_movement#Canada_PM_in_lead

Attempts to resolve dispute on DRN page: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Khalistan_movement#Canada_PM_in_lead

Comments:

The article is under 1RR WP:Discretionary sanctions due to WP:General_sanctions#Arbitration_Committee-authorised_sanctions decision here. The user was informed about the sanctions here Another editor had removed the disputed original research section from the lead and the reported editor restored it citing a dispute. The user has failed to provide a source on talk or DRN per WP:BURDEN but is still actively edit warring to restore his preferred version in the article. (see the recent and old diffs) the 1RR rule has been violated and 24 hrs is not an entitlement. The reported user is aware of the 24 Hrs rule and (looking at the time stamps of the edits), is clearly trying to game the system.

The reported user has a history of Edit warring and has been blocked in past and have not got the message yet that Edit warring is not acceptable here. Further more he is slapping 3RR warnings on my talk page and threatening blocks. DBigXray 17:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @DBigXray: And that means that an admin can impose WP:1RR on an article in this area, not that WP:1RR is imposed on every article in this area. That is, there is no WP:1RR on an article unless it is properly advertised through an editnotice and logged. --NeilN talk to me 18:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok Thank you for your kind explanation. I was under the impression that "broadly construted" means 1RR for this as well. Neverthless, the edit warring is clear abov and an existing DRN or ongoing dispute is not an excuse to edit war and restore a preferred version of the article, (a Third time). So Kindly judge the case based on its own merits. Thanks --DBigXray 18:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Both of you were reverting so protection seems like a good solution. --NeilN talk to me 18:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Fin Opus and User:12.144.75.67 reported by User:132ARb6558 (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Lincoln Academy (Newcastle, Maine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fin Opus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 12.144.75.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Notice: I had no involvement in edit warring and reverting of edits. I am only reporting the above-mentioned users so this doesn't happen again to the page. The two users deleted and blanked two sections of the page siting the text as malicious and incorrect while the text was properly sourced by credible sources. Please consider my report as necessary and critical.

The page was blanked to this state:

[[109]]

It was then reverted to this state.

[[110]]

Then 4 more times, edits were undone by the above-mentioned users and finally was reverted back to this state:

[[111]]

The talk discussion regarding vandalism and Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion on User: Fin Opus's page:

[[112]]


The talk discussion regarding vandalism and Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion on User: 12.144.75.67's page:

[[113]]

The talk discussion of the page of Lincoln Academy (Newcastle, Maine)

[[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lincoln_Academy_(Newcastle,_Maine)]]

Thank you, 132ARb6558 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale 132ARb6558, the reverting occurred on June 24. This is too old to take any action on. NeilN talk to me 21:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to place a semi-protection tag on this article? 132ARb6558 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, for the same reason Neil gave above. If an article has little to no activity, it logically follows there is no disruption that needs administrator assistance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:87.4.233.54 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Yo-kai Watch: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
87.4.233.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 06:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Western release */"
  3. 06:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 06:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC) to 06:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. 06:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 06:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 05:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC) to 06:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. 05:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 06:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 06:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User keeps adding unsourced international film distributors. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

User:69.126.54.182 reported by User:JE98 (Result: )[edit]

Page: 2018–19 United States network television schedule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.126.54.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [114]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [115]
  2. [116]
  3. [117]
  4. [118]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User talk:69.126.54.182#July 2018

Comments:

This is my first edit war report, apologies if I did not use this process correctly. However, this IP user is out of control. He has been asked twice to stop removing links from two new ABC shows on 2018–19 United States network television schedule that do not have articles yet. Consensus is that we do not remove links from new shows even if they do not have articles. Something needs to be done about this user. JE98 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2605:A000:1219:451E:0:6C3A:AC32:EFAE reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Pete's Dragon (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2605:A000:1219:451E:0:6C3A:AC32:EFAE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 23:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 21:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. 22:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Pete's Dragon (2016 film). (TW)"
  2. 23:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Pete's Dragon (2016 film). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User keeps removing link without explanation. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours by User:Ronhjones. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:46.7.77.74 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Saoirse Ronan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
46.7.77.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "candid revision 849075833 by 46.7.77.74 (talk) If you bothered to read the full article..it clearly states Ronan's casting"
  2. 09:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849070761 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) The casting was confirmed as stated in article"
  3. 09:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* 2015–present: Brooklyn, Lady Bird, and beyond */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet of User:Torah28. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

A clear sock of Torah28 (look at this edit history, as an example), this IP has been repeatedly adding the unconfirmed casting of Ronan in a remake of Little Women using this and this source which clearly states, "Greta Gerwig is writing and directing a new Little Women movie with Meryl Streep now confirmed, and Saoirse Ronan and Emma Stone in talks." Our policy, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF is clear that unless there is official confirmation of casting, it should not be added. But the user simply doesn't seem to understand that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit warring while logged out. Krimuk2.0, I suggest you read the source text carefully and ease up on the vandalism accusations. NeilN talk to me 13:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray reported by User:Elephanthunter (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Operation Blue Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [120]
  2. [121]
  3. [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just warned user yesterday about Khalistan movement. It's still on this page. In my filing I mentioned our edit war in Operation Blue Star

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [123]
  2. [124]
  3. [125]

Comments:
Just yesterday an administrator locked Khalistan movement after DBigXray decided to forego dispute resolution and remove the very paragraph that we were debating (active dispute diff DBigXray's change diff.) Our dispute moderator closed the dispute as failed (diff). The entire time we were undergoing dispute resolution, DBigXray was furiously editing Operation Blue Star (a closely related topic.)

In yesterday's filing, I specifically mentioned our edit war in Operation Blue Star where DBigXray has repeatedly added POV content:

  • Sprinkling in words like "extremist" and "murders"
  • Adding a WP:EXTREME claim that Sikhs were going to "murder Hindus in all the villages across Punjab"
  • Removing stats he disagrees with. He uses book reviews as evidence (diff)

DBigXray saw I gave him notice before I filed yesterday and decided to beat me to the punch by posting here before me. Just clarifying, in case anyone thinks I was the one who filed in retaliation.

Anyway, I just brought this up yesterday and he hasn't skipped a beat. Literally at it again. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

  1. There is no offence as being claimed here.
  2. The editor got involved in content dispute with me at Khalistan Movement and WP:WIKIHOUNDed me to Operation Blue Star Which I pointed out here
  3. The editor above is suffering from acute WP:BATTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality. The said article has been edited by me after the talk page consensus. The editor is not bothered any more to participate in the talk page discussion as visible that he has not participated in past 8 days inspite of several concerns raised by me and a Third editor. Due to his clear lack of participation in discussion, simple WP:BRD cycle is being followed here.
  4. This and the report above have been filed with the sole intention of "Getting the article Locked down for another month" and "possibly getting me blocked" per WP:BATTLE--DBigXray 17:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
First off: Where are you pulling those quotes from? They are not my own, and I'm not seeing them in WP:BATTLE.
I have good reason to believe you have no intention of peacefully coming to consensus. I sought dispute resolution for our differences of opinion in Khalistan Moement (diff), but you broke the rules by initiating direct discussion and edit warring. Admittedly I took the bait. You basically sabotaged our dispute resolution, in my opinion, because it was not going your way.
I'm filing this report because you chose to continue to edit warring after I brought up our edit wars in Khalistan movement and Operation Blue Star here literally yesterday. I don't believe you're editing in good faith. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation One series of edits yesterday. This isn't the board for settling content disputes. NeilN talk to me 13:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Miwako Sato reported by wolf (Result: Stale )[edit]

Page: Underwater Demolition Assault Unit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miwako Sato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [126] (this just prior first edit changing disputed content, not included in the four diffs noted below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [127]
  2. [128]
  3. [129]
  4. [130]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131] (immediately deleted as "ridiculous")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As seen in the page history, this user was repeatedly encouraged to engage in discussion on the article talk page, via the following edit summaries;

  • "Discuss "SEAL" vs "Seal" & source changes in personnel"
  • "as explained in the edit summary, discuss on the talk page"
  • "dont debate via edit summary... that what tp is for"

Diff of 3RRNB report notification: [132]

Comments:
This user has demonstrated a complete refusal to discuss and a continued intention to edit war. - wolf 04:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

  • A complete refusal to discuss? A discussion has been started at the Talk Page of the article in question, please go and see it before accusing people just because you don't want to have an article updated. Thanks! --Miwako Sato (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
A discussion that was started only after you edit warred, violated 4RR, was warned about it and repeatedly asked to go to the talk page. - wolf 06:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale I believe the relevant phrase here is "better late than never" - discussion continues on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Kainoa808 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: No violation )[edit]

Page
Doug Chin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kainoa808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 13:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC) to 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. 13:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Political Positions */"
    2. 13:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Removed incorrect information"
  2. 13:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ removed incorrect information"
  3. 13:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[133]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

@Ifnord: I'm looking at this but why are we using primary sources hosted on a private website in a BLP? --NeilN talk to me 18:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Valid point. I didn't add that nor am I bonded to the article either way, simply reverting unexplained blanking of referenced material. Ifnord (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation I'm going to be charitable and say Kainoa808 has got WP:3RRBLP on their side ie: removing clear BLP problems is exempt from the three revert rule, while their addition of content seems to cite a compliant source. Additionally, when I look at a dispute like this I go straight to the talk page to see what's been happening, and if I see nothing, I take a dim view of the complaint. Less reverting, more discussing all round, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I will warn Kainoa808 that future mass deletions must be accompanied by a proper explanation or they are risking a block. --NeilN talk to me 22:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd go easy and be tactful if I were you - remember what WP:DOLT says : "When editors blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." (It might be that Kainoa808 has a conflict of interest, but that's another discussion). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll stand by my warning, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 22:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:117.136.106.66 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked LTA)[edit]

Page
Guangdong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
117.136.106.66 (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

Is a recurrent sock and has previous blocks for copycat disruption in the past. See links below.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

[EDIT] Saved too quickly. Engaging in a multi-article revert war with what he (actually, yet another Whaterrs sock) deems to be a O1lI0 sock. Also serial block evasion (221.13.92.178 1, [141] and [142]) by Whaterrs. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Pinging you, and adding the remark that I just noticed Whaterrs reverts with such a blithe disregard that he also happened to insert a leading zero in a measurement statistic. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as an LTA. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

User:108.6.192.87 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Diplomatic Immunity (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
108.6.192.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849048826 by Jim1138 (talk)"
  2. 04:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "what part of I dont know what/who blackcrab is do you not understand? Please stop reverting until you prove this is a single."
  3. 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849023659 by Hayman30 (talk) I dont even know who blacccrab is?? You're just blocking me because I have a different viewpoint."
  4. 23:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848998388 by DovahDuck (talk) what is blaccrab? I'm simply saying there's no source for this as a single"
  5. 19:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848991278 by DovahDuck (talk) provide a source saying this was released, based on how this song came out, all of the songs on scorpion are single - music sites"
  6. 18:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848979395 by DovahDuck (talk) apologies but there was no consensus reached, nor a source that shows this song was released in any way other than as the second track on the EP; how is it different than any album cuts on scorpion?"
  7. 17:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "You can’t close it yourself, still open - why are you pushing for it to be a single, anyone with eyes can see how gods plan, nice for what were released and this wasn’t"
  8. 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC) "what reputable source that shows a release date or separate release of any kind (digitial download, radio, etc). Artists labels announce singles all the time that never come to fruition. This most recent source shows it didnt happen"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Notice of edit warring */ oops"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Ss112 Discussion was attempted on Talk:Diplomatic Immunity (song)#This is not a single.. months ago.

Comments:

Apparent block evasion by Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BlaccCrab per some of the revert ES:

Perhaps Diplomatic Immunity (song) should just be permanently PP? Jim1138 (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Protected for 24 hours. Go and find a Billboard source and use that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

User:73.229.62.200 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Keith Packard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
73.229.62.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "Quit edit waring, take it to the talk page if you wish to discuss."
  2. 05:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) "No more unsourced than the previous statement, which is untrue."