Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

Administrator instructions

Noticeboards and related pages (Dashboard)
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Click here to add a new report

If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

Shortcuts:

Use this noticeboard to report active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule.

Listing instructions

  • Do not continue a dispute on this page. You should try to address the problem through dispute resolution. Also consider whether a request for page protection may be appropriate. (Uninvolved users may wish to move disputes to a more appropriate place.)
  • Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption.
  • Please be sure you understand WP:REVERT.
  • If you are reporting a long term edit warrior, please provide diffs of recent disruptive behavior, along with any relevant discussions and warnings.
  • When reporting a user here, inform them of this, possibly in conjunction with the {{uw-3RR}} warning template.
  • Violation of a WP:1RR restriction may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts which happened within a 24-hour period, plus a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed
  • Note that a 3RR report helper tool is available, which assists in diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected. For how to make diffs, see this guide.
Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism.

Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three revert rule

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions.

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


Contents


[edit] User:Greggy123 reported by User:WilliamJE

Page: List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Editor did similar reverts two days ago, with possible sockpuppetry involved.

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


[edit] User:Eschoir reported by User:History2007 (Result: )

There is a WP:3RR situation, as stated here. Four editors have been in discussion and yet the user crossed the line even after being advised to avoid it.

The edits:

I left a message for Eschoir about this. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how to explain this, but after Eschoir was notified of this ANI notice, we received:
with the user crossing the "5RR line". I do not agree with that edit, as it runs against the talk page discussions, but will not revert it, given the situation. Something needs to be done here to make sure policy does not just get ignored at will. History2007 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, is it just me, but are only the first 2 real reverts of the same information? None of the others are related whatsoever. Just because later ones are "against consensus" does not make them 3RR - it's pretty obvious someone needs to follow some WP:DR processes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess I do not understand 3RR. But there are 3 editors who disagree with those edits and Eschoir on the other side. Now if I revert his edit is that an edit war or not? History2007 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and given that there are 3 other editors who question those edits and their sources, at some point WP:Forum needs to be used to avoid general talk and WP:V needs to be respected. History2007 (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
"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." I have difficulty in making this statement in WP:3RR agree with what BWilkins says above about "only the first 2 real reverts of the same information". I presume I am misunderstanding one or other of the statements. Esoglou (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there is no question that Eschoir has crossed the line now, the only remaining question is: "how many times did he cross it?" History2007 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
And we have a potential WP:NPA as well. History2007 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We now have a clear case of WP:NPA. Is WP:NPA beside the point these days, or should something be done here? History2007 (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Eschoir was blocked here for the WP:NPA breach. History2007 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Byelf2007 reported by User:Fsol (Result: )

Page: Libertarianism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Byelf2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [5]

  • 1st revert: [6]
  • 2nd revert: [7]
  • 3rd revert: [8]
  • 4th revert: [9]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:

This issue about the reverted content was also discussed at here after which, user Fifelfoo created a version which seemed agreed by consensus: [12].


[edit] User:Tuzapicabit reported by User:88.104.33.38 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Bucks Fizz (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Tuzapicabit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [13]

  • 1st revert: [14]
  • 2nd revert: [15]
  • 3rd revert: [16]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:

OPTIONAL: THE EDITOR IS BLOCKING GOOD FAITH EDITS ON THE ARTICLE 88.104.33.38 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.. --Chris (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Waffle Runoff and User:212.178.253.145 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: IP blocked 24h)

Page: 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Waffle Runoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 212.178.253.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Waffle Runoff

and 8 more

IP Address

And 8 more.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26], [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: NA - I am not an involved party.

Comments:
Third party reporter, watching article due to related other party. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Handled by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs): IP was Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked for 24 hours and Waffle Runoff (talk · contribs) has been sufficiently warned. --Chris (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wustenfuchs reported by User:DIREKTOR (Result: Page protected)

Page: Croatian language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Note: the Croatian language article is under a 1RR restriction.
User being reported: Wustenfuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28] (at issue is the first paragraph of the lede)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by Wgfinley (talk · contribs) already. --Chris (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. WGFinley (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • WGFinley, Wustenfuchs was in violation of the 1RR restriction - and you're rewarding him by protecting his version on top? And what does the article protection have to do with an edit-warring violation on the part of the user? Why are you punishing the article.. what did it ever do to you :)? -- Director (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Rewarding me?! With what? This should hold stability of the article. The Tavio's (I think it's his user name) edit started long discussion before, wich damaged stability of the article. However, my edit doens't realy change the meaning of anything. --Wustenfuchs 18:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, The Wrong Version has been protected. Discuss the issues on the talk page, work out your differences instead of resorting to reporting other users. Your attempt to work out this disputed was essentially "I'll report you". That's not acceptable. Sometimes valuable contributors are found from discussion of differences once they get some understanding on how these issues work. --WGFinley (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • No. "I'll report you" was my attempt to stop the edit-warring, by bringing to attention the (apparently meaningless) 1RR revert restriction. I resent such an unwarranted derisive tone. Please notice that I myself (and others) already started discussing with Tomboe regarding sources and their support for Taivo's addition [31].
  • I'm not saying the version you protected was "wrong", I'm just pointing out its the same version that was pushed into place by the 1RR violation.
  • Wustenfuchs is no newbie, he's an old (desert) fox :), and he was warned about the 1RR restriction in advance before making it. He "understands how these issues work".
-- Director (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocks and bans are at the discretion of the admins. I've had that page watched for some time due to prior disturbances, I was already protecting the page when you filed this report. I know you are very familiar with the process, now take your concerns to the talk page please. --WGFinley (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ronniesudani reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Dome of the Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Ronniesudani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

[edit] User:Morbidthoughts reported by User:TheBigNatural (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: [43]

Comments:

  • Dear administrators, I just started editing Wikipedia a few days ago, so I apologize if this is not the right noticeboard for this. As you can see, User:Morbidthoughts did not actually violate WP:3RR. However, it is very obvious that he is violating the spirit of the rule as his 1st revert today occurred approximately 24 hours after his last revert from yesterday [44] (please note the time frame). Meanwhile, this user fails to assume good faith and stalked me from the very start [45] [46] (the issue with the other user has been resolved today as the user in question apologized to me for his behavior due to mental health issues and decided to take a break from editing [47]). I patiently explained to him User_talk:TheBigNatural/Archive_1#Bree_Olson_.26_Images but he has ceased responding in the discussion. I posted on his talkpage to warn him about edit warring and explain to him that he does not own all the articles on his watchlist [48]. I have been working diligently on many Jersey Shore related articles I created and have no desire to be dragged to an edit war with this user, but his aggressive behavior and refusal to discuss are not conductive to a harmonious collaborative atmosphere. I think a strong warning is necessary or perhaps a short block. Sorry if this is the wrong place to report this incident. Thank you guys soo much :-)--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – for a period of three days – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.. --Chris (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Chris :-) Can you at least have a chat with this user though? It seems like he is no longer interested in discussing with me. Also User:Morbidthoughts appears to be guilty of canvassing by recruiting User:Nymf, someone I have no interaction with whatsoever. Nymf came out of no where to support Morbidthoughts without stating any reason [49]. Could you please look into this?--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
There has been no canvassing. I have Bree Olson on my watchlist, so that is where I found you. How about you assume some of that good faith that you have been talking about? Nymf hideliho! 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
[50] is canvassing. Just because it is on your talkpage does noto imply you own the article.--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what makes you think I own the article. You seem to be spewing that word around a lot. Cool down! And for the record, I briefly commented on the issue long before that message was left for me (see your own very talk page). I suggest you heed to the advice by the gentleman below. Nymf hideliho! 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed you posted on my talkpage but without saying anything of substance except voicing your support for the individual I was in dispute with. Discussion is currently ongoing on Talk:Bree Olson--TheBigNatural (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, and that same individual just pointed out that it was still an issue. Feel free to bring on the sockpuppet report which you accused me of here. For your information though, you are not going to make friends by throwing words like these around. Nymf hideliho! 20:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs) has opened a thread on Talk:Bree Olson. I'd suggest continuing the discussion there. Allegations of canvassing or sockpuppetry are not going to resolve this dispute. --Chris (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rrrr5 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ica stones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Rrrr5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [51]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ica_stones#Dinosaursandman.com, as well as Wikipedia:RSN#dinosaursandman.com, which he was notified of here

Comments: Big case of WP:IDHT with some WP:FRINGE and WP:SPS material. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lolthatswonderful reported by 68.39.100.32 (Result: both blocked)

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Lolthatswonderful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Difference of one edit on one page

difference of one edit on another page


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion here

Comments:

I have linked only one of the edits on both pages. The user hasn't shown a willingness to talk, even when I have presented opportunities to. There are simply too many reverts to list them. If you wish, I will.68.39.100.32 (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont know anything about this current case. But based on past experience with the article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 and both editor Lolthatswonderful and anonymuse contributer from the IP address 68.39.100.32 I would think that 68 has a big part in the editwar he accusses Lolthatswonderful of making Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually at closer examination I see that at the 1st revert Lolthatswonderful simply is trying to keep a note in the infobox of the article. A note that have been discussed in lenght at the talkpage and where a consencus have been reached a day or two before. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Then why can't Lol say that? My reply to him would be that I have kept everything; just made it neater.68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Added a revert from today. Continuing the Edit war. Can a mod please protect the page for a day? It has nothing to do with notes of any kind. Simply because the user feels that his edit is neater - without discussion.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The user seems to be involved in vandalism acts- such as un-hidding a map; changing references. I undid it this time considering he is going pretty far by unhiding a map which I explicitly explained why I added it the way I did in the first place. He doesn't even give edit summaries most of the time.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:HistoryofKushwaha reported by User:Sitush (Result: Indef)

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


Previous version reverted to: [60]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:HistoryofKushwaha - there are warnings relating to restoration of this specific content all over it. Last was here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kushwaha#Spelling and Talk:Kushwaha#editing

Comments:
This has been a mess of unsourced POV edits from two contributors. The other - Truthalwaystriumphs - was indef'd a few hours ago per WP:NLT. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Truthalwaystriumphs was also reported here - see Wikipedia:3rrnb#User:Truthalwaystriumphs_reported_by_User:Sitush_.28Result:_Indef.29 - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see this as an editor who we need to keep around; I'm blocking indefinitely, which here means until the user can show a basic understanding of NPOV. I won't be holding my breath. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:NatGertler reported by User:Malapterus (Result: Temporary compromise)

Page: One Million Moms As this is the first article I have written I am slow to accuse a more experienced editor of undue bullying. While I am certain my article has been reverted well over three times in 24 hours, being newer I do not know how to prove this.

What I can say, is that this user has been repeatedly making the same changes to the article and has flagged it for speedy deletion twice. Per the Talk [[65]] page, no other user has complained and both deletions have been contested by third parties.

I will say as my first article it may have had issues with tone that suggested bias, but in response to this single user's edits and complaints I have made changes to make the article more balanced. I have also stated repeatedly that I do not intend to write this article by myself and the article will be less biased once constructive editors. The user has repetedly deleted a valid citation and replaced it with 'citation needed,' they have deleted sections and quotations that are also cited. The full page as I have written it is hosted on my Talk page because I really do not know where else to put it.

The worst part of these reversions is that they not only delete content, they also undo edits that I believe anyone would agree are a proper step toward the NPOV which seems to be the cause of the issue. For example, i had origionall posted:

'The group openly states that they are waging a 'culture war.' '

After realizing that was a bit harsh and somewhat less-than-accurate, I replaced it with;

'The group openly refers to their efforts versus these materials as a 'culture war.' '

This is also the line that the user keeps removing my citation from, the citation being this page: [[66]]

Again, I hate to accuse a more experienced editor so early on in my involvement with Wikipedia. However, seeing as the user is the only one voicing an issue with it, they are continually reverting the article, and they are not making constructive edits to improve it, I would have to take this as some manner of bullying. If the article is reverted again I will add the revision to my user talk page.

Malapterus (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

edit- Upon further review it appears that the second request for deletion was in fact done by a second user.

Malapterus (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg No violation. NatGertler has only edited American Family Association (redirected from One Million Moms) four times recently, and they were all consecutive edits, so they can count at most as one revert. This is nowhere close to being an edit war. (Perhaps you meant a different article?) --Chris (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I see, the warring is over the redirect status of One Million Moms. I will take a look. --Chris (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It is also unclear what the Talk:Kushwaha page has to do with anything, as neither of you appear to have edited it, at least within half a year. --Chris (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the time I have posted this, someone has completely deleted the article and replaced it with a redirect to American Family Association. I am not sure how the Kuwasha link got into this, it must have been an accident and belongs most likely on the prior user's complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malapterus (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It looks like when you created your report, you not only intertwined your content into their report but removed some of their report as well: [67]. In the future, please use the big "Click here to add a new report" link at the top of the page to avoid corrupting other editors' reports. --Chris (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
sorry! I will use said button in case of any future reports, though I hope there will not be any. Malapterus (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time it has been a redirect, it only happened after I posted a warning on the Talk page. Preivously the page was contiunually reverted to a simplified form lacking information and missing pertinient revisions.

Malapterus (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that though I disagree with this user, I have left their note at the top of the page that its neutrality is in question. I removed a note stating that it was a biographical artcile needing completed, and put the Incomplete note on there myself. I want this article to stand on its own as it covers a relevant subject that persons should have access to information about.

I do not know if I am supposed to keep 'defending' the article so as it stands I will not restore it from its current redirect status until I get some indication here that it is acceptable to do so. Malapterus (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point I would say you should use the talk page to try to engage the other editors in discussion and try to argue your case. If the edit war continues much longer I will probably just protect the article anyway to force discussion. It would be better to discuss before reaching that point. --Chris (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no edit warring over the redirect status. I boldly redirected it because with one independent source it didn't appear it needed its own article. No edits have happened to the article since I redirected it. GB fan 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I made that comment after a quick look at the history, since I was going to investigate it further. There does seem to be a content dispute regarding the pre-redirect state of the article, and that appears to be what this report is about. If all parties agree that a redirect is sufficient then there is nothing to address here. Otherwise, there really should be a discussion. Stepping all over each other with only limited attempts at discussion on the talk page isn't a good way to approach a dispute. --Chris (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree that a redirect is sufficient. The group is important enough to have been mentioned on nationwide daytime television and has alleged to have had effect on many programs and advertisers. I will restore it to its own article and attempt to spark a real discussion as to whether it is valid. While the article has limited sources, it has only been around for a day, and with such interest in the subject I am confident that other users will add sources and valuable information as time progresses. Malapterus (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Then please discuss any disputes on the article's talk page as they arise. Follow the WP:BRD process. --Chris (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
As the accused user, let me note that the central claim, "this user has been repeatedly making the same changes to the article and has flagged it for speedy deletion twice", is quite simply false. I have flagged it for Speed Deletion zero, count 'em, zero times. User:Antoshi flagged it for speedy in this edit and this edit. That ain't me. Have I edited this article? Yes. In addition to various spelling and capitalization clean-ups, I have deleted an unsourced claim that the subject of the article was a "terrorist group", have removed WP:OR used for a criticism section, removed a quote that was used to say that the group had stated they were engaging in "culture war" when the quote merely asked someone else to stay out of a culture war. Oh, and I deleted a statement that the group's facebook page said the group had 40,000 members when all the facebook page said was that the page had been "liked" 40,000 times. I may have made that change twice, so there may have been a repeated change... but he's inserted it at least three times (the third of which I responded to at Talk), as well as reverting other edits from other editors. And yes, I tagged the page for POV concerns as it as clear that User:Malapterus was trying to build an attack page. The accusing user seems to be blaming me for every edit that has occurred in the article, when many of those have been by other editors and the blame for almost all of them lands at the accuser's feet, for they were almost all appropriate edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I have added a note to the top of the page requesting people discuss the article prior to changing existing information. Please let me know if there is a better way to do this than I have done. With that, I will leave this matter up to the Talk page and hope a global consensus can be reached. Malapterus (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Malapterus is clearly building an attack page that can be considered vandalism. NatGertler has done nothing wrong. On a relevant side note, I have redirected the article. It has gotten out of hand. Malapterus is free to work on it in userspace and improve neutrality then bring it back. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. Malapterus has userfied the article and the mainspace article will remain a redirect for now. --Chris (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] IP 78.154.126.122 (Result: 24 hours)

WP:3RR broken here - no discussion on that talk page or reply on IP's own, unreasonable behavior. Suggest block. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR was never technically broken... there were three reverts over a period of about 26 hours. 3RR indicates that there must be no more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. So the user would have had to revert once more, and have reverted in a shorter span of time. Nevertheless, the edit warring is persistent and 3RR is not a license to revert, so Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. --Chris (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
OK thanx! Now I know for next time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Avaya1 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: )

Page: Alawi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [68]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:

He's been reverted by two users, me and Funkmonk. Also this source he provided actually supports my version, as i have explained on the talk page. Pass a Method talk 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zredsox reported by User:Night w (Result: Warned )

Page: List of countries by GDP (nominal) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Zredsox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Comments:
I've been keeping an eye on this page since an IP edit warrior hijacked it less than a week ago, evaded a 3RR block twice and loudly trumpeted his intention to disrupt the project until his demands were met—see archived report. In his last statement, miffed about the inclusion of the EU on this list, said that other trade unions and California should be added to the list for comparison.

Now, in the reported user's first edit after a lengthy wikibreak, he's begun an edit war to do exactly what the IP was demanding. The list of IPs used:

I've alerted the admins that helped settle this a few days ago. Nightw 15:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not broken 3RR. I was only defending my changes from unsupported, reflexive reverts. I have extensively laid out the reasons for the changes in the article on the talk page. These reasons have been ignored in a flippant fashion and no one seems to be taking the time to understand the very clear logic. Rather, the modus operandi is to revert to the stale version based on aged arguments. Nightw has stated that the lists must be single source. Well, if that is the case the NAFTA data comes from the IMF and thus can be included on the IMF list. Nightw says that mixing data is a bad thing. Yet, all the lists are referenced to sources which do not include the EU. Instead, a separate reference is used to mix the EU into the primary list. A moment needs to be taken to step back from the article and approach it in an objective manner as well as listening to the discussion rather than acting on reflex. zredsox (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
An extremely clear case of edit-warring. Have you ever read the bold, revert, discuss concept? You may not edit war, even if you believe you're right. If you have indeed also been editing the same article(s) while logged in AND while logged out, you're violating WP:SOCK. I would appreciate hearing your response. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I have nothing to add. The system here is so flawed that it is almost impossible to gain any traction even when offering a valid argument. There is no such thing as consensus on the page in question. The page was set in stone by a popularity contest years ago. Attempts to break the status quo are repelled with the vigor of bees protecting the hive (mentality.) If you would take a moment to read my statements on that talk page, you would see I have taken the time to dispel aged logic (ie. NAFTA is a trade block. NAFTA does come from the single source cited. The EU is not an IMF member, etc) and used facts and references to back up my statements. Yet it won't change a thing as that false, assumptive mythos is built in to every revert and every counterpoint on that page, everyday. Thus, I am going to self remove myself from this discussion and the GDP discussion being it would be counterproductive for me to attempt to bring a rational point of view to the conversation when it is so clearly shaded. I bid you adieu. zredsox (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Before you take your ball and go home, I'll happily introduce you to dispute resolution processes. Yes, consensus may be a popularity contest at times - but that's how this project operates, and good editors learn how to work within the framework, not by railing against it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned The warning includes both EW and SOCK, and hopefully the editor has learned about WP:DR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ronniesudani reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: A week)

Page: Dome of the Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User being reported: Ronniesudani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Comments:

The editor was recently blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on this article and others, where she/he is inserting "The Noble Sanctuary" in lieu of "Temple Mount". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:DisneyCSIfan reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: )

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


Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:
DisneyCSIfan has been edit-warring over maintenance templates and his addition of blatantly promotional language lifted directly from the Dish Network website. This editor also appears to have ownership issues on the article as well: this edit summary "like I'm actually going to do what u say. By the way, leave this page alone!") is especially egregious. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=476202380"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages