Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:39, 10 March 2013 view sourceZjarriRrethues (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,995 edits User:Evlekis reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: Locked)← Previous edit Revision as of 21:11, 10 March 2013 view source ItsZippy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers13,923 edits User:Evlekis reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: Locked)Next edit →
Line 341: Line 341:
::::I agree, and thanks. It is up to Zippy and I'll inform him myself. Meanwhile, can I suggest Bbb23 keep watch of the talk page developments because this will need contributions from '''all''' persons. No good the article lying frozen five days only for a relaunch of battleground editing once it is released. ARBMAC is best, but sooner or later somebody will summon a new incarnation of ] (if ] is not the "incumbent", I cannot comment on that) which helps with 1RR, and we won't know who he is until it is too late. ] ('''Евлекис''') (]) 20:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC) ::::I agree, and thanks. It is up to Zippy and I'll inform him myself. Meanwhile, can I suggest Bbb23 keep watch of the talk page developments because this will need contributions from '''all''' persons. No good the article lying frozen five days only for a relaunch of battleground editing once it is released. ARBMAC is best, but sooner or later somebody will summon a new incarnation of ] (if ] is not the "incumbent", I cannot comment on that) which helps with 1RR, and we won't know who he is until it is too late. ] ('''Евлекис''') (]) 20:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't raise this issue but since my name was raised I should respond. There is a concerted effort by ] and his friends to portray all war crimes in Kosovo as Yugoslav war crimes (allegedly to be precise), which detracts from the substance of the sources, the war-crimes, the power relations in the Yugoslav federation, and who the perpetrators were. Yugoslav army (effectively Serbia) did not abduct civilians in Kosovo, it was the paramilitaries and police forces that did. This attitude by Evlakis is specifically designed to confuse the reader and now we have a grand fine mess which he has created in all articles related to war crimes in Kosovo. Similarly, in biography articles of anyone born in Kosovo, Evlakis will list every single administrative division Kosovo was under, deliberately confusing the reader as to the true birthplace of the person, instead of simply stating the geographic location. In every single article mentioning Kosovo Evlakis will make sure to add the highly politicized footnote stating that Kosovo is a disputed territory although articles may be talking about a beauty pageant and nowhere in it is the political status of Kosovo a point of discussion or even mentioned. He would like to think that he wants to be precise, but I find it strange that this position aligns 100% with the political attitude of Serbia towards Kosovo. Among his other sins from my personal experience: reverting citation challenge tags without explanation, adding unspecific sources which upon further examination do not back up citations (i.e. making up citations), attempts to write every name in Kosovo in Albanian latin alphabet and Serb Cyrillic because they were born in Kosovo while denying the same treatment to Serbs born in Kosovo, and aggressive posture against new editors who are turned away in disgust by the reception they receive. The file is quite big should someone want to restore sanity to our corner of Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I didn't raise this issue but since my name was raised I should respond. There is a concerted effort by ] and his friends to portray all war crimes in Kosovo as Yugoslav war crimes (allegedly to be precise), which detracts from the substance of the sources, the war-crimes, the power relations in the Yugoslav federation, and who the perpetrators were. Yugoslav army (effectively Serbia) did not abduct civilians in Kosovo, it was the paramilitaries and police forces that did. This attitude by Evlakis is specifically designed to confuse the reader and now we have a grand fine mess which he has created in all articles related to war crimes in Kosovo. Similarly, in biography articles of anyone born in Kosovo, Evlakis will list every single administrative division Kosovo was under, deliberately confusing the reader as to the true birthplace of the person, instead of simply stating the geographic location. In every single article mentioning Kosovo Evlakis will make sure to add the highly politicized footnote stating that Kosovo is a disputed territory although articles may be talking about a beauty pageant and nowhere in it is the political status of Kosovo a point of discussion or even mentioned. He would like to think that he wants to be precise, but I find it strange that this position aligns 100% with the political attitude of Serbia towards Kosovo. Among his other sins from my personal experience: reverting citation challenge tags without explanation, adding unspecific sources which upon further examination do not back up citations (i.e. making up citations), attempts to write every name in Kosovo in Albanian latin alphabet and Serb Cyrillic because they were born in Kosovo while denying the same treatment to Serbs born in Kosovo, and aggressive posture against new editors who are turned away in disgust by the reception they receive. The file is quite big should someone want to restore sanity to our corner of Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} I have blocked Evlekis for 24 hours. The three-revert rule was broken, and Evlekis should understand our rules on edit warring very well by now. Further, since ] was protected, Evlekis proceeded to continue a different conflict (over a similar issue) at ] . I endorse Bbb23's placing of ] under discretionary sanctions. I am also concerned by the long-term disruption caused by Evlekis and wonder whether a further community review of his actions may be necessary (at ANI or RFCU). Finally, the other editors involved would do well to avoid allowing these edit wars to happen in the first place. I know three reverts are technically allowed, but any amount of edit warring is disruptive, regardless of the number of reverts. Discussion is rarely fruitful when an article is being edited back and forth - if consensus cannot be reached, either seek outside help or cease editing the article. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 21:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:11, 10 March 2013

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    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)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    User:188.216.240.13 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Semi)

    Page: Free Territory of Trieste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 188.216.240.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 13:15, 6 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 541046771 by 89.143.112.161 (talk)")
    2. 13:17, 6 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 541032718 by Geni (talk)")
    3. 13:17, 6 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 540898720 by Aarska (talk)")
    4. 17:59, 6 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542371939 by OniceMars (talk)")
    5. 23:14, 6 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542405837 by 89.143.113.202 (talk)")
    6. 15:20, 7 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
    7. 22:13, 7 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542667074 by Aarska (talk)")
    8. 23:05, 7 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542695306 by Aarska (talk)")
    9. 13:40, 8 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542764761 by Aarska (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Dawn Bard (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:159.53.46.142 reported by User:Wctaiwan (Result: Semi-protected)

    Page: Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 159.53.46.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: (not exact, there have been changes to other parts since)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments: This editor has repeatedly reinserted the same content despite 6 editors either reverting or disagreeing with them. While they have responded on the talk page, they have continued to edit war in the time since.

    Previous POV pushing from IP editors at this page have been dealt with semi-protection for increasing lengths of time, but the problem consistently resumes after protection expires, and the long durations cause a fair bit of collateral damage. If possible, I want to request a topic ban against the editor using IPs within 159.53.0.0/16 for articles related to Taiwan and the Republic of China, broadly constructed, until such a time that they're willing to get an account. (Disclosure: I had unknowingly reached 5 reverts on the same page yesterday and only realised afterwards, though I will note that only 2 of the reverts are related to this incident. I recognise that I may rightfully be blocked over it.) wctaiwan (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

    Note. I've semi-protected the page for a month. If you want a range block, it would be best to list all of the IP addresses involved so a range can be calculated. The range you suggest would hit 65,534 IP addresses. From looking at just a few of the IPs who have edited recently in that range, according to Geolocate, they are corporate IP addresses from JP Morgan Chase; I have no idea how many legitimate edits are done by Chase IPs. Finally, as far as I know, a "topic ban" on a range of IPs is possible only through an edit filter, not a range block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:Yeoberry reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 17:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

    1. 15:42, 8 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Hate group listings */ more about terrorist attack on Family Research Council, SPLC labelling dissenting political groups "hate groups"")

    2. 15:54, 8 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542830830 by Wikiwind (talk) these were not unreliable sources and the Laird Wilcox was only barely mentioned, not described")

    3. 16:13, 8 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542833641 by MrX (talk)not poorly source, the article as is suffers from too much reliance on primary sources which makes this article practically an ad for the SPLC")17:23, 8 March 2013] (edit summary: "previous editor's characterization of my POV tag as "drive by" is simply dishonest. I tried to revise the article some but some reverted. It's clearly a biased article, based mostly on primary sources with alternative sources suppressed.")

    4. 17:30, 8 March 2013 (edit summary: "these are accurate sources that makes important points; this article needs balance")

    • Diff of warning: here

    Comments:

    Editor has been warned about edit-warring in the past. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

    Also check editing history at Family Research Institute and List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups; there's edit-warring going on there, too. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:176.251.25.150 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)

    Page: 2013 Bangladesh protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 176.251.25.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    I am not really involved in editing the article, my single revert was due to the IP having no consensus for his additions. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:TransVannian and User:92.13.78.204 reported by User:92.13.78.204 (Result: Locked for a week)

    Page: Template:Castlevania chronology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TransVannian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 92.13.78.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    92.13.78.204

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    TransVannian

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    92.13.78.204

    TransVannian

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments: i engaged in an edit war with User:TransVannian on this template because i thought his revision constituted as original research and the sources he provided were dubious. he started a discussion on the talk page but i did not participate. i asked him to assume good faith and be civil after he said i was editing anonymously for malicious reasons. he also said he would revert every time i reverted. i no longer wish to edit war but i believe something must be done about this. 92.13.78.204 (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

    I did not engage in any edit war but you did. And why don't you create an account? Of course this user would have been banned in the past. I'm sorry I called you an idiot but it was becaus eyou keep reverting the timeline even after I provided a source for my edit. As far as I know only one reference is required to confirm an edit. Also you say it yourself that you're too are getting an edit war. I do not wish to revert your edits again and again but even after meeting all requirements for properly sourcing an edit. Also I've asked you to create an account so I can post comments on your talk page about this situation and help in solving it. You yourself said this statement "while a consensus can be used to resolve a dispute or resolve a debate, it does not mean contributors cannot make edits consistent with wikipedia's policy without a consensus. contributors have the right to cite the MoS when editing or forming a consensus" while editing the template. Also I do have more than 1 source ready for proving there exists an alternate timeline. I'll provide another one if you want but after that don't say that just two sources don't confirm it. As far as per wiki guidlines only one source is required to confirm an edit. Also I request you again to please create an account. TransVannian (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    If you didn't participate in the discussion that is your fault. I invited you to discuss about this situation. I tried to sort out and discuss this situation with properly but you didn't even discuss. So basically it's more of your fault than mine. But I appreciate that you accepted it and reported yourself too and I apologise for calling you an idiot. I'm really sorry. TransVannian (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    Also I'll like to notify that this user gave himself a block warning. Check his talk page His actions really seem suspicious to me since we all know that it will not prevent a user from editing wikipedia. TransVannian (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Page protected. I locked the template for a week. Both of you are edit-warring. @IP, as you acknowledge, you should have participated in a discussion of the content dispute. @TransVannian, IP-editing is perfectly acceptable; you should stop insisting that the IP create an account. The don't have to. Just as with all editors, they have to edit in good faith and abide by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines - they don't have to create an account. I'm not sure what your basis is for thinking that the IP has been "banned", but you, yourself, have only been editing for a short time on Misplaced Pages, at least under this account. So, unless you have evidence of misconduct, drop the accusations. The two of you can now talk on the template talk page and work this out. If the battle conduct resumes after the lock expires, either or both of you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:HistoryofIran reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

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

    Reverts
    1. 8 March 20:25 (effective rv of this older edit, which was the outcome of much discussion)
    2. 9 March 09:16
    3. 9 March 09:47
    4. 9 March 13:45

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (ignored by HistoryofIran)

    Comments:

    • Edit-warring exacerbated by personal attacks: ("the most stupidest thing i have ever read"), ("can you read English? ... stop vandalism").
    • User also reverts in retaliation on a different article (reinstating a blatantly disruptive edit that broke multiple wikilinks, falsified several literal quotations and turned several passages of text into self-contradictory nonsense.)

    Fut.Perf. 14:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

    I have made some very good edits about a person named Surena, i have even added two sources and made many more things, but this guy keeps deleting it, can you please tell him to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofIran (talkcontribs)

    Update: HistoryofIran is now on the article talk page, and stubbornly refusing to accept that there is such a thing as a WP:RS policy, arguing that he simply knows the truth about this topic because he is Iranian . I have no more patience with this person. Fut.Perf. 17:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I blocked History for longer than usual for a first block because, in addition to violating WP:3RR, they have made personal attacks and been otherwise disruptive in their approach in the short time they've been on Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:Info2012 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

    Page: Indian rupee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Indian rupee sign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Info2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    Note: the user has not yet crossed 3RR, but overall behavior clearly violates WP:EW, will explain below.

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Note that there is a similar sequence of reverts on Indian rupee


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (templated warning by another editor), and a followup personalized one by me at

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussions on the user's talk page at User Talk:Info2012#Your recent edits and User Talk:Info2012#March 2013 as well as WT:INB#Factual Information Vandalization On Multiple Pages

    Comments: As mentioned above, the user hasn't broken 3RR; they're at 3 reverts in 24 hours, and 4 reverts in about 28 hours. But the user's attitude as expressed on his talk page make it very clear that he has no intention of stopping. As he explained on WT:INB, he describes reversions of his edits as vandalism, despite the fact that several other editors have reverted him and explained the problems (WP:DUE and WP:RS mainly). In this diff he called the person reverting him a "Government troll". I have to assume this person is personally connected with the court case he's trying to shoehorn into the article, given the strong emotions he's presenting. Given that reverting and discussion have failed to make any impression, I think we have no choice but to block. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. In addition to the edit-warring in multiple articles, Info2012 has personally attacked editors who don't agree with Info's "truth" (calling an editor a "government troll"). There is a crusading flavor to Info's comments and edits, which is not conducive to improving articles collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:Giorgio Forelli reported by User:Roscelese (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

    Page: Abortion debate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Giorgio Forelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert: Re-adds MEDRS-noncompliant statements after they were removed (This is a revert; see prior history of the article)
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert: n/a, article is under 1RR per ArbCom (and previous community-imposed sanctions)
    • 4th revert: n/a


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - Warning to the user after a previous violation of 1RR

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Some brief discussion on Talk:Abortion debate where GF posted a single time and never responded after his comment was addressed; previous discussion of the source took place at Talk:Abortion in Chile (I'm not sure if GF is the IP there who was editing other users' comments or not). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    Comments:
    Giorgio Forelli is a single-purpose account, the purpose of the account being to add this non-peer-reviewed study to the article in order to push an anti-abortion POV. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:Buthsop reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Malformed)

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

    User's entire contribution history seems to revolve around spamming their Puddle Duck Racer boat design and WP article (now at AfD). This includes spamming ELs, edit-warring, POV See Alsos to the top-level article at Boat with "PDRacer The Easiest Boat To Build Yourself" The article might be notable (it's now at AfD to discuss this), but it's certainly not supported by any non-SPS refs at present. I removed the see also link tonight just to see it return within a couple of minutes. Looking further and this has gone on for a couple of days (EW for sure, probably bright 3RR). GF prompted a warning, and leaving it that, but looking a bit further and this same issue has gone on since 2011 with very little else in the way of edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    • 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..--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation)

    Page: Chinatown (1974 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

    Comments:
    This editor has a long history of edit warring without discussion at articles and has been blocked more than once for same. I want to discuss, but he doesn't seem to be interested. In my opinion, most of his changes to my edits were wording that didn't make the article better, it just reverted back to the wording he inserted previously. I'd like to know why my edits were (in his words) wrong or incorrect, not just that they are wrong or incorrect. One more thing: I reverted back to the changes he had reverted without discussion. At this point, I do wish I hadn't done that and first came here instead. It was my error, and I'm willing to own up to that. Winkelvi (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    • No violation. Ring Cinema has only reverted twice, as have you. Your list of diffs above is incorrect. Please read WP:3RR on what constitutes a revert. Consecutive edits without interruption by another editor cannot be counted as more than one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:86.146.130.247 reported by User:Edinburgh Loon (Result: Locked)

    Page: Matt Fiddes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 86.146.130.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to:

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    • Page protected. I have locked the article for 3 days. Both parties were edit-warring. I have removed the material at issue because of the BLP implications and have commented at an ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN. Whether the material should be included can be decided by consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    User:Evlekis reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: Locked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: (last reverted version but the reverts include other details too)

    • 1st revert: (reverting my restoration of the first version per WP:BRD)
    • 2nd revert: (reverting Guzhinjeri)
    • 3rd revert: (reverting Arianit (Serb forces to Yugoslav troops and Serbia to "Serbia and Montenegro"))
    • 4th revert: (again reverting "Serb forces" to "Yugoslav troops" and Serbia to "Serbia and Montenegro")
    • 5th revert: (readding the "Serbia and Montenegro" part)
    • 6th revert: (reverting bobrayner's and Arianit's latest edits)
    • 7th revert: (reverting bobrayner)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (various comments by involved editors)

    Comments:
    As the content of the reverts indicates Evlekis disputes the use of terms like "Serbian prisons"/"Serb" etc, although they are the terms used by the sources. Throughout the discussions he has often accused others of POV pushing to tarnish the Serbian name. Note that he has a quite long history of receiving the "final warning" message as regards edit-warring--— ZjarriRrethues —  18:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    To the admins. Welcome to ZjarriRrethues' latest smear campaign against an editor merely guilty of introducing precision on a poorly sourced article plagued by ambiguity and tententious content. First, this is negligible - it formed part of a separate dispute for which the other editor and I reached a consensus and the presentation in question remains pursuant to the fellow editor's preference. The fact is that I have made a total of 22 contributions to this article of various descritpion, needless to say, I have also worked hard to bring users to discuss by making 15 contributions to date on Talk:Bardhyl Çaushi. I appreciate that the admin to handle this may not be versed in Balkan affairs but if if I am to refrain from making personal remarks regarding ZjarriRrethues' WP:NPOV issues, then I would be lying if I were not to contend that this user struggles to understand source content and how to use it on Misplaced Pages. For example, my assertion that Serbia in 1999 formed a part of FR Yugoslavia can hardly be POV when it is an unequivocal fact. Indeed some sources may simplify activities from that region so as to brand everything Serbian - that does not mean we must quote the publication verbatim. I've also noticed that ZjarriRrethues - who has evidently taken time to collate his scheme - conveniently "overlooked" this self-revert in all but one element in which I found a more prudent solution, rather than present Serb or Yugoslav, how about state forces - it imparts the correct information that orders came from the top regardless of entity name. Be that as it may, following some discussion on the talk - I began to concede (mainly on the prison affair) but decided to do so cautiously by re-inserting Serbia but parenthesising its status within the contemporary federation. Sadly this was the bone of contention for the three-party alliance (ZjarriRrethues, User:Bobrayner and User:Arianit). Here Arianit has blanked factual and relevant information which he dismisses as POV and wiesel wording but notice that he removes Wikilinks too which corroborate the point. He also earlier removed a valid link here as an "attempt to mislead". Very interesting how neither he nor his allies here have inserted what the real link should be, and let's face it: the biggest subject and reason for the article, should it not be linked? Of course it shouldn't. They have one option if they don't want Military of Serbia and Montenegro which happens to be Serbian Army but given this did not become active until 2006 whilst the subject events were 1999 and 2005, they know it is a misnomer. So who is POV-pushing now? And since this post began, I confess to one more which was to deal with this: from Mr.Rayner. To the admin, I work hard to keep things neutral and it is hard to play fair when up against multiple concerted opponents who game the system by staying on the right side of 3RR. My edits are approved by Antidiskriminator and WhiteWriter but I am not calling for their help on this. Furthermore, I am happy to take more steps back by introducing this section - one in which I am only too happy accept "Serb forces" once a user confirms which paramilitary was involved by citing a source. Instead of that I get no reply except for this 45 minutes later. Everyone is playing a dirty game. I suggest lock the page and push everyone into the discussion hall; still, I bet you will never reach a consensus. The others are not interested in clarity, not interested in facts, not interested in precision, they don't want sidenotes, they don't want disclaimers, they don't want anything other than another page that slings mud at the Serbian nation. Yes there is edit-warring but each user must answer for his own actions, so far the others have not surrendered one iota of content. They are clinging onto the "source" hoax relentlessly, so please take this into consideration. Either close this talk (and lock the page) or block each of us. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Evlekis, on what grounds are you asking other users to be blocked? For example, I made a revert yesterday per WP:BRD and then stuck to the talkpage as is the proper way to deal with disputes. Btw you do realize that accusing other users of "wanting to create pages that sling mud at the Serbian nation", "forming alliances" against you and accusing me specifically of a "smear campaign" against you (although you blatantly breached 3RR and disregarded the sources) is unacceptable and in contrast to every policy and decorum of wikipedia, don't you? And WP:IDHT by asking for sources, which were presented to you in full quotes is disruptive.--— ZjarriRrethues —  19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    Come now ZjarriRrethues, I was on the dirty end of four AN/I inquiries within a short space about six months back and you were instrumental in each of them, whilst you have nothing other than 'soft technicality' on which to blow the whistle. You know very well that the Balkans is a sensitive area yet you never try to edit neutrally, it's your lop-sided angle or nothing at all. We don't see you edit-warring, but why would you need to when you have the whole User:Sinbad Barron franchise or User:Keithstanton who can just "pop up" any time of day or night and restore your edits. It makes no odds to you them getting the block because there is more where they came from, very handy for 1RR ARBMAC issues, and you stay clean as a whistle. Well my friend, it was you that initiated that excuse of an article in the knowledge that you were prepared to sidestep facts for glamourous outlook. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    (unindent)Right..it's all an elaborate conspiracy against you (how does Keithstanton who hasn't even noticed the article relate to this?). Btw for someone who "never" edits neutrally according to you I've done pretty well. Enough said and I'll inform Zippy. Personally, I've had enough mass disruption and ignoring of the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues —  20:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    So you know User:Keithstanton "hasn't noticed the article related to this"? I find this concerning, you may just have said more than you meant. I always suspected that the man behind the mask was a friend of somebody's and now we know for sure. I don't care how many DYK entries you have, you aim to present all pages per your slanted viewpoint once you finally get the operation on the road and that is what counts. You say I ignore sources, STALE - I say that your points are not supported by your sources. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, I "know" that he hasn't noticed it because he hasn't edited it. Seriously, if you want to contribute meaningfully you have to start acknowledging your own disruption instead of looking for "alliances". Btw if you really think that there's some sort of conspiracy against you, take it to WP:AE. Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues —  20:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Page protected. I've locked the article for 5 days. Several editors have been edit-warring on the article, which was recently created by ZjarriRrethues, although the number of Evlekis's reverts outdistances the others. The final warning given by User:ItsZippy to Evlekis was in July 2012. I'm not sure if ItsZippy wants to act on a warning from that long ago. In my view, the article should be under discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC, and I've templated the talk page accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    I agree, and thanks. It is up to Zippy and I'll inform him myself. Meanwhile, can I suggest Bbb23 keep watch of the talk page developments because this will need contributions from all persons. No good the article lying frozen five days only for a relaunch of battleground editing once it is released. ARBMAC is best, but sooner or later somebody will summon a new incarnation of User:Sinbad Barron (if User:Keithstanton is not the "incumbent", I cannot comment on that) which helps with 1RR, and we won't know who he is until it is too late. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    I didn't raise this issue but since my name was raised I should respond. There is a concerted effort by Evlekis and his friends to portray all war crimes in Kosovo as Yugoslav war crimes (allegedly to be precise), which detracts from the substance of the sources, the war-crimes, the power relations in the Yugoslav federation, and who the perpetrators were. Yugoslav army (effectively Serbia) did not abduct civilians in Kosovo, it was the paramilitaries and police forces that did. This attitude by Evlakis is specifically designed to confuse the reader and now we have a grand fine mess which he has created in all articles related to war crimes in Kosovo. Similarly, in biography articles of anyone born in Kosovo, Evlakis will list every single administrative division Kosovo was under, deliberately confusing the reader as to the true birthplace of the person, instead of simply stating the geographic location. In every single article mentioning Kosovo Evlakis will make sure to add the highly politicized footnote stating that Kosovo is a disputed territory although articles may be talking about a beauty pageant and nowhere in it is the political status of Kosovo a point of discussion or even mentioned. He would like to think that he wants to be precise, but I find it strange that this position aligns 100% with the political attitude of Serbia towards Kosovo. Among his other sins from my personal experience: reverting citation challenge tags without explanation, adding unspecific sources which upon further examination do not back up citations (i.e. making up citations), attempts to write every name in Kosovo in Albanian latin alphabet and Serb Cyrillic because they were born in Kosovo while denying the same treatment to Serbs born in Kosovo, and aggressive posture against new editors who are turned away in disgust by the reception they receive. The file is quite big should someone want to restore sanity to our corner of Misplaced Pages. --Arianit (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I have blocked Evlekis for 24 hours. The three-revert rule was broken, and Evlekis should understand our rules on edit warring very well by now. Further, since Bardhyl Çaushi was protected, Evlekis proceeded to continue a different conflict (over a similar issue) at Ukshin Hoti here. I endorse Bbb23's placing of Bardhyl Çaushi under discretionary sanctions. I am also concerned by the long-term disruption caused by Evlekis and wonder whether a further community review of his actions may be necessary (at ANI or RFCU). Finally, the other editors involved would do well to avoid allowing these edit wars to happen in the first place. I know three reverts are technically allowed, but any amount of edit warring is disruptive, regardless of the number of reverts. Discussion is rarely fruitful when an article is being edited back and forth - if consensus cannot be reached, either seek outside help or cease editing the article. ItsZippy 21:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic