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
Sarandioti (talk | contribs)
792 edits
Sarandioti (talk | contribs)
792 edits
Line 638: Line 638:
User:Athenean just asked for a single source, which was not given and -no wonder- the paragraph was deleted. Suppose Pakapshem cooperated with some ips (hope he was not himself, just trying to evade 3rr vio.)[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Athenean just asked for a single source, which was not given and -no wonder- the paragraph was deleted. Suppose Pakapshem cooperated with some ips (hope he was not himself, just trying to evade 3rr vio.)[[User:Alexikoua|Alexikoua]] ([[User talk:Alexikoua|talk]]) 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Let admins do their job, and stop empty accusations. And whne exactly was Pakapshem blocked for 2 months?? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:I+Pakapshem]. I guess for you 2 weeks means 2 months.--[[User:Sarandioti|Sarandioti]] ([[User talk:Sarandioti|talk]]) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Let admins do their job, and stop empty accusations. And when exactly was Pakapshem blocked for 2 months?? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:I+Pakapshem]. I guess for you 2 weeks means 2 months.--[[User:Sarandioti|Sarandioti]] ([[User talk:Sarandioti|talk]]) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


== [[User:Emy111]] reported by [[User:Massimo Catarinella]] ==
== [[User:Emy111]] reported by [[User:Massimo Catarinella]] ==

Revision as of 19:41, 19 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:PelleSmith reported by User:Wikifan12345 (result: stale)


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



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned in talk, AFD, and user page, see below.


    This warring is less of a personal dispute and revolves around mis-attribution to policy and poor summaries. User claimed his vast amounts of deleted material was simply OR, even though much of the content was cited thoroughly by the United States Department of Justice and other government/3rd party references. I tried to have him move the content he disputed both at my userpage and the AFD so it would be easier to discuss, but he did not do this. I considered moving the content myself but felt that would be a breach of editing code. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User edit-warred almost every single one my additions and was adamant about not resolving dispute in talk and preferred to project it on the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Contiguous edits count as one. You can try re-doing your report if you like, though it is likely to be stale. As far as I can see, people are using the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you mean contiguous editS? Pelle has been edit-warring additions he doesn't agree with relentlessly. Using the talk page/discussion is totally irrelevant when it comes to edit-warring, according to you at least. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor continues to war out additions. Will, you've had no problem doing what you are supposed to do to every other notice report, and now claim it is stale because you consciously waited. I know we have a history so perhaps another administrator can do their job. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikifan is editing against consensus and in violation of basic policies. William is correct as well about contiguous edits, however if William or another admin commenting here thinks there is a problem with my editing in this instance please advise on how I need to change my behavior and I will comply.PelleSmith (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, some of the diffs are contiguous, but it looks to me (after a cursory glance) that you have just barely come in under the 3rr wire, and then continued to edit war afterwards. I don't think, pace William, that a new report is necessary, though Wikifan, you might want to make a note here of continuing reversion on the article, if applicable. I'd also note, the report is very far from stale. Admin intervention may well be required. IronDuke 02:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah Pelle continues to revert my edits, and dubiously said the additions were original research. I just think this is a double standard because Will has blocked me for far, far less. I'm scared to continue editing the article for fear of being blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there is no consensus. Accusing me of editing against it is simply a lie. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it might be good for you to stop reverting while you sort things out, and maybe pursue dispute resolution. I agree that WMC might not be the best person to intervene here. Hopefully, an uninvolved admin will weigh in/actIronDuke 03:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I stopped doing major edits hours ago. All I've done is minor edits (spelling, syntax) but those too are occasionally reverted. I filed a 3OO but no response. William has always been pretty consistent with blocking edit-warring regardless of reasoning and now he makes a dubious exception. Talk about a double standard. Everyone but Wikifan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No more reverts; stale William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikireader41 on Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (result: Prot)

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


    User:Wikireader41 has violated wp:3rr by reverting Kanwar Pal Singh Gill four times in one single day. Please seerevert 1,revert 2,revert 3 andrevert 4.

    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

    This is a serious violations and need to be looked at.yousaf465' 06:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-07-16T05:33:10 YellowMonkey (talk | contribs | block) m (45,543 bytes) (Protected Kanwar Pal Singh Gill: ew ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not enough. In pervious cases which I have seen it's both side as for yellowmonkwy is concerned a case is going on against him in which wikireader41 is [invloved]. Interstingly Yellowmonkey also broke wp:3rr there.yousaf465'

    I was not aware if someone had already filed a complaint based on my rough/un-detailed contents which I had posted on some administrator's talk page and on some un-related notice board. I have gathered enough sources to document this case based on the template of this notice-board, I request Administrators to look into my contents and PLEASE DECIDE. As previously complained by another editor, User:YellowMonkey is already facing POV charges at "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" where Editor in questions, i.e. User:Wikireader41 is the only editor supporting User:YellowMonkey. So while considering this relationship, I make a humble request to rest of wikipedia administrators to make an impartial decision on my complaint which I am putting below:
    July 9th 2009 – Initially the text was being tagged by editors but Wikireader41 kept deleting the tags, see here and here
    July 9th 2009 - Wikireader41 asked for some reference from opposing editors (ideally to accept their logic), which was provided to him
    July 14th 2009 – After receiving no further challenge from Wikireader41, another editor cut and moved the text in question to the article’s talk page to reach wp:consensus but Wikireader41, after putting an unrealistic demand for at-least 1000-10000 further references, he reverted the article and kept on reverting it[1][2][3] . By doing so he has clearly violated wp:consensus, by forcefully restoring the text (which was never deleted but actually preserved in the talk page) he has violated wp:pov and by reverting this article several times he has violated WP:EW.
    This editor Wikireader41 and IP User: 209.224.239.164 is clearly the same editor, however there's now four reverts from the account User:Wikireader41 anyway. Despite this case, User:Wikireader41’s previous history shows that he is a known violator of wp:pov and WP:EW , which resulted in his previous “48 Hours of Blocking ” by respected Wikipedia Administrators. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously complained by another editor, User:YellowMonkey is already facing POV charges at "Neutral point of view/Noticeboard" where Editor in questions, i.e. User:Wikireader41 is the only editor supporting User:YellowMonkey. So while considering this relationship, I make a humble request to rest of wikipedia administrators to make an impartial decision on my complaint. Kindly consider it very serious.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also User:YellowMonkey had already protected the page after recieving a message from User:Wikireader41. So in other words he was not aware of my detailed complaint in this case. Hence! It need your kind attention. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wladthemlat reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: 24h)



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

    It looks like user is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Checkuser already requested.

    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by administrator [10]


    B@xter9 08:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gorillasapiens reported by User:Teahot (result: 24h)

    Gorillasapiens appears to be on a continued campaign, using the talk page and this article as a soapbox as well as continuing to revert other editors with the same issue and disrupting improvement to the article. I have offered some suggestions as to how to proceed on the talk page but they have been ignored. In addition to the above list of reverts given by Destinero, here are the most recent two examples:

    • 8th revert: diff 16 July 2009
    • 9th revert: diff 16 July 2009

    —Teahot (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, User:Gorillasapiens has recently raised a request on wp:3O. However, I believe their history of reversions on this page still requires review.—Teahot (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alfonzo Green reported by User:Verbal (Result: 24 hours)

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

    1. 20:25, 15 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored corrections") (Version generally reverted to, also a revert)
    2. 21:52, 15 July 2009 (edit summary: "once again undoing the work of reckless, anti-science vandals")
    3. 09:50, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored corrections and removed uncited allegation that scientists have accused him of pseudoscience")
      09:52, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "/* Reception */ restored censored statement from two biologists in support of Sheldrake") (These are two sequential reverts, hence count as one)
    4. 10:31, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
    5. 11:39, 16 July 2009 (edit summary: "restored material censored by anti-Sheldrake fanatic")
    • Diff of warning: here
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rupert Sheldrake User has been warned and reverted by at least three different editors who have questioned his contributions.
    • User attempting to justify why his reverts aren't in violation of 3RR on my talk page.

    —Verbal chat 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours --B (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.254.62.8 reported by User:EEMIV (Result: LAME)

    • Previous version reverted to: [11]


    (I believe there are others earlier than the first one listed here)

    Point of contention is whether it's "jerkwad" or "jerk wad." Muy importante. This is technically not a 3RR violation (given the 24+-hour window of edit warring). However, the sheer number of reverts and counter-reverts -- including one after a 3RR warring -- make this a clear violation in spirit.

    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

    I'll add as a PS that User:Montana's Defender has been the other half of the edit war. Although he hasn't technically violated 3RR, he's well aware of the policy and has thoroughly broken it in spirit, too. Per his MO, he's reverted the IP editor without initiating in any sort of talk-page discussion. He placed the warning on the IP editor's talk page, and I placed one on his for edit-warring in kind. Frankly, I believe both the IP and MD should receive the usual block. --EEMIV (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Added to WP:LAME, thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent! :-D --EEMIV (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Edokter reported by User:Arcayne (Result: both warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: [22]


    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:20 July 15 and subsequent posts

    The user is seeking to reframe a mediation dispute by altering the content of the dispute by adding false information, and subsequently edit-warring about its inclusion.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment – Edokter appears to have been acting in good faith, to keep to the required structure and to keep things in order. Would it not have been better to discuss his reasons for dispute with him? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Argh. This is all a bit cr*p. Ed *has* broken 3RR and should know well enough not to do so. OTOH I had assumed that the links A provided to attempt-to-resolve and warning were valid; they aren't. Unblocking for now at least, anyone else wants to look please feel free William M. Connolley (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I tried and failed, as Edokter refused to discuss the matter. Edokter created a flawed RfC that is alterably different from the initial, more neutral RfC, and my comment was to point out the flaw, instead of substituting the original. Had Edokter been interested in listening, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Instead, he thought breaking 3RR seemed a better idea. He was warned about refactoring the posts of others, and chose to ignore it, violating 3RR. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I tried and failed, as Edokter refused to discuss the matter. Edokter created a flawed RfC that is alterably different from the initial, more neutral RfC, and my comment was to point out the flaw, instead of substituting the original. Had Edokter been interested in listening, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Instead, he thought breaking 3RR seemed a better idea. He was warned about refactoring the posts of others, and chose to ignore it, violating 3RR. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As well, Edokter has been an editor an admin here long enough to be aware of something as simple as 3RR; my warning was to ask him to not refactor my posts - a request that Edokter promptly ignored. We do not refactor the article- or process-discussions of others, and - unless I'm grossly mistaken - we certainly don't violate 3RR to do so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to think that this is an IAR situation. He was honestly trying, as I think WMC noticed (and thanks for unblocking, by the way!), to keep the flow and structure. It looked more like you were undoing all his separate honest efforts. I think we should just put this one down to a breakdown in communication and move on quickly! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec x2)I disagree. This is not the first time that Edokter has swerved dangerously close to 3RR in the past, this was no exception. He did not choose to discuss his edits, he just made them, and to hell with my comments and requests. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (e/c) This (as in, this situation that you've both got yourselves into) is stupid. You should both know better. If either of you reverts there again I'll certainly block you. However, you may both be reassured that without a doubt any number of eyes have now looked at that page. If there is any remaining problem, people will edit it. But not you. Should you feel like discussing the question further, why you could use the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tried that in the mediation discussion. The mediator blanked it as "unprofessional"(1), effectively ending discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    And I would point out that the current version is the problem, and one that folk visiting it would not be initially aware of. Indeed, the version assumes its conclusion, and any folk visiting the discussion would have already been influenced as to the outcome. It is flawed on its face. Either way, removing clarifying instruction was a 3RR vio from an editor (and admin) who should very well know better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ViperNerd reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: warned all round 24h / 1 week)


    Note: the user is not over the bright line, but has made over 4 separate, arbitrary reverts with really rotten justifications; and is making no effort to edit collaboratively, nor is he follow the relevant wiki policy.

    User has been repeatedly reverting edits by arbitrarily removing non english language references. He quotes the policy, then acts as if it says something else. In effect, he's inventing his own policy and then enforcing it by deleting/reverting.

    He edit wars while his subject line says 'Edit warring solves nothing.' He's insulting on the talk page, and acts as if he owns the article, while accusing me of owning the article (I don't consider the claim that I am owning the article has any merit at all, I've got literally a handful of edits there, he's on about 20 consecutive, many of them simply deletions or reversions). The user ViperNerd has been suspended for edit warring for long periods before. The user is being very tiresome, and seems to be using the 3RR rule contrary to its intended spirit.

    In short I've never seen a more clearcut example of edit warring, although he has not made 4 reverts my understanding is that this is not required, and this seems to be very clear cut edit warring by him.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting user has also been blocked more than once for edit warring, so if we're judging by past actions here, there you go. Also, this user seems to believe that just because the first source one stumbles across is non-English, that it's fine to quit right there and use it to ref statements in the article. In short, this editor is interpreting the guideline as he wants it to be, not as it was intended. It took me very little time to replace several Russian language refs in the article with English language ones (per WP guideline), is it too much to ask the same of others who want to edit this article? I did more to improve sourcing on this article (which is still in desperate need of more) in one day than this user has done in months, but somehow that's "edit warring" in the eyes of an editor who seems to think that article ownership and lazy, unverifiable sourcing are acceptable on Wikipedia these days. ViperNerd (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is simply aggressively removing anything that he wishes for a completely non policy reason; the policy says that non english references are acceptable, but English sources are preferred- the user is just edit warring them all out, and is being pretty insulting as well, as you can see. Examination of the edits to the article shows clearly that I am not owning the article in any way; but the same is not true of ViperNerd. The user needs to stop edit warring.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "edit warring" you mean replacing utterly unverifiable Russian language sources with reliable English language sources, then yes, I'm guilty as charged. It's really not that difficult, maybe you could try it sometime. Policy states that foreign language sources are only acceptable if NO ENGLISH SOURCE CAN BE FOUND, and even then the foreign source must meet the standard of WP:RS, so the burden of proof falls on the person providing the source. Like I've pointed out several times, I found English sources with mere minutes of looking for them, are you suggesting that you cannot do the same? ViperNerd (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vipernerd vs Wolfkeeper sounds like some exciting wrestling federation title bout. Sadly its just a tedious edit war, but not a 3RR violation since they are well out of 24h. VN appears to be removing sources for spurious reasons. e.g. [27]: just because *you* can't verify it doesn't make it unverifiable William M. Connolley (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's systematically removing all my edits, and has just done it again, immediately after your warning.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow...just, wow. "Your" (WP:OWN much?) edits/sources do not support the material you are attempting to add to the article, and this was explained in the edit summary. Either find a reliable source that verifies the material you wish to add, or stop attempting to add it. It's really that simple. I assumed good faith in believing that you understood that basic tenant of Wikipedia. Please read up on it if this is not the case. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *That* is more like it - now you're living up to your names. And all caps too - extra points. 24h both William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC) [Update: in view of past history, VN gets bumped up to a week William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]

    User:ViperNerd still seems to be edit warring while blocked.[28], I've put a sockpuppet request check in, and I probably going to call for semiprotection of the article as well if he does it again.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.109.97.127 reported by User:Vexorg (Result: No violation)


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



    This anonymous editor is using different IPs but is clearly the same person. The excuse for his/her reverts is WP:BLP, however the reverts are info describing the organisation he belonged to.

    I have notified the user of this report, however it may change IP..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.109.97.127


    Vexorg (talk) 01:59, 17 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Use this page to report recent violations of the three-revert rule, and active edit warriors." - I wasn't reporting a 3RR, I was reporting an edit warrior. Vexorg (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:David Fuchs reported by User:Despayre (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [29]


    • 1st revert: [30]
    • 2nd revert: [31]
    • 3rd revert: [32]
    • 4th revert: He won't answer on article or usertalk page, no reason to believe he won't revert again if I restore the sourced info

    Also please review exact same process at [33]


    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page (2 sections, "ST:TWOK revert, and "First Contact budget"). (Also review the edit summaries of the two articles): [35]

    Also, I just (finally) received this on my talkpage, doesn't seem very likely to change his ways, does he? --Despayre (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The third "revert" listed was an extension of my second; I had removed incorrect information but accidentally left the ref used in. If you can't be bothered to actually look for quality sources, I'm sorry if I sound snippy. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits did not contain "incorrect information". You reverted my sourced verifiable edits with material that was unsourced entirely! As per WP:Burden, if you can't prove your material, I will have to remove it and go with reliably sourced material. If you only have a hard-copy of your source please provide a quote backing up your claim, along with your reference. If you have a problem with my sources, please discuss on the talk pages, that's what they're for. --Despayre (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I really can't bring myself to care about the tedious details of some movie. Yet again, I'm amazed at the tedia people edit war over. It doesn't look like a technical vio to me, but I think someone else should judge this William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Got enough of the tedious details of some climate change topic, eh? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Impartial observer here: sheeesh! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Dr.enh reported by User:Lionelt (Result: warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: [36]


    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41] (see Edit Summary)
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42], [43]

    I am a Novice Editor, and this is my first experience with an aggressive editor. I believe Dr.enh has violated 3RR, at least in spirit anyway, but I am unsure. I copied the Diff's as best I could: hope they meet your requirements. Lionelt (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No technical vio (1st revert on the 14th) and no reverts since your warning. Will warn William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikireader41 reported by User:99.51.223.161 (Result: already decided)

    See above. Don't re-add this William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.114.133.44 reported by User:KeltieMartinFan (Result:24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [44]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] (see Edit Summary)
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

    This editor, who has no formal experience editing on wikipedia according to his history, has put unsource, speculative, and rather inappropriate edits to Rebecca Quick’s article pertaining to her martial status. I tried to undo this questionable edit by this edit, but everytime I did, it is reverted right back to the same controversial information. When I tried warning him, this editor still did not comply, and still continue with his ruthless reverts. So I told him, enough’s enough. There is no official source stating Rebecca Quick’s martial status in the past. And this obnoxious editor is putting information that is unsource and in direct violation of the living person’s biography, and is unwilling to back off in his shrewd ways by engaging in this edit war that I don’t want. I afraid that if I revert for a fourth time, I would subject myself to the 3RR policy. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Enigmamsg 15:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Dvj2009 reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: No violation)

    Long term edit warring over a content dispute with several other editors. Editor keeps removing verified assertion with multiple reliable sources claiming defamation and untruth in the Mimi Macpherson article.[52][53][54][55][56] The issue was also discussed at biographies of living people noticeboard but the discussion lapsed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:34, 17 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for 3RR. I'm asking administrators to intervene in a long-term edit war. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Disfasia reported by User:Mathieugp (Result: Warned)

    As recommended by User:Jezhotwells over at WP:EAR (under "Censorship"), I report that there is continued edit warring at National Holiday (Quebec) over content pushed by User:Disfasia .

    User:Disfasia edited two full paragraphs on June 16 which were first removed by Administrator User:FisherQueen ([57]) as WP:OR. User:FisherQueen attempted to explain the nature of the problem with User:Disfasia on User:Disfasia's talk page. After edit warrring with User:FisherQueen (and random others) all the way to June 21 ([58]), User:Disfasia complained of censorship (WP:EAR) and later disappeared.

    He reappeared on July 14 and re-posted the same stuff, which I removed ([59]), which he reposted again on July 17 ([60]). This is where we are now. As User:FisherQueen seems somewhat on vacation ([61]), there has been no response to the re-occurrence of edit warring. Could someone who has time please take care of this. Thanks. -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned Nja247 18:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One detail: FisherQueen gave a last warning [62] already. Following this warning, User:Disfasia momentarily stopped re-adding his paragraph. Then he added it again on July 14. -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that, but it was a while ago. Try to resolve the issue the best you can. Cheers. Nja247 23:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EEng reported by User:Gavia immer (Result: warned)

    • Previous version reverted to: [63]
    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

    EEng is a frequent editor of the article Phineas Gage whose work has greatly improved the article. However, he has repeatedly reverted today to remove an image of a 160-year-old daguerreotype from the article on spurious copyright grounds (and attempted to have the image deleted on Commons, which I mention only to say that he is entirely intractable on this matter). It does not appear that he will cease edit warring to remove the image under any circumstances. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Among other things, 3RR makes special allowance copyright matters, and I had and have good-faith reasons for believing those allowances applied here. I'll post full comments in about 24-48 hours. In the meantime, I note that John Vandenberg has proposed at [70] that the image stay out of the article until the copyright status is resolved. EEng (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but you seem to have reached a result without waiting for comment from me. Is this process ex parte? Should I not bother to respond? EEng (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ferrylodge reported by User:MastCell (Result: 48h)

    • Previous version reverted to: 00:51, 17 July 2009 (two consecutive edits by Ferrylodge summarized in diff)

    OK, I know this is 4 reverts in 24:01, but given that it's only a snapshot of the edit-warring, and given Ferrylodge's history, I've brought it here for review despite the 1-minute-beyond-24-hours grace window, which I'll assume is coincidental rather than an obvious gaming of 3RR. MastCell Talk 06:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There was no 3RR violation. What there was was this: Mastcell admitted that he was seeking "insertion of more extreme and partisan terms" into a BLP. I objected at the talk page, and another editor concurred that I am right about this. Mastcell is in violation of several Wikipedia policies such as WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    48h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Serouj reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [71]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76] Also this user has previously been blocked for 3RR, so he is aware of the rule. [77]


    48h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User_talk:83.24.120.47 reported by User:Samboy (Result: 24h)

    Repeat offender; report of their last WP:3RR violation

    • Previous version reverted to: [79]


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


    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

    Samboy (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Off2riorob reported by User:Vexorg (Result: 2 weeks)




    This user appears to be reverting a properly sourced edit with a POV stance. Five times now in fairly quick succesion. Vexorg (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted a couple of edits to remove an attack site inserted by this user Vexorg. I have been defending the Wikipedia BLP from edits attempting to claim long term membership of an israeli group, my first edits were to remove Zionist claims, I have at all times in this situation attempted to move to the talk page and have started threads on this users page as well. I have repeatedly requested them to please provide additional citation to support their claims of long term memdership . As far as accusing me of POV goes, my reason d'etre is actually to prevent harm to the person that is the subject of the WP:BLP (Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    This user Vexorg has reinserted the cite that was flagged as an attack cite and also has come here and continued to revert the page after reporting here. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks — Aitias // discussion 00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note. The source I added is not an attack site it is www.haaretz.com, a reputable major Israeli media outlet. Vexorg (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gamechanger reported by User:Aktsu (Result: 48h )

    Kim Dong-hyun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Gamechanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 04:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [88]

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

    1. 22:03, 18 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 23:04, 18 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 00:16, 19 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 03:56, 19 July 2009 (edit summary: "")
    • Diff of warning: [89]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on use talk page: [90]

    User was blocked yesterday for the same edits. --aktsu (t / c) 04:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Nja247 13:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.83.113.209 reported by User:Curtis Clark (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to: [91]



    • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

    I'm an uninvolved editor (other than agreeing that the changes by User:74.83.113.209 violate WP:UNDUE.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:33, 19 July 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 15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Athenean reported by User:I Pakapshem




    In all cases the user removes this particular text:

    In 1481, one year after the Ottomans had landed in Otranto in southern Italy, the Himariotes rose against them under the leadership of Gjon Kastrioti, the son of Skanderbeg, who attempted to regain the lands lost after the death of his father. The attempt failed, but the Himariotes rose again in 1488, and between 1494-1509, destabilising Turkish control but failing to liberate their territory. Following the rising of 1482 several Himariote families fled the town for Sicily where they were granted land near Palermo which became the town of Piana degli Albanesi, descendents of these families still constitute the majority of the population of the aforementioned town as well as the village of Santa Cristina Gela which was founded later by farmers from Piana degli Albanesi. The local dialect of Albanian called Arberesh is still spoken in these communities of Sicily .

    Athenean is not a new user, and is quite familiar with the regulations for edit warring and has also been warned before by admins for edit warring[101].

    --I Pakapshem (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Although User:I Pakapshem, has been several times blocked (the last 2 months) due to extreme nationalistic activity, he continues to keep a general disruptive behavior. Recently, he kept reverting articles like Spyros Spyromilios, although being warned and blocked [[102]] because of that activity.

    User:Athenean just asked for a single source, which was not given and -no wonder- the paragraph was deleted. Suppose Pakapshem cooperated with some ips (hope he was not himself, just trying to evade 3rr vio.)Alexikoua (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let admins do their job, and stop empty accusations. And when exactly was Pakapshem blocked for 2 months?? [103]. I guess for you 2 weeks means 2 months.--Sarandioti (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emy111 reported by User:Massimo Catarinella

    (cur) (prev) 18:18, 19 July 2009 Emy111 (talk | contribs) (89,356 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:14, 19 July 2009 PRRfan (talk | contribs) (89,406 bytes) (Rv undiscussed img change) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:08, 19 July 2009 Emy111 (talk | contribs) (89,093 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:08, 19 July 2009 Emy111 (talk | contribs) (89,356 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 16:09, 19 July 2009 Massimo Catarinella (talk | contribs) (89,406 bytes) (Reverting the lead image for the last time to prevent an edit war again. I've notified the user through his/her talk page and placed a note above the article.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:33, 19 July 2009 Emy111 (talk | contribs) (89,356 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:21, 19 July 2009 Massimo Catarinella (talk | contribs) (89,406 bytes) (I've inserted a note concerning the discussion. If anyone knows which template to use and can fix, that would be great.) (undo)

    In all cases the user removes the new lead image for his own old one. There is a discussion on the talk page of the article to decide which of the two should be the new lead image for the Philadelphia article. A majority decided so far that it should not be his. Despite the note on the top of the article stating that a discussion is going on and the message I left on his talk page, he is still refusing to participate and keeps revering lead images vigorously. He probably used different IP-addresses before the page became semi-protected. I hope you could do something about it. I'm new at filing such request, so don't shoot me if I make mistakes.

    --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanwar_Pal_Singh_Gill&diff=next&oldid=302172592
    2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanwar_Pal_Singh_Gill&diff=next&oldid=302341643
    3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanwar_Pal_Singh_Gill&diff=next&oldid=302353440
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=302998981"