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 620: Line 620:
User doesn't not communicate and I have also discussed the matter of overlinking on [[Portal talk:Current events/2009 June 5]]. '''<font color="#00824A">[[User:Jolly Janner|Jolly]]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">[[Special:Contributions/Jolly Janner|Ω]]</font> <font color="#00824A">[[User talk:Jolly Janner|Janner]]</font>''' 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
User doesn't not communicate and I have also discussed the matter of overlinking on [[Portal talk:Current events/2009 June 5]]. '''<font color="#00824A">[[User:Jolly Janner|Jolly]]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">[[Special:Contributions/Jolly Janner|Ω]]</font> <font color="#00824A">[[User talk:Jolly Janner|Janner]]</font>''' 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


= [[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] reported by [[User:Sarandioti|User Sarandioti]] (Result: ) ==
= [[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] reported by [[User:Sarandioti|User Sarandioti]] (Result: no action ) ==


* Page: {{article|Despotate of Epiros}}
* Page: {{article|Despotate of Epiros}}
Line 642: Line 642:


The above (Sarandioti) user ignores systematically our discussions, makes unhistorical pov claims and abuses a number of users. and there hasn't been an 3RR off course, only partial reverts of unclaimed and unsourced sentences.[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The above (Sarandioti) user ignores systematically our discussions, makes unhistorical pov claims and abuses a number of users. and there hasn't been an 3RR off course, only partial reverts of unclaimed and unsourced sentences.[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Alexikou, that's not entirely true because [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Despotate_of_Epiros&diff=294519262&oldid=294461035 is sourced], though perhaps not accurately. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Despotate_of_Epiros&diff=294592981&oldid=294587897 this], though, isn't a revert, but an attempt to make a compromise. I count three reverts from Alexikoua. It's four only if [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Despotate_of_Epiros&diff=294636589&oldid=294634207 this] is a reversion to some previous version I haven't seen. No 3RR vio from Sarandioti either, unless he's editing as 12.106.250.211. So there'll be no action here. As to the dispute itself. Albanian was clearly a common spoken language of the region in this period according to my sources, even if Greek was the elite and dominant language; comparisons with Turkish and Latin are silly. You guys can sort this out in a less confrontational and tendentious manner. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:39, 5 June 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.


    Likebox reported by Philip Baird Shearer (Result: 48h)



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    This user has recently been blocked for violation of the 3RR rule twice before the last time 20:01, 5 April 2009 so the user does not need a reminder. PBS (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Howdy, this is likebox. I am trying to resolve the dispute in question. I did not revert as many times as it seems, I just don't know how to "roll back". I should have saved a version in my user space, I put it in the talk page instead. I don't think that this is an edit war, because I tried to find new wordings each time, and discuss.
    The subject in question is the Tasmanian genocide debate, which I was trying to add mainstream sources to. The sources and the versioning, along with comments, are on the talk page. The current version is dominated by a certain fringe movement which is not mainstream within Australia.
    I hope that this debate can be resolved with discussion. PBS has not been willing to discuss the changes in detail, and has erased each of three slightly different versions I put up without comment.
    The points are on the talk page, but they are simple to understand. The Australian history wars regarding Tasmania are not reflective of an international debate, within academia and outside australia the events of 1806-1835 are widely acknowledged as genocide. I believe that undue weight requires this to be said prominently within this section of the article.Likebox (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add, I don't like to be editing this page at all. I feel that I have to, because the sourced material is so biased right now. If someone else would like to take up the editing, that would be great. I'd rather never see or read anything else about this subject ever again.Likebox (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When (s)he was blocked before, Likebox has used a similar type of argument, "I was not edit warring. I just don't know any other way to save the text, which is a pain to type up. Now it is in the talk page.Likebox (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)" [1][reply]
    Further (s)he implies that this is just him/her and me, yet in the last 24 hours 3 different editors have reverted his/her changes.[2][3][4] --PBS (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear enough 4R; 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:5150pacer reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result: 72 hours)

    Superjail! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 5150pacer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 16:21, 26 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 16:25, 26 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    3. 16:29, 26 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    4. 19:08, 27 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    5. 19:01, 29 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    6. 19:02, 29 May 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    7. 19:06, 29 May 2009 (edit summary: "")
    8. 15:57, 1 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    9. 15:29, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    10. 21:33, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    11. 21:34, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    12. 21:35, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Characters */")
    13. 21:45, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "")
    14. 22:04, 2 June 2009 (edit summary: "")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Onorem♠Dil 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues edit war to add unsourced original research against several editors. Recent edits to my talk page make it clear that they intend to continue with these edits. --Onorem♠Dil 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Aitias // discussion 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    R7604 reported by Cactusjump (Result: No violation)

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

    Disagreement to add a See Also section in the article pointing to related article Kate Gosselin, User:R7604 reverted three times without discussion. Attempts at discussing with user were met with a curt reply. I notified user that if he made no attempts to discuss, I would get a WP:Third opinion, and gave him 3RR warning on his talk page. Also filed WP:Third opinion. Cactusjump (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. — Aitias // discussion 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    194.124.140.39 reported by dave souza (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [5]


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


    IP repeatedly deleting an increasing amount of sourced material. . . dave souza, talk 09:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    48h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zntrip reported by Alan (Result: No action)


    • Previous version reverted to: [10]



    The article is a list of circulating currencies. On 2nd June 2009, I made an edit, in which I provided more information about the special situation of the Hong Kong dollar. As I have been living in Hong Kong for a long time, I am confident that I am quite familiar with the Hong Kong dollar. However, Zntrip, who has no knowledge about Hong Kong, immediately deleted my contribution to the article, and replace my contribution with one short (factually wrong) sentence. He then insisted on invoking an edit war, with no sincerity for any discussion on the talk page. This is clearly a violation of the three-revert rule. I suggest that disciplinary action be immediately taken. - Alan (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you warn the user? I'm not seeing any sign of a warning, and we usually don't block users who haven't been warned at some point about the rule. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just jumped into the content dispute here, so needless to say, I'll not be taking any admin actions here. Whoever else wants to close this, be my guest and don't be prejudiced by what I've said. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you guys look at the contribution history of Zntrip, you will find that he started editing Wikipedia as early as in 2004. He has been proficiently using a lot of administrative tools like Wikipedia:Files for deletion and various portals. All these facts demonstrate that he is a very experienced Wikipedia user. It is very unlikely that he "does not know about the three-revert rule" as some may suggest. Anyway, now he has been warned about the rule. I think disciplinary actions should be taken immediately to stop him from deleting other users' contributions without discussing on the talk page. - Alan (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Zntrip is clearly at four reverts, Alanmak is at three. Neither party has reverted again since being given a formal warning. I'd wait a few hours to see what happens next. If the edit war is over, blocks are not needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I will admit that I violated the three-revert rule, but I don’t think it is fair to place the blame solely on me. We both engaged in reverting each other’s edits and I felt that Alanmak ignored obvious facts and failed to address my explanations in my edit summaries, as can be seen here. The extent of his explanation was, “There's nothing called 'ho' in Hong Kong. Are you even from Hong Kong? If not, shut up.” I felt his edits contradicted information in the article Hong Kong dollar, which I communicated. I didn’t open up a discussion on a talk page because I believed the explanations in my edit summaries were sufficient. I think it should be noted that it was him, not I, who failed to communicate, however I apologize for failing to adhere to the three-revert rule and I would be happy to resolve the dispute, which appears to be a misunderstanding, on the article’s talk page. – Zntrip 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - No action. These editors are strongly encouraged to work the problem out on Talk. It would be surprising if an exchange of edit summaries would be enough to sort out such a confusing issue. Change the article after consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jacurek reported by User:Kurfürst (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [15]



    Continued personal attacks on article talk page:


    This user's behaviour was characterized by continued, repeated reverts in the last two weeks to removed verifiable, referenced information from reliable secondary sources about strategic bombing in Poland during World War II. Absolutely no attempt was taken to find a sort of consensus, engage in a discussion or to refrain from incivility despite requests by several editors. Previously the user was repeatedly blocked for 'Editwarring. Blocked previously without effect'. Despite allowing some one week 'cooldown' period, and offering mediation, even suggesting on the 26 May that on my behalf I will stop editing the disputed article, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II&diff=292551478&oldid=292551360 the editor only saw this as a 'green light'] and an new opportunity to continue removing referenced statements from the article the next day. The last series of 'edits' early in this morning shows the situation is deteriorating, instead of improving.

    Kurfürst (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To the admin. looking at this case: User Kurfürst just comes back from the block for Edit warring on this article and records this false report. Please check his block log. His controversial edits (Joseph Goebbels diary as a source for example or citation pretending to be a source etc.) are also against consensus with all other editors. Please check the talk page on Strategic bombing during World War II for more info. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your edits show which referenced statements you have repeatedly deleted in the past two weeks. None include Goebbel's diary, simply because Geobbels diary was simply not used as reference at any one time in this or any other article. The references come from largely Hooton, ER, Willmott etc. These are all published, and well regarded sources in aviation and general WW2 history. Moreover there's no real 'consensus' in the article, the case is that there was a sudden influx of Polish editors suddenly starting removing referenced sources, after the first editor declared that the references from Hooton are 'German war propaganda'. It seems to me coordination, rather than consensus. Moreover it does not explain why there would be a need for repeatedly removing cited, reliable secondary sources, without any attempt to discuss it. It appears to me that your edits were revolving around removing certain pieces of referenced information, not actually contributing the article, for example by pointing out conflicting sources and attempt to discuss them. I note again you have personally refused to discuss it, stating you will not discuss 'Historical revisionism' with 'Holocaust deniers'. Your edits speak for themselves - it is these which are under scrutiny here, not how you perceive the referenced statements, or the reliability of the references themselves. Also, continuing Nazi-accusations of the same flavour here is ill-placed. Kurfürst (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no 3RR violation or even edit warring by Jacurek there - those long series of diffs are in fact mostlu one edit, one after another, which is defined by 3RR as one edit, not several. On the other hand, Kurfürst behavior seems to violate Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions, I'd suggest placing him on a formal notice in order to put an end to the creation of further battlegrounds. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say nothing more here than Piotrus is involved, as Jacurek is a POV-buddy of his and Kurfürst a POV rival, so the advice is as tendentious as the report. Having said that, the behaviour in this particular content dispute doesn't really merit involving any admins. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry Deacon of Pndapetzim but I'm nobody's "buddy" and I don't appreciate your comment. If you really think that you should comment on this one, please focus on the bogus Edit warring report instead. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. To the reviewing administrator. Please also take a look at this Kurfürst report from today.[[38]]--Jacurek (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As Deacon of Pndapetzim noted, Piotrus is deeply involved in the matter. Moreover, Piotrus seems to use ANI [to get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Historical_revisionism his POV rivals blocked], or his POV buddies unblocked. Kurfürst (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Piotrus is right: Jacurek edits in small increments, and per WP:3RR, consecutive edits are considered a single edit. Jacurek made 2 edits on May 27, 1 edit on May 30, and 2 edits on June 3. Making a small number of edits every three to four days hardly seems like edit warring. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 17:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To quote Wikipedia:Edit war : The 3RR metric is not an exemption for conduct that stays under the threshold. For instance, edit warring may take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits. Note that these reverts are going on for two weeks, they remove referenced sources every time, and were always the first resort against disagreeable edits, with discussion flat out rejected, after numerous warnings. Kurfürst (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurfürs, I may be wrong as far as your motives here but I'm afraid that you simply don't like my edits and after being blocked for edit warring on the very same article, you are now looking for some kind of revenge. I don't think this is fair not only to me but also to admin. involved who will have to spend all this time now to examine the issue. --Jacurek (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I only dislike you repeatedly removing well referenced cited information, engaging in incivility about my 'motives' (which is to improve the article with reliable, referenced sources - and yes there is room to note if an event is controversial), and refusing to discuss it on the talk page. Yes I don't like this kind of behaviour, but you should note that this kind of behaviour is exactly what is incompatible with wikipedia rules for editing on multiple accounts. At this point I think you would need to show some proof to convince the admins that you will refrain from removing references over and over again without discussion, and showing some GENUINE willingness to discuss it on the talk page. As you can see, I am adding sources to the talk page, but not including them into the article yet. You should join in this discussion. It would also show your good intents if you would voluntarily restore the referenced statements you removed - note well that those are not MY opionion, or MY statements - they are merely quotes from historians, and I spent a lot of my time researching them, and typing it into wikipedia. Then we can discuss it on the talk page (it is for that after all) and find a compromise. Kurfürst (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Malik above there is no edit warring violation here. I can see Kurfürst bringing this matter to RfC or asking for 3O on the disputed article but this appears to be just filing a 3RR report simply because one was (rightly) filed against him right before this.radek (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Take note of radek first edit in the article, titled: (rmving German war propaganda - if it didn't have the policy how did it happen (in 1939)? Also policy different for East and West which at the very least should be clarified. This was followed by several other mass-deletes of sourced material. Kurfürst (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurfürst, are you "reporting" user Radeksz now also?--Jacurek (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting he is involved in the dispute. Radek seems to me as much more cooperative, and although he did a number of mistakes, I see no reason to report his behaviour. Kurfürst (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So you are reporting lack of my "cooperation" with you. Are you sure that you are in the right page?--Jacurek (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess you must have misread it - I am reporting your confrontational, and uncompromising attitude that manifests in a series of deletions of of referenced sources over the past two weeks, refusal to discuss, and your incivility during that period. See above for definition: "Edit warring is not necessarily any single action; instead, it is any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute." A behaviour that, as evidenced by this very page, has not changed at all. Kurfürst (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry but these were the patterns you have followed and you were blocked for it. You also among other things cited Joseph Goebbels as a reference and questioned the atrocities committed by the Nazis in Poland - I refused to discuss with you. Now you are still running into conflicts with other editors [[39]].... Anyways this is not a place to discuss this. Please respond on my talk page if you want.--Jacurek (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I count 2R in June. Doesn't look like a vio to me William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not familiar with this case, but please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive538#Disruptive editing, personal attacks and Talk:Battle of the Denmark Strait#Prince of Wales' guns for some background information. --PBS (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rerutled reported by J (Result: warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: [40]
    • revert one: [41]
    • revert two: [42]
    • (updated) revert three: [43]

    Over the weekend, User:Rerutled began an effort to change the lead of the article for Montréal to include language that Kinshasa is a larger "Francophone city." (Discussed several times in the past, see here and here for starters.) Consensus has held that reliable sourcing indicates Montréal is the "second largest primarily French-speaking city." Rerutled believes differently, and despite the fact that there has been no consensus to alter the heretofore stable lead to his preferred language, he has now reverted twice more to include his lead, with no support for doing so from the ongoing discussion. Given his two reverts this morning, it looks like he now plans to enforce his change to the lead, regardless of consensus or lack thereof. (I have not warned the user against edit warring, as I suspect he will not accept it as sincere or objective coming from an involved editor.) user:J aka justen (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned for now. Update if needed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an editwar ongoing on this article and I suspect that the three-revert and possibly the six-revert rules (if they) exist have been broken in the last two 24-hour periods. Can I suggest that the article is 'locked' to prevent any reversions until some agreement is reached on the talkpage. The argument is a (trivial) matter as to whether a city is 2nd or 3rd in a list under a given criteria. Unfortunately both editors sides appear to have ignored, for what they regard as valid reasons, the 3rr.Pyrotec (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think two reverts in the last three days, with consensus, and with several attempts to cajole Rerutled into discussing before he reverts further is anywhere near ignoring wp:3rr, so I'll try to assume you're referring to another editor. :P user:J aka justen (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In view of the latest comments made above, I have rechecked the article's history. Sorry I seem to have got it wrong, only one editor appears to have broken the 3rr. However, what I should make clear is that 'both sides to the argument' have made four reversions today. Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with you that full protection may be helpful to help a clear consensus develop. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unclear why protection would be needed. The only person who is unlikely to prefer the current version of the article is Rerutled, and he is already at 3R, about to go over the edge if he reverts again. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rerutled clearly considers that the information quoted is incorrect; did discuss the changes on the article's talkpage; and the changes made by that editor were WP:verifyable, with in-line citations. Despite what is stated above, the "consensus" information given in the article is not WP:verifyable; and it is inadequately referenced for a GA-class article, although they have promised to properly cite the reference. It appears to have been taken from a chapter in a book edited by the authors quoted, but not necessarily written by those two editors. Books matching that description appear to have been published in 2003 and 2005; although Rerutles has posted information stating that this currently undated (in the article) source may go back to 1971. I have no idea whether Rerutled is right or wrong, but if the information is of 1971 vintage, then the "consensus" claims may become invalidated. Either way this impasse needs to be resolved; and not by preserving improperly cited references.Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.147.217.61 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: semi)

    • Previous version reverted to: [44]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [49]

    Same behaviour as always from this IP range (previous case here), no communication, only edit summary left when there is one is 'rv v'. Also active on The Thing (film) page. Geoff B (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Back to semi I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jpate86 reported by Aktsu (Result: No action)

    • Previous version reverted to: [50]
    • 1th revert: [51]
    • 2st revert: [52]
    • 3nd revert: [53]
    • 4rd revert: [54]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [55]

    Somewhat of a sad situation because what he's trying to add is true, just not reliably verifiable. --aktsu (t / c) 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    May want to hold off a little, user seems to be discussing so a block might not be necessary. --aktsu (t / c) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - No action, since reverting seems to have stopped. File a new report if the problem resumes. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Denise!A2009 reported by Verbal (Result: 24h all round)

    Frank Sontag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Denise!A2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 16:28, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Radio */")
    2. 16:50, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Radio */")
    3. 18:00, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Radio */")
    4. 18:12, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "")
    5. 18:47, 3 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 294218743 by Verbal (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Verbal chat 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for both sides (I can't see any reason why you expect to be exempt, and you haven't offered one) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [98.127.123.161] reported by [208.5.87.224] (Result: talk)


    • Previous version reverted to: [56]


    • 1st revert: [57]
    • 2nd revert: [58]
    • 3rd revert: [59]
    • 4th revert: [link]

    Both versions contain some factual material, but this user presents biased information that is intended to mislead and misrepresents what is going on. Some of the info is factually incorrect and contradicts scientific research.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


    Impressively badly formatted report, well done, but I've seen worse. No vio, of course. I recommend that you try to discuss this on the article talk page and then come back if you get nowhere William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been going on for nearly two years, but with the IP address different each time, and often months in between reversions, so it's been a minor nuisance. Stan (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    EastOfWest reported by Evilarry (Result: No action)


    • Previous version reverted to: [60]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    User is forcing random low quality image on article that has already had open discussion on image for article. Evilarry (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    EastOfWest did not receive a 3RR warning. I have notified him of this discussion, to see if he wants to comment on the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - No action on EastOfWest since no 3RR warning was given and his account was only created May 30. I urge him to participate on Talk, since there is plenty of image discussion there. The recent warring about images on this article is noted. Resubmit if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well if this Evillary Character is so intent on having his way with the Rochester skyline picture that he's willing to crush any other proposed photos and describe excellent, professionally taken pictures as "low quality" and the like, then I'm not going to stop him. Frankly I just don't want to make the effort. End of discussion. For the record, I'm not quite sure why i'm on the Edit Warring page, I only reposted the photograph once because i thought I must have done something wrong the first time, once this persistent Evillary character informed me that he didn't want any other picture, I stopped posting. EastOfWest —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    User:98.183.80.244 reported by 30flavors (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [65]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    Hi, I hope I've filled this form out correctly. Basically this IP address has repeatedly (3x) added references and a link to the critical opinion of a 17 year old "movie reviewer" on YouTube. He or she has been warned that this was not a proper Wikipedia source each time the content was removed. 30flavors (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, this report is not quite correct. First, we need diffs, not oldids (like this). More importantly, though, I only see three diffs, and you need more than three for a 3RR vio. I also don't see evidence of a warning for the user, without which many admins won't block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I've just fixed those oldids, I think at the same time you posted this. This person was told by two different users in the edit summaries when his content was removed that it was not proper Wikipedia content. I don't know how else to warn or contact an IP address without a user page? 30flavors (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anon IPs have talk pages, just like logged-in users. In this case, it's here. This appears to be no vio, since there are only three reverts, though, one way or another. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll warn the user and wait for the inevitable 4th revert, thanks. 30flavors (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You need 4R in 24h, not 24d. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    71.70.253.135 reported by Marauder40 (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [69]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [74]

    User was notified by different editors that their comments are POV. Editor reverts without comment. Also doing the same changes on the Raymond Arroyo page. Marauder40 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Catterick reported by User:Snowded (result: 48h)

    [Last stable version] 1st revert: [75] 2nd revert: [76] (a series of edits) 3rd revert [77] 4th revert [78] 5th revert [79] 6th revert {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brittany&diff=294428433&oldid=294426579] 7th revert [80]

    Warning issued [81] and deleted within minutes

    The Editor holds eccentric views relating the various issues connected with Britain, Ireland and Brittany (as well as various historical areas). In addition to the edit warring above the editor frequently misuses tools by reverting edits they are unhappy with as "vandalism' and there are multiple examples of a failure to follow WP:CIVIL across a range of articles than can be researched if necessary. However the reversion history above should be enough.

    I think most editors involved recognise that we have an "eccentric" here so there has been general tolerance despite the constant assertions that the editor is being wikistalked etc. etc. However the behaviour is now disruptive. If someone could give this editor advise it might help. --Snowded TALK 19:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Form; 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cryptonio reported by Brewcrewer (Result: 72h)

    User:Cryptonio is basically a single purpose account that has spent most of his Wikitime edit-warring at Israel-Palestine articles. During April, he was blocked twice for violating 3rr.

    More recently, User:Cryptonio has taken upon himself to edit-war and remove content relating to allegations that Hamas violated international law. Despite facing a clear consensus supporting the inclusion of the text, he has run a solo mission, edit warring over the last week, ignoring a warning, continuing to delete the content and the sources. A breakdown:


    In total, he has removed the same exact content 13 times in the last 7 days. He has been the only editor removing the content and his deletions have been reverted by 4 editors across the "political spectrum." (User:Eleland[82]; User:Nableezy[83][84][85][86];User:Brewcrewer[87];User:Sceptic Ashdod[88]).

    I considered asking for page protection, but it is clear that Cryptonio is impervious to talk page discussion on this matter, and will revert this material ad infinitum, as soon as any protection is lifted.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything here is part of WP:BRD. Brewcrwer has not said a word on this matter. Nableezy did not addressed the concerns brought by me. And Sceptic swears everything that he does should be accepted.
    I have been editing this page with great care from almost the beginning. No one in the page can say that I'm pro one side or the other, unlike almost everybody else you find there. No consensus was ever reached on this matter, just a statement that two editors decided it was oka. That is not consensus, and then again, I offered an acceptable compromise that was reverted.
    And to top it all, I have been editing, but it does not constitutes 3rr violations, if we care to count. Cryptonio (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. While you learned not to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, it is clear that are now simply gaming the system, continually edit-warring out this material while skirting the 3RR restriction.
    Addendum: Another revert since this report was filed. [89]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two reverts since this report was filed.
    And User Eleland was not part of any discussion and just showed up to the page for that one single edit.
    I am not sure how to label Brewcrewer, but he is as partisan as they come. He was very close to another user who got banned, probably knew that the user was a sockpoppet, and said nothing to the community. The only side he sees is the Israeli side, and he will lend blind support to any user who also is here to make Israel look a certain way, as is the case of Sceptic. I repeat, he will blindly help fellow editors that work, not in a pro-wiki style, but in a very pro-israeli mantra. Yet, he has not been called to our attention, because he has not violated 3rr, but that would be very difficult since he never discusses anything, doesn't even improve any articles, he simple comes in once in a while and reverts erring on Israel's side. Cryptonio (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have yet to learn how to contribute to Wiki in a meaningful way. You accuse me of being a single-purpose user, but have you learned to label yourself in any other way? You are not the person that should be telling me about single-purpose account. You accuse me of gaming the system? you don't respect the system, so I doubt you even care about not gaming the system.
    Brewcrewer you have not been helpful to this project at all. Your edits(all of them) are always to revert someone you don't agree with, specially someone who disagrees articles should always be Pro-Israel. You don't care about the system, all you care is about Israel. Well then, who's gaming the system? Cryptonio (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring; form; 72h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    216.73.149.66 reported by Darrenhusted (Result: no vio)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [90]

    After the 3RR warning user posted See you tommorrow! showing intent to re-add the phrase. If you scan the talk page for the article concerned you will see that for some lame reason this phrase has attracted fierce debate (I know everyone should have something better to do). As it is consensus has been to keep the phrase out, and adding it has been reverted back out for months. This IP deliberately waited for the 24hrs to pass so as to not get caught in the strict sense of 3RR, however their comment after the 3RR warning shows that they only intend to make this one edit.

    I'm not going to revert rather leave that to another editor. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The anon has 3R, and so do you. If they come abck and keep going against multiple editors, then fine we can semi the page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diete003 reported by Rjanag (Result: 31 hr)


    • A: Previous version reverted to: [91]



    • B: Previous version reverted to: [95]




    Diete300 has been engaging in WP:OWNership and incivil editing. The first set of diffs above is him reverting a change I made, repeatedly, and refusing to engage in discussion after repeated requests to provide a rationale for his editing. The second set is borderline vandalism, Diete300 was editing a "dablink" at the top of the article telling readers to go to an external website and implying that this article is not "proper". At the beginning of this interaction, after I asked Diete to use edit summaries (using {{subst:uw-summary}} at his talk page), he left this edit summary on the article. It's pretty clear that he needs to be blocked for both edit warring and incivility (he has been warned for edit warring in the past, and his October 2008 issue also had plenty of incivility), but I don't want to do it myself since I am already involved. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyrus111 reported by Folantin (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [100]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [108]

    --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BufordTJustice reported by User:Nukes4Tots (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [109]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [114]

    Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    70.106.219.216 reported by Jolly Janner (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [115]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [120]

    User doesn't not communicate and I have also discussed the matter of overlinking on Portal talk:Current events/2009 June 5. Jolly Ω Janner 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexikoua reported by User Sarandioti (Result: no action ) =

    • Previous version reverted to: [121]


    Partial revert


    He just keeps reverting versions from 4 different users. --Sarandioti (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above (Sarandioti) user ignores systematically our discussions, makes unhistorical pov claims and abuses a number of users. and there hasn't been an 3RR off course, only partial reverts of unclaimed and unsourced sentences.Alexikoua (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Alexikou, that's not entirely true because is sourced, though perhaps not accurately. this, though, isn't a revert, but an attempt to make a compromise. I count three reverts from Alexikoua. It's four only if this is a reversion to some previous version I haven't seen. No 3RR vio from Sarandioti either, unless he's editing as 12.106.250.211. So there'll be no action here. As to the dispute itself. Albanian was clearly a common spoken language of the region in this period according to my sources, even if Greek was the elite and dominant language; comparisons with Turkish and Latin are silly. You guys can sort this out in a less confrontational and tendentious manner. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=294646608"