Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 236: Line 236:
9th revert by Fyunck(click): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Grand_Slam_Women%27s_Singles_champions&diff=301529418&oldid=301524487 11:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)] [[User:Chidel|Chidel]] ([[User talk:Chidel|talk]]) 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
9th revert by Fyunck(click): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Grand_Slam_Women%27s_Singles_champions&diff=301529418&oldid=301524487 11:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)] [[User:Chidel|Chidel]] ([[User talk:Chidel|talk]]) 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you [[User:tennis_expert|Tennis Expert]]/[[User:Chidel|Chidel]]. That must be 10 for you and Ryoung122. At least mine are sourced. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you [[User:tennis_expert|Tennis Expert]]/[[User:Chidel|Chidel]]. That must be 10 for you and Ryoung122. At least mine are sourced. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fyunck(click)'s edits have included such unsourced fantasies that the French Open began in 1925...yet even the Roland Garros website says 1891:

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/pastwinners.html

His edits are, therefore, unsourced, because the sources he is adding do NOT support his contentions.

Clearly, what he is doing is edit-warring, but trying to get around that on the technicality of not reverting several times in a day. Nonetheless, his edits are damaging to Wikipedia and those that read the articles because he is not following the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, which require articles to reflect major, mainstream sources, not one's own POV bias. Sources as varied as ESPN, the World Almanac, and the Encyclopedia Britannica list all the major winners, back to the start. Thus, his deletion of the names of French pre-1925 winners is a particularly egregious offense.

Also, Fyunclick has overemphasized "grand slam counts" when most major sources vary in their presentation...some count just open-era; some count all titles back to the start. Some don't count those before the advent of the challenge round. Historically, the idea of the "Grand Slam" did not even exist until Don Budge won four major tournaments in 1938, when the idea that these were the top-four coalesced gradually, over time. Since all sources do not agree on the second major issue...counting career slam titles...the appropriate response, in line with Wikipedia's calls for a pluralistic approach, is to have lists for any major way to count. This has already been done with pre-Open and Open-era counts. There is no reason why a similar approach could not be done with the pre-1925/post-1925 French Open winners. To do so would allow the reader to decide which version of events they wish to support. Currently, Fyunclick is attempting to impose his WP:OWN-violating, single "hardline" POV, which is also biased because though it excludes early French winners, it includes the early winners of other tournament that were no open to international competition, such as the US Open in 1881.[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:red">Ryoung</span><span style="color:blue">122</span>]] 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


== [[User:Scribner]] reported by [[User:JohnnyLH]] (Result: No action) ==
== [[User:Scribner]] reported by [[User:JohnnyLH]] (Result: No action) ==

Revision as of 08:14, 12 July 2009

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Mesoso2 reported by User:Pdfpdf on behalf of those at User talk:Mesoso2 (result: more info)

    This user likes to edit war. He pays no attention to wiki ettiquette. He makes wholesale changes without discussion, then insists that someone else defend the status quo, rather than he justifies his changes. When asked to discuss, he preaches. He pays no attention to the information brought to his attention by others. The list of "transgressions" and "irritations" since 21 June is quite large. Most recent behaviour illustrated at:

    I have no interest in putting up with him, but on the other hand, the articles he is attacking are the result of much work and consensus by many editors, and I am loath to allow this person to destroy all that work. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No idea what you're on about guv. This is WP:AN3. Or possibly WP:ANEW, depending on where you came from. Have you considered using the template? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response.
    "No idea what you're on about guv." - No idea at all? Oh dear. All right, being blunt, this guy is a pain-in-the-neck (and all the other places you don't want to get a pain in.) How does one communicate some reality to him? (Does that help?)
    "This is WP:AN3." - Yes; a.k.a. "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring". My opening sentence was "This user likes to edit war." (Yes, AP:ANEW points here too.) I don't understand whether you are asking me a question or telling me something, and in either case, I don't understand what you are asking/telling.
    "Have you considered using the template?" - Yes. At length. None of them seemed relevant.
    Any and all suggestions and help will be appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your complaint here is vague and is not properly formatted as a 3RR case, using diffs. (See top of this page). You haven't even specified the articles where edit-warring has occurred. However, a better-organized report on his actions has already been made over at WT:MILHIST#General.2FAdmiral Stars rank articles. You should invite Mesoso2 to join that discussion. If he will not discuss, but continues to make reverts that do not have consensus, open a new complaint here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your complaint here is vague" - Agreed. It's more a "request for information" than a specific complaint, viz: "How does one communicate some reality to him?" Perhaps I should be making this request on a different page? If so, please advise.
    "and is not properly formatted as a 3RR case, using diffs." - I don't understand. It is not a "3RR case". It is a case of "edit warring", so of course it isn't formatted as a 3RR case ...
    "You haven't even specified the articles where edit-warring has occurred." - Errrrr. Pardon? Did you not read:
    Most recent behaviour illustrated at:
    "However, a better-organized report ... " - Errrrr. Yes. I know. I wrote half of it. And in this posting I included a link to it. (i.e. please re-read the above bullet point.) I don't understand what you're trying to communicate.
    "You should invite ... " - Errrr. I gather you have read the reference you are quoting? If so, you should already know that he has been asked, he hasn't responded, and he is continuing his behaviour. That's why I made this posting. Why do I need to open a new complaint? I have already made this complaint.
    I'm afraid your posting doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah ha. I have just worked out what you mean by THE template ...
    I think I am in the wrong place.
    Can someone please advise which is the "right" place to get advice on dealing with a user who likes to edit war, and pays no attention to wiki ettiquette? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Undid Pdfpdf's strikeout of the complaint. There was nothing wrong with making the report here, and it is now answered. Any further discussion can occur elsewhere. I have suggested some other options to Pdfpdf. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe i was edit warring, my perspective is that it is Pdfpdf who was edit warring, since my edits were legitimate and factually based, and pdfpdf had no factual or encyclopedic basis for his reversions. I was making bold edits and pdfpdf didn't like it so started to reverse any edit i make. I beleive that this means pdfpdf is being difficult and obstructive, not me. Mesoso2 (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever.
    As I stated, I thought this page was for something else.
    When I realised what it was for, I struck through my posting because I don't have the sort of complaint that this page is for. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Mesoso2: "I don't believe i was edit warring" - Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. Mesoso2 has his own selective view of reality that isn't supported by the facts. That's his problem, not mine. And I'm not about to let him try to make it into my problem.
    If we look at the facts (no, not my opinion, the facts):
    1) Several people have complained, not just me.
    2) I'm not warring - examine the evidence.
    3) Mesoso2's edits are to replace what's there with his opinions - not with fact. Also, I have yet to see Mesoso2 provide any supporting evidence for any of his opinions.
    4) Mesoso2 ignores consensus.
    5) Mesoso2 ignores wiki ettiquette.
    6) Mesoso2 doesn't understand the difference between "bold" and "rude and inconsiderate".
    7) Mesoso2 pays NO attention to what people say to him. (e.g. I do not "dislike" his edits; I dislike his behaviour. I've told him that at least twice. And I am but one of many on his talk page who have politely tried to tell him that.)
    8) Mesoso2 isn't very interested in facts - only in his view of the world. Dozens of people have reverted his illadvised & unjustified edits. Not just me. Again, examine the evidence.
    Etc.
    That's the last anyone will hear from me in this particular subsection.
    Consistent with the advice I have received (from William M. Connolley and EdJohnston), if I consider that Mesoso2's behaviour becomes intollerable, I will return and use "the template".
    Mesoso2 is a nuisance and a great waster of other people's time.
    He is well intentioned, but completely unaware of the impact he has on other people, (even when they politely go to the effort of telling him!)
    I hope I NEVER cross paths with him again. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NRen2k5 reported by User:PrBeacon (Result: Stale)

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]
    • 1st revert: [2] 08:50, 26 June 2009
    • 2nd revert: [3] 20:21, 30 June 2009
    • 3rd revert: [4] 05:28, 1 July 2009
    • 4th revert: [5] 00:24, 2 July 2009
    • 5th revert: [6] 00:45, 2 July 2009
    • 6th revert: [7] 00:49, 2 July 2009
    • 7th revert: [8] 01:12, 2 July 2009
    • 8th revert: [9] 01:22, 2 July 2009
    • 9th revert: [10] 01:33, 2 July 2009
    • 3RR warning earlier by 3rd editor: [11]

    We were both involved in the edit war, which I now regret. However, the user NRen2k5 was the first of us to report the other here [12], so I'm the one who got blocked. And the blocking admin Rjanag neglected to warn NRen2k5 or take any other action against him.

    NRen2k5 also misrepresents his "attempt at communication" -- he used profanity during the edit warring [13] (and another example, earlier [14]) as well as childish insults (and removing my words from my own talk page) [15].

    At the time I was unaware of the wiki-policy about editing archives (since the ANI archive does not have the header info/warning that other archives do), and I did not think the warning from the user NRen2k5 was valid, nor objective. His judgement is clouded by both his COI and his subjective involvement in the edit/revert war, and he continually understates his role in disputes.

    Thank you.Fhue->PrBeacon (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Stale. It is unlikely that this board would ever take action on a 3RR case that is five days old. Anyway, I thought you were unblocked only so you could request a rename. I recommend that you wait for the rename to go through before making any more requests for admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - He was blocked for just a little over a day for 3RR (the same one he’s reporting me for here), during which time a passing admin indef blocked him for the supposedly inappropriate name. The name change is in the works, and the admin decided that the old name isn’t too bad, so he can continue editing with it while the change is being processed. So as far as I know, he’s in the clear. — NRen2k5(TALK), 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but can this judgement of 'Stale' be appealed?
    Since I was blocked for the 3RR and then for username, I never had a chance to report this in time. I still think it's unfair for the other editor to get off scot-free without so much as even a warning. PrBeacon (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:79.97.98.207 reported by User:Irtrav (Result: 48 hours)

    I'm going to break the template here, which I will first off give my apologies for.

    But short and sweet, seems this user is edit warring with anyone and everyone, more over, specifically regarding "plus size/overweight" women.

    Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torrid&diff=prev&oldid=300987065 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hot_Topic&diff=prev&oldid=300986918 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plus-size_model&diff=prev&oldid=300986759 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fire_safe_cigarettes&diff=prev&oldid=300986214

    Seems the user in question was previously banned for edit warring, too.

    Again, sorry for template breaking.

    Peace and love.

    irtrav (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Osprey9713 reported by User:SkyWriter (Result: 24 hours)

    User Osprey has been engaged in a long term edit war on the article Rapture -- continually reverting and warring against a consensus of at least 4 editors. A simple look at the history of this page will show repeated reverts involving a good number of editors all trying to maintain stability against his reverts.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [[16]] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

    These are just the most recent. It's been going on for weeks now.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    User:SkyWriter has consistently used original research to control this article. all sources have been demonstrated to be false quotations or non-existent. I have continually warned him to provide accurate source material. Author appears to be using several usernames to do multiple edits. The views of this article do not reflect the consensus of organizations that this article describes Osprey9713 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "other" user names are other editors. Osprey continues to ignore well known notable and verifiable sources, many of which have their own articles which also list their views relevant to the subject. I don't have time and neither do the other editors. Osprey needs to be advised on the proper use of collaboration in editing.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally -- I've tried to communicate with him off the talk page, but he routinely blanks his own talk page. From what I can tell, he also appears to be edit warring on a few other pages.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Osprey9713 has been reverted by Barrylb, Lamorak, TKempis, SkyWriter, and me. SkyWriter in the past has expressed his willingness to incorporate almost all of Osprey9713's proposed changes somewhere in the article, but keeps trying to force his own preferred version. Clearly there are improvements to be made, but Osprey9713's slow-motion persistent edit warring is making that difficult. Tom Harrison Talk 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This warning was invalid, because I had not reverted the article three times within 24hrs. As has been done by these users.
    I have provided several sources on the talk page that demonstrate that the article is incorrect, and that these editors statements are original research and not supported by an organization or notable people. Wikipedia has a standard of excellence that shouldnt be thwarted by a few editors with an agenda. These editors refuse to deal with the evidence that I have added to the talk page, and instead are pursuing a smear campaign. They have done this previous with other users such as rossnixon in the past. If they can demonstrate that their views are true, then their edits will remain and I will be fine with them. I am willing to resolve the problems, but the users are unwilling to provide quotations references or any evidence that supports their Original Research Osprey9713 (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    additionally reverts have been done without reason. I have contributed valuable information that has been recklessly reverted, which is vandalism. Osprey9713 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this noticeboard is not for content disputes. It is not a place for arguing over who is right and wrong; it's only a place for determining if edit warring has taken place. Wikipedia's edit warring policy states that you should not edit war in an article, even if you are right and everyone else is wrong; it's your responsibility to convince everyone of that at the article's talk page.
    I have my hands a bit full at the moment so I probably won't make the final call on this report, but my impression is that Osprey9713 needs to understand the edit warring rules and the use of talk pages, and should be blocked if he makes another revert without consensus after a warning (such as this very one) has been issued here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Every edit that I have made has been reverted, including adding a npov tag to the page. Osprey9713 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the case. The current revision of the article is your preferred version, which you reverted to at 20:25, 8 July 2009. Tom Harrison Talk 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not the case for his PREVIOUS edit warring, in which I managed to get 100% of his additional information -- verbatim -- into the dispensationalist subsection of the article to which it applied. But he was even reverting THAT, in spite of the fact that his info was all in there.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This post and the subsequent revert show that he understands the 3RR policy already. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fyunck(click) reported by User:Chidel (Initial result: No Violation) (Result after update: )

    Chidel (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this has already been filed with mediators days before this, to comment on the crux of the matter is really pointless here. I will only say that one person cannot make an edit war and Chidel didn't warn himself or the other party involved. How fair is that? To be fair Chidel is brand new to wiki so he may not realized all that was said (even behind channels) two years ago. As I said this is why I brought it to the attention of Wiki administrators a week ago and by email. The only thing I think that was not mentioned was the fact that there were two pages of charts one of which was deleted recently. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation of the three-revert rule has occured here. J.delanoygabsadds 23:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got to be kidding! Fyunck clearly has been edit warring. Did you look at the diffs? Chidel (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:J.delanoy believes that this page may be used only to report violations of the three-revert rule. Is that true? I thought this page could be used to report edit warring also. If this page is not the appropriate venue, what is? Thanks. Chidel (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, "they" (whoever "they" are) authorized you to edit war? Where exactly is their intervention in evidence? Chidel (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be surprising if Chidel was new to Wikipedia - 16 days on and already here and a number of less than normal pages for newbies - no this is an editor with some history, and possibly an interest in picking at old bones of contention.--VS talk 08:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    His edit warring is continuing:

    User:Fyunck(click) reported by User:Chidel (Result: No Violation) (Result after update: )

    Chidel (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this has already been filed with mediators days before this, to comment on the crux of the matter is really pointless here. I will only say that one person cannot make an edit war and Chidel didn't warn himself or the other party involved. How fair is that? To be fair Chidel is brand new to wiki so he may not realized all that was said (even behind channels) two years ago. As I said this is why I brought it to the attention of Wiki administrators a week ago and by email. The only thing I think that was not mentioned was the fact that there were two pages of charts one of which was deleted recently. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, "they" (whoever "they" are) authorized you to edit war? Where exactly is their intervention in evidence? Chidel (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not observe clear edit-warring here (although the final set of 4 edits are the same they occur over 3 days). Fyunck should probably go into further discussion on the re-adding of this reference but there is certainly no breach of 3RR in this complaint.--VS talk 09:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    His edit warring is continuing.

    You know, I could be just like Chidel and total up the reverts he and Ryoung122 have imposed on my sourced material but it seems counterproductive and petty. Those two must have one more revert than mine. It seems Chidel and Ryoung122 should be at the top of their own list and that there might be a bit of bias in his posting this here. This is why I brought this to a mediator's attention long before this. Chidel, are you ex Tennis Expert? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    9th revert by Fyunck(click): 11:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Chidel (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Tennis Expert/Chidel. That must be 10 for you and Ryoung122. At least mine are sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fyunck(click)'s edits have included such unsourced fantasies that the French Open began in 1925...yet even the Roland Garros website says 1891:

    http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/pastwinners.html

    His edits are, therefore, unsourced, because the sources he is adding do NOT support his contentions.

    Clearly, what he is doing is edit-warring, but trying to get around that on the technicality of not reverting several times in a day. Nonetheless, his edits are damaging to Wikipedia and those that read the articles because he is not following the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, which require articles to reflect major, mainstream sources, not one's own POV bias. Sources as varied as ESPN, the World Almanac, and the Encyclopedia Britannica list all the major winners, back to the start. Thus, his deletion of the names of French pre-1925 winners is a particularly egregious offense.

    Also, Fyunclick has overemphasized "grand slam counts" when most major sources vary in their presentation...some count just open-era; some count all titles back to the start. Some don't count those before the advent of the challenge round. Historically, the idea of the "Grand Slam" did not even exist until Don Budge won four major tournaments in 1938, when the idea that these were the top-four coalesced gradually, over time. Since all sources do not agree on the second major issue...counting career slam titles...the appropriate response, in line with Wikipedia's calls for a pluralistic approach, is to have lists for any major way to count. This has already been done with pre-Open and Open-era counts. There is no reason why a similar approach could not be done with the pre-1925/post-1925 French Open winners. To do so would allow the reader to decide which version of events they wish to support. Currently, Fyunclick is attempting to impose his WP:OWN-violating, single "hardline" POV, which is also biased because though it excludes early French winners, it includes the early winners of other tournament that were no open to international competition, such as the US Open in 1881.Ryoung122 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scribner reported by User:JohnnyLH (Result: No action)


    • Previous version reverted to: [22]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [27]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

    I took exception to this user's behavior so I started a discussion about it on their talk page. They then deleted my discussion completely without responding to it, and continued to do so everytime I reposted it. Then they threatened me with an edit war when it was them who was edit warring. The first step of mediation--which I looked into--is to discuss the matter on the user's talk page. How can I do that, though, when everytime I post a topic they delete it completely without responding and then threaten me? I know it is against policy to delete topics off of your talk pahge without responding to them, which is what this user did. Then they threatened me for the same thing they did first. then, just now, they deleted all of it again as well as the warning I issued. Also sorry if I made any mistakes because this is the first time I have ever had to do this.JohnnyLH (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Deletion of comments from a user's own talk page is entirely within the user's prerogative. Restoring deleted text is the issue that can be construed as edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK I am not an experienced user so please advise as to how I should proceed when I try to go about the prescribed policy and then the user just deletes my concerns without responding? Is that not a hostile act? Please advise as to how I should proceeed since I don't believe this user is acting within the spirit of wikipedia. thnks! JohnnyLH (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The best way to proceed is for both of you just to forget this and leave each other alone. What are you even fighting about to begin with? A disagreement over behavior? If it's not affecting you, just let go of it. It seems that you are both making a big deal out of a trivial thing, and rather than continuing to have a fuss about it you could both just go pay attention to something else. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: See the report two below this; these users have both reported each other. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is over the Paul Krugman BLP article. Mostly petty conservative attacks on Krugman's BLP. JohnnyLH hasn't commented once on the article talk page, per policy, but he's sure spent some time on my talk page. Tiresome sock. Scribner (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - No action. Scribner should be careful not to edit war on the Paul Krugman article. He has been blocked four times already. One block was for 72 hours on this very article! That block was lifted with a suggestion of better behavior in the future, and we are still looking forward to that. Scribner only got up to three reverts this time, but I think that is still too many. JohnnyLH was inappropriately restoring his own comments at User talk:Scribner after they had been removed by Scribner, but he stopped as soon as the rule was pointed out to him. Brand new editors such as JohnnyLH (July 1) are well-advised to stay out of hot controversies until they have a track record. That could what Scribner is hinting at with his 'sock' comments, but he should stop using that language unless he wants to take it to WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChinaHistorian reported by User:Rjanag (Result: 24h to ChinaHistorian)

    Page
    July 2009 Ürümqi riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Previous version reverted to: [29]


    • 1st revert: [30] (reverted me)
    • 2nd revert: [31] (reverted me)
    • 3rd revert: [32] (reverted J Milburn)
    • 4th revert: [33] (adding disputed image again)
    • 5th revert: [34] (re-adding image, note removal of comment-out formatting)


    Page
    Rebiya Kadeer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Prev version reverted to: [35] (image added at bottom of diff)
    • 1st revert: [36] (reverting me)
    • 2nd revert: [37] (reverting J Milburn)


    Page
    File:Rebiya-use-old-fake-photo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Prev version reverted to: [38]
    • 1st revert: [39] (removal of speedy deletion tags, reverted me and Polly)
    • 2nd revert: [40] (reverted me)
    • 3rd revert: [41] (reverted me)
    • 4th revert: [42] (reverted me)
    • 5th revert: [43] reverted an IP


    Explanation
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [44]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

    User is edit warring across two articles and a file page, over the inclusion of a non-free image. Other editors and I have removed the image from articles because it doesn't meet NFCC, and user has repeatedly restored them. When the image was tagged with {{di-orphaned fair use}}, he has repeatedly removed the tag. He is also trolling Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots (for example, calling editors Uyghur separatists, and repeatedly saying that he needs to let the "truth" out and removal of his copyvio image is "suppression of the truth"). I am asking that the user be blocked for a long enough period to keep him from POV-pushing and trolling while this event is still major news, and the image be deleted (faster than it normally would be by normal image processes) because of the controversial nature of the issue in question, and the fact that it violates Wikipedia's fair-use guidelines (as explained in the "diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - 24 hours block for ChinaHistorian. Block made by SarekOfVulcan (I can't issue a block since I'm not registered). This user should be blocked a few hours ago. Watch for his/her action after the block is lifted. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JohnnyLH reported by User:Scribner (Result: No action)


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



    • Personal attack warning: [51]

    Obvious sock adding personal attacks to my user page, which I've warned against. User Continues to revert on my user page.Scribner (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't an edit war, all the diffs you've given are of different things and in any case it's on a talk page. Plus, I don't see "personal attacks"--of the four diffs you give, some are removal of talk page posts, and one is just a spelling change. This is probably not the right forum for you to be posting this. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: See the report two above this; these users have both reported each other. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - No action, see the corresponding complaint by JohnnyLH above. Don't keep making sock charges unless you want to take it to WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:R7604 reported by User:Thirteen squared (Result: prot)

    • Previous version: [52]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

    User behavior is also being discussed at WP:ANI right now. Also, this is a repeat report from earlier. I didn't realize there was a form for this. I will be removing the other one once this has been posted. --132 01:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected the page. No objection if someone else wants to unprotect and block instead. Tom Harrison Talk 13:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.220.43.195 reported by User:JD554 (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [59]



    • Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

    The 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th reverts breached WP:3RR following the 3RR warning, the IP has continued revert any attempt my numerous other editors to show that New Order are no longer together. Foetusized attempted to discuss the issue with the IP on the article's talk page (diff) and the IP also joined in the discussion, however, continuing to revert on the article and also disrupting other articles in an attempt to point score (diff and diff). Despite being provided with a reliable source which confirms the break up (diff) the IP rejected it stating that a direct quote from the band was required (diff). Despite it being pointed out to the IP that the newspaper article is a reliable source and meets Wikipedia's policy on verifiability (diff), the IP has continued to revert against consensus while also engaging in a personal attack (diff). --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    48h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William Allen Simpson reported by User:Debresser (Result: No vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [60] (the last version before the edit warring started, reflecting consensus since 8 October 2007)



    • Diff of edit warring warning: [64]
    1. User has been blocked before for engaging in edit war, when he actually violated the 3RR rule. See User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson#User_notice:_temporary_3RR_block.
    2. I would like preventive action to be taken, before we get trouble with a real edit war or the 3RR rule. I propose a warning to User:William Allen Simpson to refrain from making edits while consensus is being build. Notice that both on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_6#July_6 and on this article consensus seems to be against him, as witnessed by the fact that another editor apart from me also has reverted him here. Protection of the page seems to be unjustified, since the problem is caused by this one editor only. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    n.b. User notified, see [65]. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - No vio. Removing unsourced controversial items from a BLP article is an exception under the WP:3RR policy. Now I see at Talk:Wieland Speck#LGBT that someone has found a book reference to show that this director is gay, so the controversy should be over. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the source has been added, I hope this issue is now finished. But EdJohnston is mistaken, because User:William Allen Simpson did not remove unsourced information. The unsourced information was left in the article, just the connected category was removed. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Simonm223 reported by User:Asdfg12345 (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [66]


    9 July

    • 1st revert: [67]
    • 2nd revert: [68]
    • 3rd revert: [69]
    • 4th revert (not happened yet)

    Now if you look at the page history, you'll see quite a long of back and forth. The fact is, it only becomes real edit-warring here. this is because up until then it was not straight deletions and restorations of the same piece of text, but iterations and content changes. Then it reached the natural conclusion, and was taken to a third party opinion about reliable sources, here. Simonm223 has not made any remarks on the talk page, or responded to that opinion. The talk page argumentation cites policies and so forth, and since there was no agreement I took it to a third party. Of course, the opinion of another wikipedian is not binding on content, but what is clear here is that Simonm223 is editing against the consensus of three editors, who have cited policy and argued for the wording that he is removing. Simonm223 has presented no argument against this, has not responded to the third opinion, not referred to any policies, and has stopped arguing on the talk page, instead simply reverting.

    I don't want to go past one revert per day, so I'm hoping the three reverts shown so far for July 9 are evidence enough that Simonm223 is engaged in edit warring. If not, then I can revert again and wait until he reverts again (there is every sign that he will), and then he'll have broken 3RR. Or maybe someone else will come along and revert and he'll break 3RR then. Anyway, the point is not to get him to break 3RR, I'm sure that's not the requirement for reporting here (I hope not).

    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71] -- note, this is just the long long conversation. Skip to the end; the argument peters out as the editor produces no response to consensus and policy.
    • This is the diff of third party opinion on the RS noticeboard, opining in favor of citing the material. Simonm223 has only dismissed it: [72], [73] .

    Okay, I hope I have jumped through the hoops as required. I appreciate the time of the people who are processing these. The community needs it. --Asdfg12345 22:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - No violation. Protected. I notice that two of the three people above who are said to constitute the consensus (Asdfg12345 and Dilip Rajeev) are among those who have been sanctioned under the Falun Gong arbitration case. The material that Simonm223 keeps persistently adding is a quote from the New York Times. Apparently the other side is arguing that NYT is not reliable for this purpose, and it's better to go to Falun Gong's own website. I think the POV alarm bells are going off. It seems possible that the majority of those editing the article are Falun Gong members. I suggest that Simon consider opening a Request for comment, and getting it advertised, or consider use of another forum, like WP:Arbitration enforcement. It is a conceivable solution that that the different readings of the speech by NYT and by the Falun Gong authorities could both be mentioned, without any need for Wikipedia to say who's more likely to be right. Once Simon gets a hearing in a sufficiently neutral forum, he should of course abide by whatever consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Postscript - Per the extended discussion below, the article is now fully protected. For clarity, the editor who brought this case, Asdgf12345, appears in the list of those blocked at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Log of blocks and bans. My original closure did not include everything I learned about the edit war. The optimum solution might be a case at WP:Arbitration enforcement, but I don't have time to undertake that, and probably someone quite experienced would have to put the case together. During the protection, please discuss the issue more thoroughly at Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong, and for clarity can each participant state whether they are affiliated with Falun Gong. I remain convinced that a much wider discussion is needed to ensure a neutral audience, though I can't provide one. I hope someone interested in the case will open an RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking for outsiders' comments is very welcome, and I understand why you have protected the article. But seriously, do you think people "affiliated with Falun Gong" don't know how to edit according to the policies, try to use substandard sources, or seek to distort the facts? Are you familiar with the long-lasting disputes surrounding these articles, and who exactly are the editors who refuse to discuss their edits and who use illicit sources? Did you know that nearly all peer-reviewed references in these articles have been added by people who practice Falun Gong? Do you know what top researchers in the field say about this subject, or are your own notions based on something completely different? If people "affiliated with democracy" were editing democracy articles, and an edit conflict appeared, would you ask them to unilaterally "state" this relationship? Moreover, all veteran editors who practice Falun Gong have disclosed this a long time ago; there's nothing secretive about it. What I am concerned about is your unwillingness to approach this issue with neutral language and demands.
    If "affiliation" means "membership" in some mysterious "Falun Gong organisation", then no, nobody is affiliated with Falun Gong. Falun Gong is not an organisation with membership, and there exist no officials in some postulated Falun Gong hierarchy, apart from whether an individual chooses to practice Falun Gong in his or her life or not. We can back this up with reliable third party research. Personally, I am a lot more "affiliated" with religious studies on the university level, and I have always taken an academic approach to editing Wikipedia. Please do not bring your prejudices into this dispute; you may be unwittingly giving kudos to those who really try to use these articles as a platform for ideological struggle, and who blatantly violate the policies. The two guys who were permanently banned from editing all Falun Gong articles by the ArbCom were fierce anti-Falun Gong warriors. I would be seriously concerned about the affiliations of these kinds of people. Asdfg12345 has been involved for several years; he has been blocked once for 48 hours, it was more than a year ago, and as far as I can remember, it was because of edit warring with someone who tried to insert material from a private website. I have a clear record, and I've been here since 2005. Simonm223 is a new editor, who has refused to answer to our well-justified arguments. Anybody can see this by actually reading the article's talk page. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. In an article about Falun Gong's teachings, the only website where Falun Gong practitioners go to read Li Hongzhi's lectures is a highly notable primary source. The content has been transcribed word-for-word, and the same website is the only possible source NYT could have used. This is not about "different readings of the speech"; whatever NYT says is an interpretation of exactly the same text that's available on the website. Moreover, it seems you have misunderstood the argument. We are not talking about removing the New York Times quote, since it qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. But as there is discrepancy between the sources, we are entitled report it. This is fully consistent with the policies. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." Simonm223 attempts to remove everything that refers to this "disagreement between [the] sources". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    EdJohnston, unfortunately you didn't look into the dispute. The NYT source is not being removed. The Falun Gong source which follows it is. There is also no need to draw battle lines along "pro-FLG" and "anti-FLG" -- the key thing is that people respect process and policy. Your remark that "It is a conceivable solution that that the different readings of the speech by NYT and by the Falun Gong authorities could both be mentioned, without any need for Wikipedia to say who's more likely to be right" is precisely the conclusion of talk page discussion and a third party opinion, all of which I linked to and it is also what the revert war is about. At this point, to me it appears that you simply didn't check the diffs properly and let your prejudices get the best of you. If you had checked you would have seen a consensus had been reached on the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm reverting him now, and will consider that I'm entitled to do so three times in a 24 hour period before being blocked. You've established that precedent by not doing anything about clear edit-warring here. I expect to file a new report showing four violations in a 24 hour period. Hopefully you will take some action then. I know you are a volunteer, and appreciate the time it takes to process these requests.--Asdfg12345 10:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, the consensus is myself, Olaf Stephanos and user:Blueboar, according to his note on the RS noticeboard. Dilip Rajeev hasn't waded into this dispute. Further, I wasn't sanctioned as part of the arbitration case. Finally, just to make it clear, this sentence you wrote: "The material that Simonm223 keeps persistently adding is a quote from the New York Times" is untrue. He keeps persistently removing a reference to a FLG website which has the support of three editors. He's not even arguing about it or citing policy, either. The evidence for all this is in the diffs above. --Asdfg12345 10:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Destinero reported by User:Tobit2 (Result: No action)

    Please refer to talk page sections 12-19. Two editors: Mish and myself have attempted to stop Destinero's violations of copyrighted material and his unwarranted deletions without discussion. This has failed. This article is personally of little interest to me and I have removed it from my watch list as apparently has Mish...and Destinero's edits continue...Tobit2 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Destinero is rather new and had not received a 3RR warning. I have now taken care of that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - No action. Destinero has not continued to revert since this report was filed, and anyway he is a new editor and was not warned. If he continues to ignore the opinions of other editors, report here again and link to this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've justified my edits under the Wikipedia policies in edit summaries. Please clarify, why is needed an opinion of editors with little interest in these topics and with whom I should discuss it when both engaged editors leaved these articles. That is irracional. The Wikipedia policies are clear in this issue. --Destinero (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bkonrad reported by Spshu (talk) (Result: No vio)

    Tuscola Township, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bkonrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Diff of warning: here
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: attempt was made on the the reverter's talk page

    —Spshu (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On top of this, he has attack me personal, one of which was for posting the 3RR notice. Spshu (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised by Spshu's actions in this regard, at least partly because I had appreciated his work on unincorporated communities in the Thumb area of Michigan. Yes, I made three reverts (not more). And discussion was ongoing, although it appeared that neither of us was making any headway in convincing the other. As such, I was disappointed that after a break in the discussion he returns and slaps a 3RR warning on my talk page when the last revert was nearly 13 hours earlier and the warning about edit warring could equally well have been applied to him. I thought that was a rather rude and needlessly antagonistic gesture, prompting my sarcastic observation [74] on my talk page. I apologize if that caused offense. I mean, it's not like either of us are complete newbies. If he were seriously contemplating reporting me for 3RR violation, a simple note would have been more appropriate and less confrontational. In such an impasse, the next step should have been to solicit outside opinions. older ≠ wiser 14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - No violation. Neither party has gone past three reverts in a 24-hour period. I am concerned that neither side is using the talk page. If the issue is brought here again due to further warring, anyone who continues to revert who hasn't explained their reasoning on the Talk page is vulnerable to sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I add the dates and time above for his reverts they were all on same day. don't closes this on a technicality, we did discuss it on his talk page and all he did is hand waving any arguments away. I even used the same arguments he used and he saw right though them but he can see through his own use of them. Spshu (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You only list three reverts above. It takes four reverts within 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. The fact that you discussed this on his user talk page is not sufficient. Admins will generally look at the article talk to judge the good faith of the participants. A recent addition to the WP:3RR policy says, "discuss the matter on the article talk page." EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (after ec) I'll let others decide the technicalities. But your dismissal of my reasoning as "hand waving" while at the same time completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting that reasoning in your responses (as well as your directive to "stop junking up" the article with postal service details) perhaps indicates a lack of maturity in how you are approaching this. older ≠ wiser 19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason he didn't go to 4 is that I understand the edit warring rule as it states: "However edit wars can and do take place without breaches of the three-revert rule - and editors may be blocked for edit warring without having breached the rule." The 3RR is only a benchmark. So I should have edited again to force him into a clear breach? But in do so I can be consider in breach of the rule too. So to techinical meet the rules I should have move the discussion to the Tuscula Township article instead of leaving it on his talk page. Spshu (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Had I taken the bait, it likely would have resulted in both of us being blocked. The proper thing to do would be to continue discussion, and if appropriate, follow the steps outlined at WP:Dispute resolution. As I said above, the next step should have been to solicit outside opinions. I'm going to move the exchanges from my talk page to that of the article's talk page, as that is a more appropriate venue for such discussion. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:73.60.208.15 reported by User:Cactusjump (Result: Stale )


    • Previous version reverted to: [75]



    Attempted to get discussion to article talk page, but was then met with more accusations of racism and hostility. Asked for page protection to resolve dispute, but has not been addressed at this time. Cactusjump (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale User hasn't edited the main page in over 24 hours, thus there's no ongoing edit war and no need for intervention. If you're having issues with the editor on the article's talk page, then consider reviewing the dispute resolution procedure, particularly consider filing Wikietiquette alert, etc. Cheers. Nja247 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ksyrie reported by User:Rjanag (Result: warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [80] (10 Jul)


    • 1st revert: [81] (10 Jul)
    • 2nd revert: [82] (11 Jul)
    • 3rd revert: [83] (11 Jul)


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

    Ksyrie has carefully avoided 3RR for several days, but since July 6 he has been slowly edit-warring, first with the addition of "terrorist" categories to the Urumqi riots article, and then with "pogroms" categories, starting on July 10. (See his edits [85][86][87], EW warning [88], and relevant talkpage discussion for the July 6 stuff—notice that the linked discussion actually begins with my post, n ot the one above it that was added 2 days later.) Coming in today and making 2 unexplained reverts, and never having posted on the talk page, after having been warned twice about not doing so, indicates clear intention to edit war even if it doesn't break 3RR; I am asking that the user either be temporarily blocked, or permission be given to block him next time he reverts. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have stopped now. Given last warning. Needs block if he repeats William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he does generally seem to "stop" for a day or two and then comes back and starts again. Just for clarification... does this warning you gave him mean that if he starts again I should just drop you a line and let you take care of it? (I assume that's better than me doing the blocking myself.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:78.137.141.254 reported by User:Aktsu (Result: 31h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [89]
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

    The anon refuse to belive Filipovic has signed with the Ultimate Fighting Championship over Dream despite multiple sourced to the contrary. See also UFC 103. --aktsu (t / c) 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I should add, he has not actually reverted after the warning and discussion started on his talkpage. --aktsu (t / c) 23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he has though, and he's also over 3RR at UFC 103. --aktsu (t / c) 23:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 31h by Law (talk · contribs). --aktsu (t / c) 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=301662840"