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
Bko79 (talk | contribs)
8 edits
Line 673: Line 673:
::Agreed. There's nothing constructive about this user. – <font color="#000066">[[User:Ms. Sarita|'''Ms. Sarita''']]</font> <sup><font color="#0000FF">[[User talk:Ms. Sarita|'''''Confer''''']]</font></sup> 08:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed. There's nothing constructive about this user. – <font color="#000066">[[User:Ms. Sarita|'''Ms. Sarita''']]</font> <sup><font color="#0000FF">[[User talk:Ms. Sarita|'''''Confer''''']]</font></sup> 08:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] reported by [[User:Bko79|Bko79]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] reported by [[User:Bko79|Bko79]] (Result: no violation ) ==


* Page: {{article|Černová tragedy}}
* Page: {{article|Černová tragedy}}
Line 694: Line 694:
* I never edit anyone's talk, I respectfully leave other's comments alone. Why can't others do the same? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C4%8Cernov%C3%A1_tragedy&oldid=248994564]
* I never edit anyone's talk, I respectfully leave other's comments alone. Why can't others do the same? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C4%8Cernov%C3%A1_tragedy&oldid=248994564]


Hobartimus' contributions to Wikipedia consist of reverting edits and destroying intellectual property. Talk pages are for opinions and no one has the right to destroy valid opinions added by any user! Bko79
Hobartimus' contributions to Wikipedia consist of reverting edits and destroying intellectual property. Talk pages are for opinions and no one has the right to destroy valid opinions added by any user! {{unsigned|Bko79}}

:'''Decline'''. First of all, please follow the proper format in the future by providing links to the diffs of the edits (to highlight the changes they are making) rather than the resulting versions like you did. Second of all, I do not see him reverting anyone more than three (3) times in one twenty-four (24) hour period. Third of all, what he ''is'' reverting is, essentially, vandalism which is an exemption from the 3RR rule. [[User:Metros|Metros]] ([[User talk:Metros|talk]]) 14:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:41, 1 November 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    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

    Violations

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


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

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

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]
    Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son


    Causteau reported by Andrew Lancaster (Result: 3h)

    • 1st revert: [6]
    Text re-moved: As E1b1b1 dispersed, all major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Western Asia. E-V13 and E-M123, both found in Europe and amongst Jewish populations, are two major sub-clades of E-M78 which originated outside of Africa, both in the Near East.
    Compare to: [7]
    • 2nd revert: [8]
    Revision as of 20:11, 26 October 2008
    Text re-moved: As E1b1b1 dispersed, most major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Western Asia.
    Compare to: [9] (part of a bigger edit)
    Compare to: [11]
    Compare to: [13]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [14]

    Causteau is a repeat reverter on this article since he started paying attention to it about May 2008. His rapidly expanding Talk Page seems to indicate very similar problems on other articles. The number of reverts is much lower than it could be on E1b1b because Causteau makes explicit threats to revert any attempts to change his good faith edits, because he understands, or claims to understand, that by definition any such edits are bad faith edits, and may be reverted. Strangely, attempts to get admins involved in correcting this impression have never led to any admin telling him this is not so. As a result he now feels even more justified in making reverts. So part of the problem is at least presented as a misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules, which however he claims to be defending. Therefore as an attempt to get someone with enough authority to say something clear about policy, a Wikiquette alert has also been launched. See these example explanations from a discussion the E1b1b Discussion Page:

    Should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    Restoring a good-faith insertion of a reliable source ... from an instance of bad faith editing whereby some editor removes said reliable source due to, in his words, some non-existent "wording" issue does not qualify as "edit-warring". Causteau (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    ...it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase [using, in particular] the very word the study itself uses! Causteau (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    ...this is not "just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Wikipedia rules". I only wish it were. What it really is about is the proposed flouting of Wiki rules. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

    Attempts to communicate about content on the Discussion page are frequently met with full length reproductions of Wikipedia rule pages concerning things like Verifiability - over and over again - implying that if something is verifiable, no one may try to improve it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I also made a report on this [15] but self-reverted when I saw this one. The following is copied from my report: User denies incident [16]. This is a repeat offender, in spite of the clear block log. Last 3RR violation at The Jerusalem Post ([17] [18] [19] [20]) was much clearer, happened last week within 3 hours, was also denied by the user, and was never reported here or sanctioned. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, regarding that old, long-resolved 3RR violation over at the Jerusalem Post -- which I openly admit to -- where I was restoring reliable sources that were being repeatedly removed for no valid reason by User:Hans Adler in tandem with this now blocked user, I have already been warned about it on my talk page by a very reasonable administrator. What Hans Adler unsurprisingly fails to mention above is that he too was warned by the same administrator for his part in the dispute. The administrator in question realized that the Jerusalem Post affair was just a garden variety content dispute, a dispute which Hans Adler has since for some inexplicable reason been doggedly attempting to resurrect and metastasize into something much more serious.

    As for User:Andrew Lancaster's charge that I've violated WP:3RR over at the E1b1b article, that is completely untrue. Please verify for yourselves the page's recent history and avail yourselves of its compare function. See first hand whether I've gone over the limit. You will quickly notice that I only twice reverted his edits (1, 2), both times because he was personally interpreting for readers a portion of a direct quote from a reliable source that does not support or indeed even mention anything pertaining to his personal interpretation. Causteau (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment An informal mediation about this article was started in August. Some comments by the mediator can be seen on the article Talk page here. Does anyone know if that mediation is still active? If the two participants are following this discussion, can they say if they are still willing to participate in the mediation? EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment. The mediation did take place and that particular dispute was resolved. The current issue involves a 3RR claim that is patently false and which a simple look through the E1b1b article's recent history readily disproves. Causteau (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    In my opinion, the mediation did not really ever get off the ground. I notice that the admin Elonka tried prodding the mediator into action, as did I. The dispute was only resolved in the sense that edit wars on this article do eventually stop when warnings start getting sent by admins. But the underlying attitude of Causteau that his reverts can be justified by various interpretations of Wikipedia rules (e.g. that edits to something with good sourcing are never "good faith") leads to continuing problems since May, when Causteau started to give his attention to this article. The only admin who has had any repeated role here is Elonka, who seems to watch over Causteau's edit wars. She has been very wary of getting involved because she thinks the problem must be some highly technical content dispute, which it certainly is not. Causteau's habit of posting long quotes over and over into the middle of talk page discussions possibly helps scare away third parties. So Causteau's repeated twisting of the rules gets little comment yet from admins, although there have been a few comments made which had a temporary effect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This page is for potential 3RR breaches not for any other issues. The reverts listed above don't seem to be the same edits, therefore no action should be really be taken here. However all parties should be reminded about using dispute resolution and to use the talk page to discuss article content not in edit summaries. --neon white talk 17:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a potentially dangerous reading of 3RR, and I hope it's not correct:
    • Editor A tries something, editor B reverts. Editor A rereverts, and so does editor B. Repeat 2 more times. Editor B can be blocked for edit warring, and editor A may get away with just a warning.
    • Editor A tries something, editor B reverts. Editor A tries something else, hoping to find a compromise. Editor B reverts again. A tries yet something else, and B reverts. And once more. Now this isn't a 3RR violation because A worked towards a compromise instead of edit-warring?
    I just got a 3RR warning for 3 reverts, one of which was partial, and one of which was unrelated and not even controversial. I think the proper interpretation of 3RR is somewhere in between. – Moreover, I can see no need to remind either party to use the talk page. Did you even look at the talk page and its numerous archives? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please explain what you mean by "don't seem to be the same edits". As I understand it partial reverts are still reverts. Please make your point about this very clearly, because this repeat edit warring, and also threatened edit warring, will not go away while the editor involved thinks his reverts are somehow justified by Wikipedia rules he has interpreted so as to justify reverts. He has a history of choosing to read moderators and admins writing too quickly as having taken his side. See the following which define Causteau's "policy":--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    Restoring a good-faith insertion of a reliable source ... from an instance of bad faith editing whereby some editor removes said reliable source due to, in his words, some non-existent "wording" issue does not qualify as "edit-warring". Causteau (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    ...it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase [using, in particular] the very word the study itself uses! Causteau (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    ...this is not "just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Wikipedia rules". I only wish it were. What it really is about is the proposed flouting of Wiki rules. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
    Also please explain why you said on the Wikiquette page that this should be handled as a 3RR case, and here you say it should not be? I can not claim to have much experience in such things, but this seems a little odd.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A 'revert' is not the same as an edit. A revert is returning the page to a previous state, however if info is readded after beingis reworded, reworked etc then it cant be considered the same edit even if it may contain some of the same text. We have to assume that it may be being reworded to address the issues leading to it's initial removal, this is part of WP:AGF. However in this case, even though the edits involved the same info, they were not the same edits and the second only reordered a passage it didnt add or remove any. --neon white talk 12:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The way you are reading the rules seems at first sight to mean that all you have to do to not be counted for a revert is to edit another part of the article at the same time? So for example, you reinsert a deleted sentence, (or delete a new sentence) in one place, and at the same time put a comma in a neighbouring paragraph (not within the reverted edit itself). Please let me know if I misunderstand. Perhaps you can explain with the real examples. There were during the same one-sided edit war many other edits of the type I think you really mean, where for example a reinserted or re-moved sentence is now different than it was before, (change being really within the reverted edit) but I did not intentionally count any of those. BTW I see no reason to use a rule of thumb such as assuming good faith when we are not talking about something invisible like intentions, but actual real edit reverts which we can all look at. That's not a criticism of that rule of thumb of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, thats not what i said. If a passage is reworked and changed, it isnt the same edit. Whilst reverting is not necessarily limited to simply pressing the undo button, if a passage is being developed it's very different to edit warring. The third edit and fourth edits here are not the same as the first two. --neon white talk 17:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I did not mean to assert what you intended, but to ask. Given your explanation, I'll explain how I understood it:
    • The third revert is a simple revert, small but nevertheless insisted upon, in one whole paragraph, wherein two sentences had been joined (giving a certain implication and interpretation of a source) and they were then split back up again. Actually I don't even see a token change apart from the revert?
    • The fourth revert has a lot of edits between it and the edit which was reversed, but actually it also seems to me to be a case where the reversion was straightforward. That particular passage had not changed at all in the meantime.
    In both these cases I think all other edits going on at the same time involved distinct passages?
    As I understand it, even if there are minor changes, 4R can still be adjudged if they were clearly only token changes aimed at gaming the system. Or edit warring can be adjudged, even if there is no formal 3R. Not that I think it was necessary to consider such details in the present cases. I only remark this here so that Causteau will later cite you as a reason that his reverts were actually according to Wikipedia policy. There is a history of such things. See [21] for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed its 4R. 3h token block, since fighting seems to have died down William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update. See new case. Also see my notes at Wikiquette board.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Baseball Card Guy reported by User:Modernist (Result: Warned/Declined )

    • 3RR warning here:[27]

    This editor is engaged in an Edit War here and also here:1960s Topps. This has been going on for Months...both articles uselessly dominated by this endless edit war. Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs) appears to be obsessed with - Libro0 (talk · contribs). They are both involved in this case against each other here:Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-04 1950s Topps. ...Modernist (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined Okay, one user has been Warned While the other stopped reverting after receiving a waring so I think blocking would only be punitive at this point. If either one starts up again, please re-report. Tiptoety talk 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment fair enough - thank you..I replaced the image Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs) deleted...[28]...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The images were ok'd for use. I replaced the images so as to prevent them from being deleted which is why my edits were approximately a week apart. BCG's edits however were more immediate usually within 24 hours. Libro0 (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Another Libro0 lie! The images were never approved. It was suggested to Libro0 use something else, but she persists to use this and then keeps adding this back as part of her campaign to get me banned. This is just another personal attack by Libro0 in her campaign of hate. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    87.198.250.198 reported by User:Fifelfoo (Result: Page semi-protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [29]

    And earlier, sadly.



    Repeated insertion of the phrase, "Dermot Sreenan is a former mental hospital patient." in such a way that its effectively a reversion to a preferred version. Attempts have been made to discuss this in terms of verifiability notability or sources, warn the user, and warn the user regarding vandalism.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [44]


    Protection against IP users may be a suitable solution to this issue, as the reverting editor in question appears to have access to multiple IPs.

    This page / mechanism badly needs integrated automation.

    Fifelfoo (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected (semi) for a couple of months. The user seems quite persistent so if he/she returns with an autoconfirmed account, report to WP:AN or WP:BLPN. This is really a vandalism/defamtory content issue. CIreland (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    216.207.226.175 reported by E8 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [45]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    This is the second user in as many days to repost this information. Numerous request were made to both users to correct the information to make is suitable for Wikipedia; much of the addition is politically-charged and very biased. Neither user has responded to any of the requests.--E8 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Insearchfortruth reported by Opiumjones 23 (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [50]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [59]

    User already warned by User:RepublicanJacobite.


    This has been on going and furthermore see [60]

    See also [61]

    Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thegoodlocust reported by Wikidemon (Result: 2 weeks)

    1. 23:40, 28 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. */ Quit erasing or archiving discussions you don't agree with")
    2. 21:50, 29 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 248488550 by Wikidemon (talk) Quit closing and erasing all my edits")
    3. 21:54, 29 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 248489443 by Wikidemon (talk) Just live my stuff alone - you dont' own this article")
    4. 22:08, 29 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Then tell me how I'm being disruptive - it seems to me like you are being disruptive by preventing new sources from being discussed")
    • Diff of warning: here
    Note - Editor is re-opening disruptive discussions (1st 3 reverting me, 4th reverting another editor after 3RR and disruption warnings); is very close to block / ban for behavioral issues, and returned to this immediately after a 1-week block for the same behavior.[66] Background is that page is on "article probation" (Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation and is supposed to be at 1RR; many disruptive discussions are quickly closed to keep page stability) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My ban was over a week ago and so your statement that I rushed back to be "disruptive" is just plain false. Not only that, it was a bogus ban based on your wikilawyering. In fact, most of the discussions that I reopened led to the article being improved with better sources. The fact of the matter is that you patrol all articles related to Obama, act like an administrator, and close/delete conversations you don't agree with (within minutes of them being opened) - backed up by your usual group of friends too. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions based on failure to read your own sources and fringe theories about Barack Obama are disruptive, and do need to be closed. This is an open-and-shut case. Let me be blunt: You are not allowed to turn biographies of living persons into attack articles based on obvious partisan motives. You are a single-purpose account, whose presence in Wikipedia has entirely consisted of acting as a proponent of partisan talking points at the Barack Obama and related articles. You have been warned repeatedly. That you took a week off before starting again does not lend you any credibility. --GoodDamon 22:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR is 3RR. The rest is just background to show it was no accident - as the editor's response clearly shows. The editor did in fact return to fringe theories and revert warring closed discussions on the Obama talk page immediately after returning from the block.[67] - Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Two weeks. User breaks 3RR (on a talk page) almost immediately coming off of a one week block, this is totally unacceptable. Khoikhoi 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dimitar2007 (result: 24h)

    Dimitar2007 reverted Burusho 2008 October 29 at 04:36, 15:37, 16:49, and 17:15. He only discussed it on the talk page with his 4th revert.

    The problem is a section on nationalistic nonsense that possibly doesn't belong on wikipedia at all, but which I thought would be okay as long as we use NPOV sources and report them evenly. Both Greece and Macedonia are establishing ties with peoples in the Hindu Kush who claim to be descendants of Alexander, in order to bolster their claims to being the cultural inheritors of his civilization or ownership of the name "Macedonia". A Burusho prince was invited to Skopje and the red carpet was rolled out, but according to the Financial Times article we're using as a source for that, the Macedonian opposition ridiculed the visit, after which several events were canceled. Dimitar2007 has been deleting any mention of a negative reception, bizarrely claiming that it's not supported by the article. I came in to clean up the article some time ago, as similar nonsense has been going on for months, and so I don't want to block Dimitar for 3RR myself.

    At the least could someone revert the article to either the version without any of this nonsense, or the version that reports the negative side to the reception in Macedonia? kwami (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. Superbly malformed report, BTW William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    204.210.94.81 reported by DCGeist (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [68]

    User was offered a generous compromise: [81], which he rejected:

    ---I would like to make comment here by DCGeist, I agreed to the compromise, just DCGeist worded the edit differently

    Single-issue ip troll attempting to take over Talk page concerning issue discussed at length and resolved (Talk:United_States/Archive_32#US_not_a_sole_superpower_anymore). Note previous attempt to revive (Talk:United_States#News_media.27s_now_discussing_the_US_has_lost_superpower_status.2C_US_now_considered_a_great_power).

    User has also vandalized editors' Talk pages with deceptive warning tags, e.g., [84] (Kman543210, the subject of this attack, reverted just a single time); [85] (DocKino, the subject of this attack, reverted just a single time).

    Various warnings:

    • Unconstructive edit warning: [86]
    • IP 3RR violation alert: [87]
    • My personal warning: [88]

    DCGeist (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Veritas-truth101 reported by Snappy56 (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [89]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [94]

    Tried to discuss on talk page but Veritas-truth101 was more interested in personal abuse and sopaboxing Snappy56 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Opiumjones 23 reported by Insearchfortruth (Result: 24 hours )


    • Previous version reverted to: [95]



    User Gyrofrog and User: RepublicanJacobite and User:Conti have been deleting information I have added and which is based on a reliable source. I have received warnings which I have politely thanked, accepted and discussed but they insisit o deleting the information I'm adding, calling it "irrelevant" because it is of a historical nature. Opiumjones 23 argues that the entry must be entirely based o biographical info, whereas some other historical references the users mentioned above have added are still kept16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)insearchforthruth (talk)[reply]

    • 'Comment

    Yes, the heading, reads: Insearchfortruth reported Opiumjones23. But the content explains why, that is to say, "user Gyrofrog and user [User: RepublicanJacobite]] and User:Conti have been deleting information I have added" and Opiumjones23 is, despite the fact that he never made "the edits refered to above", in charge of giving me the reason why they did it: because the information I added is "not relevant"[[104]]. I know this is not the place to discuss the entry, but it occurs to me that if one is to say that Burroughs kept his homosexuality hidden, it is neccessary not only credit it to his family relationships, but also to the historical context where he grew up. At least just make a flamboyant allusion to an iconic figure or event of the time as it is done when the historical context of Austro Hungary or the bombing of Hiroshima is mentioned. All this is just to say, that I never reverted anything, adding information that in no sense contradicts what has been previously written or re-establishes a previous version of an entry, is completely different to adding information that reverts previous editings or restores older versions, I'm sorry for being redundant but i don't know if my English is really bad or simply that you are in hurry and do not read carefully what I write..

    And yes, I copied the diff links implicating me from previous section, that was intentional. I just wanted to leave clear that I'm just adding, not reverting.Anyway.Good luck. insearchforthruth (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Dufour reported by Therefore (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [105]

    * 2nd revert: [107]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [111]

    User thinks the section isn't "fair" and has deleted all but two sentences. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I corrected one of the reverts that was an error. This report is only for four reverts. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Causteau reported by Andrew Lancaster (Result: Both editors banned from the article for one week)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    Compare to [113]. (This revert reverted two related edits.)
    • 2nd revert: [114] (This revert reverted two related edits.)
    Compare to [115]
    Simply revert of the last two edits.
    Simple revert of the another edit: [118].


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [119]

    This is probably borderline case, which I leave others to judge, because one revert covers two separate but related edits in the same sentence. However there is clearly an edit war building up, basically immediately after a recent case by the same editor in the same article. There will obviously be more. This has gone on and on since May. Most important to me is not to take action against this editor - but that someone let's him know that his selective use of Wikipedia policies is not fooling anyone. Also see my Wikiquette notice (moderators a bit unsure what to do it seems) on this subject: [120], as well as this discussion about the current reverts, and the editor's reactions to both the previous 3RR response, and the Wikiquette response. What I mean to point at is that the editor feels he can explain his actions as a defense of Wikipedia policy, even now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1 & 2 are the same William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The events of October 30 on this article suggests to me that both parties are edit warring. The main reason for existence of this noticeboard is to bring edit wars to an end, and there are crude but effective ways of achieving that. Administrators don't have all afternoon to count every byte in the edit history and see who is slightly less diplomatic or slightly more revert-prone. I'm strongly tempted to propose a voluntary one-month article ban for both editors. If you don't like this, give us a better option. If no ideas are forthcoming, I'd suggest a week of full protection, or matching blocks for the two editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One editor only is using reverts, since May, as his basic tool of editing, and one editor only is taking aggressive positions on all attempts to edit. It is not that there are only two editors in the dispute. Others appear on the discussion page (and in my e-mail) that don't dare edit. Because that taddle-tale version of events is actually the truth, I don't know what else to suggest than what I have already suggested, which is that third parties should confirm that such revert justifications as presented in this and this do not fool anyone and are not valid. If it is true that admins must block editors indiscriminately without first checking what really happened then I can't do anything about it. Causteau is gaming that very well by filling the discussion page with extended and repeated quotations of himself and random WP pages, and every potential moderator seems to run away thinking this must be a sign that the dispute is a content dispute. Anyway, editing is not working well now. See this discussion initiated by another editor whose position, I believe is the same as mine: [121]. Here is another complaint on the discussion page about a passage Causteau won't let be changed: [122].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does appear to be stuffed with excessive detail. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you and Causteau would both agree to take a one-month break from the article? Then the editors that you believe have run away due to the edit war will come back and improve the article in your absence. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article could certainly handle it and I would be very happy if more editors returned. But what happens after the break, and don't you think all the editors who lurk around the article ask the same question? What is achieved? Please note my concern about the on-goingness and importance of Causteau's Wikipedia policy theories concerning revert justifications in all of these problems. In my opinion, and from what I see also of other editors who have tried to work with him on other articles, that is really the core of the problem. If that would be resolved most other problems would hopefully disappear, but it is so hard to find moderators who'll get involved in such discussions. If it is not somehow resolved, then problems must continue, and that has nothing to do with whether I edit the article again ever. I don't see how your proposal though - which is focused on one article and uses the often-practical tactic of treating two people in a dispute as equally at fault - addresses this very specific issue. Of course (to repeat) if you say you have no time to check if you are being correct and fair, then I can not respond with much to that can I?
    The problems in the article are not just to do with excessive detail. They are very specifically the result of attempts to avoid being reverted, as Efweb said when she complained about the sentences this evening, setting me into action. This is leading to strong tendencies: redundancies, extra footnotes, long sentences, etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above is yet another instance of me restoring reliable sources that User:Andrew Lancaster either a) manipulated or b) outright removed for no valid reason whatsoever.

    • The edits labeled "1st revert" and "2nd revert" above are a case of me restoring the phrases "occurs commonly and is distributed" and "all of Europe" that User:Andrew Lancaster manipulated in the case of the former, and outright removed in the case of the latter. Those words were taken directly from the opening paragraph of Cruciani et al. 2006, a reliable source in the field in question. By contrast, Andrew Lancaster's edits are not supported by the Cruciani et al. 2006 source. Here's what the statement in the E1b1b article that's supported by the Cruciani et al. 2006 source originally stated: "E1b1b1a (E-M78) occurs commonly and is distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe.[1]". And here's what Andrew Lancaster changed it to under the pretext that the English was "awful": "E-M78 male lineages are common in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and Europe.[1]". Note that, although he retained the Cruciani et al. 2006 footnote tag, Andrew Lancaster's alleged "good faith" edit removed all reference to the fact that E1b1b is distributed in all of the aforementioned regions, plus all of Europe -- the very points Cruciani et al. themselves make and the very words they themselves use (which makes the "awful English" charge all the more absurd)!
    • The edit labeled "2nd revert" is another case of me restoring the same direct quotes from the same Cruciani et al. 2006 reliable source that Andrew Lancaster again removed for no valid reason. Only this time, however, he completely replaced the direct quotes from Cruciani et al. 2006 with a phrase from an older, less up-to-date study also from Cruciani -- the exact same author whose "awful English" he complained about earlier. Here is what the E1b1b article originally stated: "E1b1b1a (E-M78) "occurs commonly and is distributed in" North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and all of Europe.[1]". And here's what he changed it to: "E1b1b1a (E-M78) lineages are "frequent in Africa"[2]. They have also "been observed in Europe and western Asia".[2]". Note again that his edit removes all reference to the fact that E1b1b is distributed throughout all of the aforementioned regions including all of Europe. He literally replaced perfectly valid direct quotes from a recent study with a less specific, older study by the exact same author ostensibly just because the latter do not mention the fact that E1b1b is distributed in all of Europe! Outrageous!
    • The edit labeled "4th revert" is yet another case of me restoring a reliable source that Andrew Lancaster yet again removed for no valid reason. In this edit, he literally removed not only a direct paraphrase of a reliable source (Coffman-Levy 2005), he also removed an entire paragraph quoted directly from the source as well as the source itself -- reference, coding and all! In the process, he orphaned the statement (viz. "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup.") that immediately preceded the phrase/paragraph/reference he removed, thereby rendering that statement unverifiable to readers and therefore of uncertain credibility.

    In short, User:Andrew Lancaster's edits are simply cases of him either manipulating or outright removing reliable sources for no valid reason whatsoever, and me consequently restoring said reliable sources. His disruptive edits represent clear-cut cases of bad faith editing (the final one, in particular) and thereby more than qualify as vandalism. Per WP:VAND:

    Addition/Replacement/Removal: Adding new information to a page, or replacing or removing existing content in bad faith.

    And according to WP:3RR, reverting vandalism is an exception to the 3RR rule:

    Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding bad language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may find reversion unavoidable before administrators can respond.

    Causteau (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Knowing full well that I can't at the moment do anything about it, User:Andrew Lancaster has once again just removed the word "distributed" from the direct quote from Cruciani et al. 2006 under the pretext that it is "non-functional". See what I mean by manipulation of sources? Causteau (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the above two descriptions of the recent editing are a very good way of seeing the real problem and why it will repeat under the solution proposed by EdJohnston. Trying to make an awful sentence less awful is in principle never going to be accepted by Causteau, if the awful sentence is verifiable and it is one Causteau has his heart on. The words "occurs commonly and is distributed" come from an academic abstract at the top of an article. Words from other articles were tried, and they were reverted also (hence I am supposedly also in an edit war). Causteau's position is that it must be exactly these words, and any attempt to change that is "vandalism"/"bad faith editing". I honestly do not know what more I can say or do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Result. Thanks to both editors for responding here. My decision is that both Causteau and Andrew Lancaster are banned from editing Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) for one week. My request to the other admins is to impose a 24-hour block for edit warring if you see either one editing there between now and 22:57 UTC on 6 November. The alternative would be to give out an immediate 24-hour block for edit warring to both and I think this result is better. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it suggested that we keep away from the Discussion page also, or just editing the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just from editing the article. The Talk page is still open to both of you. Consider trying to bring in other editors to participate in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was what I was thinking of.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 90.196.3.246 reported by User: Deavenger (Result: Page protected by MoP)


    • Previous version reverted to: [123]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [128]

    <!This IP has shown under 2 different IP addresses. He has been removing valuable information because he says its an insult to Islam. We already tried to have discussions with him as you can see by Talk:Islam and Sikhism. And each time, he starts a new topic accusing us of being sockpuppets. Many users have asked him to stop deleting valuable information. I went to an Admin User:Master of Puppets for advice, and he has left a warning on the first IP address that was being used. Today, even after the warning was issued, and I have told him that an Admin had gave him a warning, he still keeps on deleting valuable information on how Sikhs view Muslims, and how Muslims are represented in the Sikh holy book. We have tried discussing with the IP on 3 separate occasions. Each time, he as basically ignored our explanations and accused us of giving out Sikh propaganda and being sockpuppets on both of his accounts of User:90.196.3.246 and User: 90.196.3.37Deavenger (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

    Page protected User:Master of Puppets has protected the page and is in discussion with involved parties.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chrisjnelson reported by 2008Olympian (Result: self-revert saves you)


    • Previous version reverted to: [129]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [134]

    He removed the warning talk:Chrisjnelson&diff=next&oldid=248774554 with the comment that he is "well aware of 3RR". I would also like to point out that violations are common with this editor.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 07:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For some reason I thought I'd only reverted three times. I have since reverted to User:2008Olympian's previous version.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've self-reverted, so are saved. In penance, please start a discussion on the talk page as to why your version is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dimitrisdad reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [135]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [144]

    After a reworking of a section on the article discussing his book, which removed issues related to WP:BLP, this editor popped up to take issue changes other than the book section and continues to revert with only minor wording changes, and contends that there is no bias or BLP, has made minor personal attacks and although makes small stabs at discussion, regardless continues to revert. Prior to tonight, the person has edited on 13 days out of the past year+, on 6 articles, with a total of 121 edits. I've tried to explain the issues but he does not seem to grasp this. He has been asked to stop, warned about 3RR and BLP policies, but he ignores it. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. Please be cautious about 3RR yourself. In general, it is unwise to rely on the BLP immunity to 3RR (in this case I'm judging your extensive reverts fall under it) and better to get other editors involved William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Emerson7 reported by DionysosProteus (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [145]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [150]

    No vio; has to be within 24h. But you're both edit warring, which I hereby warn you about William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Masonfamily reported by Sennen goroshi (Result: User:Masonfamily blocked for 72 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: [151]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [157]

    5 reverts within a 24 hour period. the user was made aware of 3RR and after their 4th revert, I suggested that we take it to the talk page of the article in question - this was responded to with the users 5th revert

    Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sennen goroshi delete edit warning message without reason. [158][159][160] Masonfamily (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    oh, I just noticed a 3RR violation on another article by the same user.



    • Previous version reverted to: [161]



    Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    edit conflict - the user has just been blocked, perhaps the second report is overkill?

    Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    125.238.246.105 reported by Ms. Sarita (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [166]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [172]
    • User blanked their talk page of all warnings: [173]

    I have reverted this user's edits multiple times, asking for a citation, which s/he refused to do. In his/her reverts, this user has also deleted the citation templates for the section.

    I was going to go the Dispute Resolution route, but this user chose to vandalize my talk page here, telling me to "get cancer".

    I realize that I violated the 3RR policy as well, so feel free to block me if you deem it necessary, for fairness.

    Please advise. Thank you so much. – Ms. Sarita Confer 06:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also reported this IP to AIV, since what he's edit warring to add to the BLP is nonsense and appears to be a reference to the subject's portrayal on Family Guy. He's just here to be disruptive. Dayewalker (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. There's nothing constructive about this user. – Ms. Sarita Confer 08:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hobartimus reported by Bko79 (Result: no violation )

    • Previous version reverted to: [174]



    This user has been warned by many editors to stop reverts

    • I never edit anyone's talk, I respectfully leave other's comments alone. Why can't others do the same? [181]

    Hobartimus' contributions to Wikipedia consist of reverting edits and destroying intellectual property. Talk pages are for opinions and no one has the right to destroy valid opinions added by any user! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bko79 (talk • contribs)

    Decline. First of all, please follow the proper format in the future by providing links to the diffs of the edits (to highlight the changes they are making) rather than the resulting versions like you did. Second of all, I do not see him reverting anyone more than three (3) times in one twenty-four (24) hour period. Third of all, what he is reverting is, essentially, vandalism which is an exemption from the 3RR rule. Metros (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Cruciani2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Cruciani2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=249001013"