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
Lontech (talk | contribs)
410 edits
Line 285: Line 285:


* {{AN3|d}}. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lontech]] is also relevant here. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
* {{AN3|d}}. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lontech]] is also relevant here. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow this is not a dispute '''this is violation of rules'''.
YOU dont deserve administrator priviledge. i'll report you--<span style="background:#27408B">[[User:lontech|<font style="font-size:11px;color:#EAEAEA;">&nbsp;LONTECH</font>]] [[User_talk:Lontech|<font style="font-size:12.5px; color:#accC10;background:#FFF68F;">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</font>]] </span> 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


== [[User:86.130.62.20]] reported by [[User:MrOllie]] (Result: blocked for 24 hours) ==
== [[User:86.130.62.20]] reported by [[User:MrOllie]] (Result: blocked for 24 hours) ==

Revision as of 18:31, 24 September 2010

    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


    User:74.194.226.71 reported by Drrll (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Page: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 74.194.226.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 22:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 17:40, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "Comment was purely partisan, purely opinion and has no place here.")
    2. 17:54, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
    3. 18:00, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
    4. 18:02, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "See Discussion. The objectivity and accuracy of the article are questioned. Data unsourced.")
    5. 18:29, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "Information on source and the "we are progressives" quote is unverifiable. Links to supposed sources are broken or inaccurate.")
    6. 20:14, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Politics */ No source. Poor link")
    7. 20:36, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "/* Politics */")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Comments: Note that this user also apparently uses User:99.162.120.212 and had 3 reverts in the same time frame with that address. I gave the user 2 warnings on his Talk page. His response was to delete the warnings, promise that he could spoof his address, and continue to edit war (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.194.226.71&diff=386167235&oldid=386166220). He did use the article's Talk page under both addresses. (This is my first report)
    —Drrll (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.157.202.160 reported by User:Kebeta (Result:warned, placed on parole)

    Page: Knin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 217.157.202.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

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

    Comments:

    I was going to warn the user on his talk page, but I found this message where he insulted whole nation - so I give up. Maybe I am reporting on the wrong page - vandalism? Kebeta (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Db54 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 24 h)

    Page: Vicky Vette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Db54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [5]

    • 1st revert: [6]
    • 2nd revert: [7]
    • 3rd revert: [8]
    • 4th revert: [9] (fourth revert appears to be botched, though still a violation; edit summary refers to the general dispute)


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [11] (see also discussion on my talk page [12] and the discussions with Dismas on the Db54 talk page, which were pretty fruitless, as Dismas ended up making the same revert I've made, just a few days earlier [13].

    Comments:

    This is pretty straightforward. Db54 repeatedly cuts-and-pastes a big block of copyrighted advertising/promotional text from the article subject's website [14] (NSFW, exact text just below flag icon), claiming on my talk page to be a member of the article subject's "inner circle." Obvious copyvio, so my reverts exempt from 3RR, to say nothing of the BLP, RS, and advertising violations and the COI issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not pretty straightforward when Wolfowitz out of nowhere starts removing information based on whim and cites erroneous violations. S/He seems to have a style for making edits without warning on a number of pages. THe information had been there for some time and had been worked on so it related to the Subjects - History and an abundance and not all that are industry standards and a number of references. Furthermore, there was ABSOLUTELY NO ADVERTISING or PROMOTIONAL in any of the information as s/he is claiming. There is also no copyright violation as he claims either. He certainly had no right to suspend editing privileges. The prior references already referred to her website as does her Offical Website entry under her picture. To ensure her background was accurate what better way to have a background then right from the Living Person's mouth as part of her biography. There was no promotional nor sales nor any visit the website references. Also, it was a small subset ( not a big block as claimed) of 2 paragraphs from her own biography. What better source is there?

    To quote the LIVING PERSON; "How strange the page is almost empty, looks like someone stripped it! The link to the yahoo group is wrong, and there are barely any other links. there are a million interviews and articles on avn, but they don't list any of them... what a mess!" to me in a thread on her website where I have been a member for sometime as well as keep in touch with her and her manager husband when it comes to Wikpedia.

    Frankly Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz needs to be reigned in and sanctioned for his inappropriate actions. His assumption on previous discussions was misrepresented as well. Db54 (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Just incase anyone is wondering, even though Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did just as much reverting, removing copyright violations is an exception to 3RR where there is no edit war. Courcelles 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hemant.india reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 24h)

    Page: Traffic congestion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hemant.india (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted to resolve at user's talk page; see User Talk:Hemant.india.

    Comments: Please note that I am attempting to report all 3 accounts of the same user here--User:Hemant.india, User:122.175.128.157, and User:Free.traffic. These are clearly all the same editor. I don't know if the user is aware of our policies on using multiple accounts or not, as user is not responding to any messages on talk page. User was explicitly told of this policy at [23]. Please let me know if I need to also handle this through WP:SPI. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Second registered account blocked indefinitely for socking. Magog the Ogre (talk)

    User:95.95.92.177 reported by -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Page: Howard King (referee) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 95.95.92.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 16:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 23:38, 20 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 385831474 by Red Avenged (talk)")
    2. 01:47, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 386012176 by 85.246.196.59 (talk)")
    3. 01:52, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 386026616 by 85.246.196.59 (talk) Spam")
    4. 02:09, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 386027592 by Red Avenged (talk) Spam")
    5. 02:36, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "Spam!! The user Red Avenged has removed information (sustained with source) without any support.")
    6. 14:58, 21 September 2010 (edit summary: "Spam again!!")
    7. 15:53, 23 September 2010 (edit summary: "Correction of two words and removal information without sustention. Attention to spam!!")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Two users were edit warring, and I warned them both to stop and to discuss it on the article Talk page. One of them, User:Red Avenged, has attempted to discuss it, but this one has not and has carried on with the war - not a technical 3RR today (23rd), but there was on 21st, and they're certainly continuing the war in an uncooperative manner.

    —-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:85.93.203.235 reported by User:Bsherr (Result: 24h)

    Page: Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 85.93.203.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [24]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jerusalem#Jerusalem is NOT the capital of Israel, Tel Aviv is

    Comments:

    Anonymous user seems purposefully intent on not using talk page and continuing to edit war. --Bsherr (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FellGleaming reported by User:MastCell (Result: 72h)

    Page: Christine O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: FellGleaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:37, 21 September 2010

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has had numerous past 3RR warnings, and has 2 previous blocks for edit-warring

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See many kb of discussion at Talk:Christine O'Donnell

    Comments:
    Nothing further; this looks like a clear 3RR violation to me, from an editor with a history of the same. While I have not edited Christine O'Donnell, I have encountered FellGleaming (talk · contribs) on other articles and so am recusing to bring this here rather than handling it myself. MastCell Talk 23:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Alas - the issue of what is, and is not, "contentious" material in a WP:BLP must be examined. In this case, it appears that real BLP issues are involved, and should be sorted out on the article talk page and not here. See also [31] et seq. Collect (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a BLP exemption asserted in these edits, nor do I see any rational basis for such an exemption. FellGleaming's editing record on political BLPs from the other "side" is pretty poor, but regardless, this is pretty much straight-up edit-warring without any clear-cut exemptions or fig leaves. MastCell Talk 00:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours This situation is marginally related to BLP; it's mostly just about POV edit warring under the cover of edit summaries like "See talk". That is not a license to revert anyone whose edit you don't care for. Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TraviaNightmare reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 24h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: Editor is reverting to a few different versions (as there have been intervening, unrelated edits). All of the reversions involve a content dispute about the lead.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

    Comments:User has a battlefield mentality. Note, for instance, the edit summary of his response on the talk page [38]. User has engaged in personal attacks as well (you can see my talk page for my discussion with the user about this, although it's quite long and not such fun reading. While I'm not sure it's really going to help, perhaps a short break might wake some sense into this user (at least by showing him/her that policies really do have to be followed). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darkstar1st reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

    Page: Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 12:56, 24 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "rv did you read the source?:a) a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action b): a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles")
    2. 15:03, 24 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 386754728 by N6n (talk)rv vandalism read the source, it is Libertarianism.")
    3. 15:10, 24 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "thank you for clarify Lota, i have added the corrected text")
    4. 15:31, 24 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "vandalism. restoring half of the sourced text from the definition deleted by mark")
    5. 15:34, 24 September 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 386759774 by Yworo (talk)restoring vandalism.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Yworo (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I do not think darkstar has purposefully editwarred here, For the record i had not meant to remove any text when i did one of those edits, darkstar restoring accidentally removed content should not count as a revert. I would also like to point out this comment by the user bringing this complaint [40] mark nutley (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Darkstar1st wants to add the bit about libertarianism being determined and limited by "political parties" (which means the Libertarian Party, as far as I understand.) N6n (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evlekis reported by User:Lontech (Result: declined)

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

    has violated 1RR per week on kosovo

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=history

    1. (cur | prev) 21:29, 23 September 2010 Evlekis (talk | contribs) m (113,907 bytes) (Reverted edits by Lontech (talk) to last version by H3llBot)
    2. (cur | prev) 20:01, 23 September 2010 Lontech (talk | contribs) (113,566 bytes) (rv. pov)
    3. (cur | prev) 22:37, 21 September 2010 H3llBot (talk | contribs) m (113,907 bytes) (BOT: Checking dead links; Added 3 archived Wayback links, Marked 2 links with [dead link])
    4. (cur | prev) 18:29, 18 September 2010 Evlekis (talk | contribs) (113,395 bytes) (amend text to sound less POV and more in line with source)
    5. (cur | prev) 18:21, 18 September 2010 Evlekis (talk | contribs) (113,377 bytes) (Restore edit that had been sourced)

    Difs:

    [43] [44]


    The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo

    Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. All editors on this article are subject to 1RR parole per week and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see [1]-- LONTECH  Talk  17:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish to make the following statement in my defence, and to draw the attention of persons handling this matter to a related case. Anyone concerned with the Kosovo article will be aware that it is a very sensitive subject. To that end, Lontech has himself taken the liberty to remove unfavourable information. His timing has not violated the 1RR but his intention is clearly POV as his removals also blanked sources, this contravenes Wikipedia policy. The original author was Cinema C; following various discussions, I restored the edit but amended it to be less militant and more in line with the source itself (BBC). Lontech again removed this compromised revision again citing POV but at this point it was clear that Lontech was being disruptive; had he have known the information to be fallacious, he might have replaced the content with his "more accurate" descritpion and sources; or he might have edited my revision to reshape it. He chose the third option which was to blanket-revert, a practice only carried out when the original editor is blatantly vandalising. I contend that I am the second editor to work on this material, and there has since been a third, Enric Naval. Enric did indeed alter my revision but I see his contributions as positive and constructive and he has not removed the source and to this end, I am resigned to his revision. This surmises that I am not engaged in an edit war neither am I violating any policy. Meanwhile, Enric Naval has himself raised an issue concerning Lontech that admins may find interesting here. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow this is not a dispute this is violation of rules. YOU dont deserve administrator priviledge. i'll report you-- LONTECH  Talk  18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.130.62.20 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

    Page: Chronic fatigue syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 86.130.62.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [45]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Editor was properly warned, etc, and didn't respond to an invitation to self-revert. I'd suggest those on the other side of the reverting respond to the editor's complaints on the article's talk page. Mkativerata (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    User:69.236.89.244 reported by User:Ronz (Result: 31 hr block for vandalism )

    Pages:

    User being reported: 69.236.89.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Human gastrointestinal tract
    Feeding tube


    Nissen fundoplication
    Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:48, 24 September 2010

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:40, 22 September 2010 22:26, 23 September 2010 05:10, 24 September 2010

    Comments:
    I've stopped all reverting with this ip, once it became clear this wasn't just the normal spamming of this link. I'd like someone to step in and encourage the person behind the ips to discuss the manner in a civil manner. The communication from this this ip (as well as a blocked sockpuppet) have been incivil, and ignore the issues brought up on the ips talk page [53] [54] [55]. The problem may simply be the person is unaware of notices on the ip talk pages.

    Obvious sockpuppetry has been going on for over three years

    --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Reisio reported by Terrillja talk (Result: )

    Page: IPad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 06:59, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "name, not wordmark; "An infobox is a FIXED-FORMAT table" — Help:Infobox, it's discontinuous to use an image here")
    2. 07:21, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "maybe we should make this infobox bright fuchsia? This page is special, after all (rvl)")
    3. 07:27, 16 September 2010 (edit summary: "rvl — WP:BRD")
    4. 04:44, 23 September 2010 (edit summary: "name, not wordmark; "An infobox is a FIXED-FORMAT table" — Help:Infobox, it's discontinuous to use an image here")
    5. 23:04, 23 September 2010 (edit summary: "rv 386485070; discuss what on talk? If you'd like to discuss something I've said/done, go ahead & start a discussion; "discuss on talk" is not an argument, so I don't know what to say to it")
    6. 07:18, 24 September 2010 (edit summary: "that's not an argument either (rvl)")
    7. 18:15, 24 September 2010 (edit summary: "rvl — that discussion does not address the reasons I have given for reverting, and does not even yield a consensus as to what it _did_ address; you'll have to address the reasons I have given")
    • Diff of warning: here

    User refuses to "get it" or use the talkpage to discuss grievances, has been reverted by multiple users, stopping just short of 3rr each time and refusing to join the discussion on the talkpage of the article.--Terrillja talk 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=386790904"