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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR Update this page This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159
1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Aragorn8354 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has changed the title of an episode to something that is not found in the sources. The user believes that the source used is not a reliable source, even though it is. XXX8906 (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if Wikipedia considers Zap2It a reliable source because I will then know for certain nothing in Wikipedia is reliable. I can cite hundreds of instances of Zap2It information being way off reality. Show listings, show airing times, episode titles-season#-episode# wrong, listing an hour long episode in a half hour time slot, etc,etc. Seriously, Zap2It gets thier info from the TV station airing the show not any truely reliable source. Aragorn8354 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any attempt by XXX8906 to discuss this as evidence the talk page associated with this silliness where I attempted to discuss this with no response whatsoever from XXX8906. Aragorn8354 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User XXX8906 continues to revert edits for which I have not only provided a reference for but have physical proof for in my posession. I don't know what needs to be done to resolve this but I will continue to monitor this situation closely. Aragorn8354 (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aragorn8354: - This report is in danger of being archived for lack of interest. I would like to encourage admins to take a look here. User XXX8906 has a history of disruptive edits based on their talk page history. They've been warned numerous times against submitting unsourced or inappropriately sourced content[7][8][9][10][11][12], they've been warned numerous times against refactoring other users' comments [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], they've been warned against blanking [22], they've been warned against edit warring [23][24][25][26] and were previously dragged through 3RR though Elockid didn't at that time agree with the reported violation, I think it's clear that XXX8906 is the slow-edit-war type. They've also been warned against general disruptions [27][28]. While minor mistakes are expected for new users, this account has been active for nine months, and has demonstrated little interest in collaborative editing, and seems intent to assert their own worldview, which is ultimately disruptive. I'm not confident this user is here to contribute as part of a community. I'm not sure about indeffing, but an imposed break might be warranted. With regard to the edit war above, the TMNT episode aired with the title card "The Manhattan Project", though some of the existing sources still bear the "Wormquake" name. This is not a problem that is going to be remedied through revert warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:40, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
2. 19:41, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
3. 06:04, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
4. 06:07, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
5. 06:09, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
6. 08:51, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
7. 08:52, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
8. 09:38, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
9. 15:47, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

One of Rolltheblunt’s colleagues, 83.237.225.85 (talk), made a series of analogous reverts at Right Sector:

1. 16:33, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
2. 16:53, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
3. 17:42, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
4. 18:22, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")

83.237.225.85 was blocked by Ëzhiki at 19:33, 27 May 2014.[32]
Rolltheblunt made his first contribution to Right Sector at 19:40, 27 May 2014.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC) 19:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I should note that the edits themselves are a POV push that have failed source verification, making the warring attempt doubleplus bad --Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for edit warring as well as POV pushing. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relapse of edit warring since 25 May at Crimean status referendum, 2014:

  Edit being reverted: [33]

  1. [34]
  2. [35]
  3. [36]
  4. [37] (after block expiration)

Petr Matas 11:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 1838 Druze attack on Safed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uishaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]
6. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

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

Comments:

User was alerted to WP:ARBPIA sanctions [46] and recently was placed on 0RR for one week for violations thereof [47] (that week expired without incident). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User reverted once more [48] after being notified of this report. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. According to the article, the Druze were joined by Muslims in the anti-Jewish pogrom, which might explain why the IP user kept changing the category. Either way, the two editors should discuss the matter rather than continually revert each others changes. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Return to Oz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: multiple users and multiple anonymous IPs (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. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
Edit warring since May 23... please view the page history to see what's happening. BMRR (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected (full) for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Kemenche (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sonici (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC) "Don't delete the facts, or don't use our culturel instrument here..!"
2. 17:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC) "Source:Mehmet Bilgin's researchers,other sources: look at the Cumans in Byzantine,and Savafid(Iran) Turks in southern Caucasia..first time they've seen Turkic Cumans in Georgia,and met with Cumancha(Kemenche) OR don't write here our instrument, proudless."
3. 16:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC) "Source:Mehmet Bilgin's researchers,other sources: look at the Cumans in Byzantine,and Savefid(Iran) Turks in southern Caucasia..first time they've seen Turkic Cumans in Georgia,and met with Cumancha(Kemenche) OR don't write here our instrument, proudless."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Slow edit war at Kemenche - editor has been blocked 3 times for edit warring (twice by me) - see also [49]. 3 editors have now reverted him. This goes back to February[50] when he added similar material 3 times and was reverted by 3 different editors, only one being an editor who has reverted him this time - that led to a block by me. I also note [51] where he deleted material he didn't like from a talk page. Basically we seem to have a nationalist edit warrior here. One of his edit summaries states "I'm a Turkist-Turanist researcher " (see Turanism and all of his edits reflect this agenda. Maybe I should be taking this to AN or ANI to ask for a ban or indefinite block at this point as virtually all of his edits have been reverted? Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely. This person is just WP:NOTHERE. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Soffredo#October 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Soffredo#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox of Elizabeth II; Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 29#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox; Talk:Elizabeth II#Number of realms

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs of 3RR warning

• [57].
• [58].
• [59].
• [60].
• [61].
• [62].

Comments:
User:Srnec violated the rule of three reversions and this is not the first time that he do it.--EeuHP (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks: In defense of Srnec , just check the history on Peter III of Aragón. I suspect that the IP 88.21.38 is the same as the party reporting this incident who is bent on imposing his criteria. See also discussion page of the respective article on an attempt to reach a consensus. --Maragm (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC) pd. Perhaps a checkuser can confirm or disavow my suspicions. --Maragm (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can suspect all that you wish, but I know that I'm not the IP. And Srnec violated the rule by third time and it's time for him to be apperceived.--EeuHP (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article so that the IP can no longer disrupt the article before consensus is reached on the talk page. DrKiernan (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And with regard to the violation of the rule of three reversals?--EeuHP (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection will prevent further disruption. Any further action would be punitive rather than preventative. DrKiernan (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but this is the third time that this user violate the rule. Three violations and zero warning is a very bad example.--EeuHP (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks The above user has been blocked several times for edit warring.--Maragm (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reported user has a clean block log and has not technically breached the rule since there are no more than 3 reverts in each 24-hour period. The IP, however, has broken the rule. DrKiernan (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the rule say this but also say Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. Let's see his recent history.

Peter III of Aragon. January 2014

• 19:14 - 25 January
• 19:45 - 25 January
• 21:06 - 25 January
• 04:58 - 27 January
• 03:53 - 28 January

Petronilla of Aragon. October 2013

• 19:14 - 6 October
• 20:59 - 6 October
• 21:46 - 6 October
• 02:47 - 7 October (have not been 24 hours)

Considering how certain things are overlooked, it is normal for some users to have clean records.--EeuHP (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The time difference between 21:06 25 January and 04:58 27 January is obviously more than 24 hours. Besides which, Srnec undid his own revert anyway[63], so there is no violation. On the Petronilla example, as you were told when you reported it in February 2014, that matter is stale [64][65]. Besides which I see you reverting at 14:32, 20:53, 21:40,and 21:51 on 6 October 2013‎ and 13:38 on 7 October 2013‎: 5 reverts in 24 hours, immediately after you came off a block for edit-warring on Nicholas II. The matter is closed, move on. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. Three reversions in 24 hours (with the help of others users of his gang that replace him in the reversal task when he approached the limit) and other after the limit. When the offense is clear, it is not seen and expires. When the offense is interpretable, it is interpreted in his favor. The strong language is not necessary. This situation speaks for itself.

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown." --EeuHP (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note It's certainly worth noting that the OP just came off of a 3 month block for edit-warring on the very same article. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked User:EeuHP for six months for continued disruption during and after expiration of their last block, including probable sock puppetry, the filing of retaliatory reports on this board, personal attacks, and false claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Halloween (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bhlab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Minor phrase words edits"
2. 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 19:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Maybe in the United States but not in Europe"
4. 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610836483 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
5. 20:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Inaccurate claim maybe in the United States but not in Europe."
6. 20:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610838825 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
7. 20:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Inaccurate claim maybe in the United States but not in Europe."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Halloween. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edit warring over lead sentence */ new section"

• Note. Overlapping administrators. I was troubled by what appeared to me as an edit war by both users and was about to say that here. At the same time, another user (probable sock of the reported user) came along to support the probable master. Not quite prepared to block both accounts, I locked the article. Meanwhile Favonian blocked both accounts as sock puppets, a reasonable conclusion. I've since unlocked the article as no longer needed, which puts it back in PC 1 status.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Steven Beitashour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bowser2500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Restoring full name"
2. 01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610857214 by Walter Görlitz (talk) See talk"
3. 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610865781 by Walter Görlitz (talk) "Made-up"? Easy with your accusations there, bud. See talk"
4. 01:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Citation added"
5. 01:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Possibly a more reliable news outlet"
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Beitashour&curid=26913715&diff=610872554&oldid=610869372

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Steven Beitashour. (TW)"
2. 01:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* May 2014 */ Verify credibility"
3. 01:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Steven Beitashour. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Moving from my talk page and responding"
2. 01:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Full name */ Not RSes"

Comments:

Editor is new and does not seem to understand discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to start edit warring, & the reverted edits were before the recent ones where more constructive edits have been made by both Walter and I. Sources have been added and comments have been left on Steven Beitashour's talk page.--Bowser2500 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, how exactly are both not edit warring, Walter? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Doctor Who (series 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

109.152.239.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610926448 by G S Palmer (talk)Please just trust me. I'm not lying or trying to create arguments. If you don't believe me then you can buy DWM. It is a good read and has my proof"
2. 13:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610925152 by DonQuixote (talk) I have previously stated that I got this quote from Doctor Who Magazine Issue 474. I'm sure you are aware that I cannot directly cite a magazine"
3. 12:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "I can quote: "the new episode, which is written by Peter Harness and will air as the seventh story in this Autumns run", "recording on the other episode of Block Four - Episode 8 written by Jamie Mathieson - also took place in May"."
4. 11:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "It is fairly obvious that I cannot directly source a magazine. Buy it for yourself if you don't believe me, it's only £5. Just trust me that this information is 100% correct because DWM is licensed by the BBC."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. G S Palmer, next time please warn the IP of edit warring. The only reason I'm blocking is because they reverted after you filed this report and notified them of it. In addition, it would have been constructive to talk to the IP, either on their talk page or on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Simona Halep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Makedonovlah (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. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

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

Comments:

User is holding firm to his preferred phrasing of "Macedonian (Greek Latin)" as the identification of Simona Halep's ethnicity, as opposed to how others have identified her as being "Aromanian". Even after I provided a source where it is clear that she self-identifies as Aromanian he still reverts back to his preferred identification. Additionally, he has been rather abusive on the article talk page, with statements such as "Be CALM and RESPECT the OTHERS!! You are not the Master of Europe and the wiki-romanians dont have the right to command the people's name in the ENGLISH language". And just to note: I have zero connection with the Romanian Wikipedia. Tabercil (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, situation has changed. I'd placed the warning here about his edits as I was the other party involved in the warring and wanted a fresh set of eyes to see what has occured. But since then the user has made additional edits elsewhere which were purely disruptive in an attempt to make his point (namely moving the articles on Aromanians, Aromanian language, Greeks and Romanians). That makes it a different matter altogether. Tabercil (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Tabercil (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: The Lego Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NiamhBurns10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: My post on the editor's talk page that was quickly removed. User proceeded to move the post to my talk page, before adding this.

Comments:

Editor has behaved immaturely and argued against valid points with no valid reasoning. Though unrelated, editor has also been warned for vandalism twice, which can be seen on the editor's talk page. While the editor initially appeared to be working in good faith, his/her manner of dispute resolution is not in keeping with our standards. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 31 hours. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Brand.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

BeloyiseBurron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Remove unsourced information from intro. Also removing information on paid Wikipedia. They no longer appear to offer it and cannot use Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia. Also made last paragraph more neutral."
2. 22:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Except you must not have read the refs beford you reverted. Also, as Diva is an editir being paid to destroy tbis page, there is definite a COI. Sorry, but yiur bias is focused in the wrong editir."
3. 22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "If yiu want a consensus, you need to revert article to BEFORE you staeted editing. That's 2, please read up on the 3 revery rule."
4. 23:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Youre rught. i wont revert, i will just roll back to a week agi before Diva destriyed the page. We can both duscuss there and see if a consensus can be reached."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Harassment of other users on Talk:Brand.com. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by BeloyiseBurron (talk) to last revision by GenuineDiva. (TW)"

It was actually 3 reverts from 2 different editors before this report. My "reverts" are being used as a way to block me from commenting on the issues with the page. The 3rd edit that I did was not a revert of a previous editor. It was restoring edits so that a consensus can be made. Please check talk page and COI noticeboard. --BeloyiseBurron (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. 23:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard "Signing comment by BeloyiseBurron - "/* Brand.com */""

Comments:

Came across this in recent changed. Editor seems to be a single purpose account singularly for editing this article. Was warned to not violate 3RR and did so regardless. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 23:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI reverting and restoring exits of another SPI who is trying to weigh too heavily on what he thinks instead of what they say. As stated, we can discuss on talk page, but leaving the bias content of a SPI while not letting another SPI weigh in simplyis not in the spirit of the 3RR policy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeloyiseBurron (talk • contribs) 23:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added as much as is necessary to the talk page of the article and WP:COIN, I leave it to smarter people than I. GenuineDiva (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing GenuineDiva of being a sock puppet when it is not true is a serious offense and can be considered a personal attack. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 23:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be. My apologies as I meant SPA not SPI --BeloyiseBurron (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. This block is for a breach of WP:3RR. However, I am troubled by what appears to be implied WP:OUTING by the now-blocked user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Poverty in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Piotrus:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]

Volunteer Marek:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]

Comment: these two users constantly revert a sourced version to an unsourced version and justify it with OR comments at talk. Edit warring is unacceptable and so is removal of information based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT only. Nasty edit summaries like this are totally unacceptable, too.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83], [84]

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

Comments:

Riiighhht. A user account created a week ago with about ten edits, who knows about NPOV, Wikiquette, 3RR, and to go running to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports to get their sketchy edits restored. And oh yeah, named "Patriot Donbassa", which is mangled Polish. Whose talk page comments and edits appear to be intended to start fights between people.

It's an obvious sockpuppet created for the purposes of trolling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Donbassa (Патриот Донбасса) means 'Donbass Patriot' in Russian. Neither Polish nor mangled, my friend. One should take a closer look at Volunteer's edits accross Eastern Europe topics. He's constantly edit warring and being disruptive: [85], [86], [87]. How long can this circus go on? Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...who quickly found (failed) AN/I reports. No. Not a sockpuppet. Can't be. Not here to cause trouble and disruption. Gosh no. Please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See And you are lynching Negroes. The amount of disruption you're causing in each and every su8bject you touch is a whole magnitude more serious than any problems I've caused with my 20 or so edits, all well sourced and neutral. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and not even bothering to deny it. And arguing about "old stuff". Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Volunteer Marek said. It's clearly a case of a trolling sock. First, this report has no merit (3RR rule was not broken). I became aware of this when on the article I created (poverty in Poland) I saw a problematic edit summary [88] that clearly implies that the editor's sole reason for reverting was that he followed another editor with the intent to undo his edits (the followed editor was Volunteer Marek). I reverted that inconstructive edit, and repeated it twice more as Patriot Donbass did not provide any reasonable argument for restoring it (I agree with VM that the edit is problematic, as I explained on talk). His edits to that article and talk page seem to fit the description of VM as being disruptive and aiming at creating battleground atmosphere; his edits there are neither neutral or well sources (after running out of reverts, he added another baiting, non-neutral edit - [89]). Further indication that Patriot Donbass is not an innocent newbie can be gleamed from the fact that less than 25 edits and in about one week since creating his new account, this user knows how to file a proper 3RR report, is familiar with the template warning system to issue a {{uw-ew}} warning (in his 22nd edit ever), and shows further familiarity with Wikipedia policies ([90]) as well as (and that's a clincher here) indicates familiarity with my edit history at least as far back as Feb/March when I stood for adminship. I think this is enough to see that we are dealing with a disruptive account, a sock of a more experienced user, in all likelyhood a banned one (or one created to avoid getting the puppetmaster account banned). I'd suggest blocking this account, and if one needs to look for a specific bureacratic justification, please note that this sock is primarily active in topics related to Eastern Europe, thus falling within Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to the Ukrainian topic are all neutrally worded and explained at talk. Unlike Volunteer Marek's, that add loaded language and biased claims. Compare: [91], [92]. It's clear who's following NPOV and who's adding cheap agitprop. And as far as stalking is concerned, it's Marek, who's following my edits, such as the ones I made to New Russia Party. Gubarev was a communist party member before founding the New Russia Party - what kind of a clown would seriously call him a 'far-right figure' anno 2014? It's stupid and I removed it, after a filter had prevented me from arguing the point at talk. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Ukrainian topics are not relevant here; we are talking about you following Volunteer Marek to poverty in Poland article, edit warring there, and adding baiting, disruptive content to the article and its talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See National Bolshevism. Yes there's a faction of "Communist neo-Nazis" in Russia. And that's in the article. And it's well sourced. And you're removing well sourced info to push a POV. And you probably already know all this. But all that is beside the point.

BTW, in regard to that edit filter thing preventing some of your edits - you don't happen to be using a proxy to edit are you? That's what could be causing you problems.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: The content I added to Poverty in Poland was not disruptive. It was and is adequately sourced. If Marek promises not to follow my edits to the Ukrainian topic like he did today [93], then I'll avoid articles related to Poland that he edits just to avoid angering him. But I stand by my words that Marek's edits to Ukrainian topics are practically all highly one-sided. An experienced user should really have at least a pretense of following NPOV.

@VM: where is the source saying Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine is 'national bolshevik' or 'far-right'? Riiight. There aren't any. at least in the respective article. Avoiding emotionally loaded labels in disputed topics is really elementary. And no, I'm not using proxies. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, it's getting besides the point here, but yes, national Bolshevism does exist but it is exactly what it is called: National Bolshevism. It's not fascism. And it's not 'far-right' either. Calling everyone you disagree with a Nazi or a fascist or far-right is a cheap rhetorical trick. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If Marek promises not to follow my edits to the Ukrainian topic like he did today, then I'll avoid articles related to Poland that he edits just to avoid angering him" - I don't think this admission of stalking needs further clarification. Wikipedia is not a place were editors are invited to operate using the attitude "if you leave my articles alone I will not disrupt your articles". If you have disputes with VM on some Ukrainian articles, discuss it there, DO NOT follow him to others just to revert him because you have a dispute with him somewhere else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newby and I made a mistake. A single mistake, as I got angry. How about asking VM politely not to follow dozens of his perceived enemies around Wikipedia, too? Did you see e.g. complaint by B01010100: It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources or by Joe Bodacious: Within minutes he followed me to another article. Over the next few days, VM followed me to a variety of other articles and talk pages, initiating edit wars at two of them. Or by Lokalkosmopolit: Just a few hours after my comment here, Volunteer Marek proceeded to revert my changes to an article he had never edited before. Tell me, Marek, is it your habit to perform 'revenge' edits against everyone who happens to disagree with you?.
What about that? Shall you discuss the issue on Gadu-Gadu? Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for even-handedness let us include the other reverts:

• 09:43, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Piotrus
• 09:06, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Piotrus
• 08:56, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Volunteer Marek
• 23:44, 31 May 2014 MyMoloboaccount reverts Volunteer Marek
• 23:40, 31 May 2014 MyMoloboaccount reverts Volunteer Marek

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]