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
Apoklyptk (talk | contribs)
55 edits
Line 500: Line 500:
: Does anyone care who red hulk is? I certainly don't. As to 3RR vios, your 5th is to an edit thats not even by T, so if you do care, have another go at filing this. The usual warnings about edit warring to all [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
: Does anyone care who red hulk is? I certainly don't. As to 3RR vios, your 5th is to an edit thats not even by T, so if you do care, have another go at filing this. The usual warnings about edit warring to all [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


::"Does anyone care who red hulk is? I certainly don't." - What could that ''possibly'' have to do with anything?


::And as far as reposting this, it's obvious he's the only one violently contesting the removal of an entire section, so it shouldn't matter who originally removed if he has re-removed it multiple times thereafter. This is just bureaucratic bullshit. Furthermore, why is the burden of effort my responsibility when I am trying to preserve content?

::As per the response, it's not quite accurate. If no one is going to take the time to read the discussion page and contribute their thoughts (that do not speculate about Quesada's motivations) I guess I'll just have to keep putting it back in. This process is a joke and the editor in question is being disruptive, if I'm the only one who cares, so be it. I'll be tireless in this, but I will no longer be stating my case. Everything I have had to say is out on the talk pages for all to consume.--[[User:Apoklyptk|Apoklyptk]] ([[User talk:Apoklyptk|talk]]) 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


== [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] reported by [[User:lyonscc|lyonscc9]] (Result: self revert) ==
== [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] reported by [[User:lyonscc|lyonscc9]] (Result: self revert) ==

Revision as of 17:01, 28 January 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

    Reports

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


    Special:Contributions/91.130.91.84 reported by User:THF


    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [7]

    User:Lyoizisi reported by User: ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (Result: protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [8]


    Note in particular user's persistent reinsertion of the Arvanites and Vlachs of Greece in a list of "ethnic minorities", when in fact the relevant articles make quite clear that they self-identify as ethnic Greeks.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [14]

    User has engaged in repeated ethnic attacks in edit summaries, using offensive language such as "Greco-nationalist" and "Greco-fascist" to describe those who object to his/her POV pushing. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected Demographics of Greece: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 09:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 09:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)))). I notice that in your haste you have neglected to warn the user about 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrative Abuse

    Puthandu

    TAMIL NEW YEAR OR PUTHANDU OR TAMIL PUTHANDU

    125.17.14.100 reported by Dipendra2007

    I wanted to alert you that a couple of individuals who have not created an account with Wikipedia but use an IP number - 125.17.14.100 and 75.142.230.243 being two such cases - unilaterally reverse the painstaking description of the Tamil new year or 'Puthandu' by MrinaliniB, Tolkaapiyanaar, Dharman Dharmaratnam and myself backed with numerous media citations.

    The controversy pertains to the Tamil new year celebrated by ethnic Tamils in India, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. The state government in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu changed the date of the new year through controversial legislation which is currently before court. The opposition in that state have vowed to reverse the legislation while Sri Lanka retains the traditional Tamil calendar.

    The current version of the Wikipedia entry on the Tamil new year or Puthandu as drafted by MrinaliniB and others is backed with numerous press citations. It provides space for both points of view i.e. the description of the traditional calendar and those in the current state government who seek to change it today.

    However editors who have no wikipedia account using their IP numbers such as 125.17.14.100 unilaterally reverse the changes and introduce a one-sided disputed ideological version.

    It might be useful if the 'Puthandu' page is therefore restricted to those editors with a wikipedia account only. Perhaps newly registered editors should temporarily not be allowed to edit or reverse changes. The dispute can be discussed at the discussion page.

    Further, these individuals who do not have a wikipedia account have unilaterally created a separate 'tamil puthandu' page which has the identical content as per their version of the 'puthandu' page. This is redundanct and readers should be redirected.

    I appeal for you to intervene to temporarily block unilateral reversals by individuals who do not have a wikipedia account.

    Here is the relevant entry:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puthandu

    Thank you

    --Dipendra2007 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if you're aware of the existence of a thing we call "talk pages"? There is one here: Talk:Puthandu. Its feeling lonely and unloved; perhaps you'd consider showing it some attention? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    William,

    I agree. But IP # 125.17.14.100 arbitrarily cancels the earlier original version without seeking the views of others and never resorts to the talk pages to raise points of contention. He should be temporarily blocked from making editorial changes. He violated the 'three revert' rule in a 24 hour period yesterday and may well do so today. One needs to respect different viewpoints and the 'talk page' is the best forum to thrash issues out.

    --Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, agreed, you're now using the talk page and the anon isn't, so I've blocked the account for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear William,

    Thank you. However, IP number 125.17.14.100 is back unilaterally reverting earlier edits without due discussion. He is disruptive. He should perhaps be blocked for a week. He needs to use the discussion page before introducing significant changes as the rest of us seem to have agreed. Please help.

    --MrinaliniB (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's reverted *once*. I think a week-long block would be just a teensy bit over the top William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill

    He reverted twice in a 24 hour period but I agree - he has not violated the three revert rule this time. But keep an eye just in case....Note that he is the only one reverting when the evidence he seeks is in the citation itself. cheers!

    William, 125.17.14.100 comes across as an edit warrior. I am not sure how one can deal with it but refer the matter to you. The proof he seeks is in the footnotes. We present the evidence. He then introduces PoV. It seems so ideological and against a consensus way of approaching it. --Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ceha reported by onyxig (Result:warnings)


    • Previous version reverted to: [15] This was a version that existed while the article was protected (due to this map)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [16]

    Republika Srpska article has been vandalized several times by posting of the self-made maps, whose sources were missing/questionable (some even obtained by other users). Due to edit warring the page was protected for a week. However as soon as the restriction was lifted, map resurfaced. User has a different POV (Croatian), and is persistently adding this garbage (to Serbian related article). Nothing personal to the guy, who may even be a decent editor, but i'm sick and tired of fighting this self-made garbage. If he feels he should link to such sites, no problems, but creating a personal map is a little bit too much. In the discussion page you can see a huge treat related to this map. Nothing constructive other then this map has really been added by this user to the article page. I would really like some admin help on this. I'm also going to try to cascade it up, if it persists. Thank you Onyxig (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, as can be seen here [[17]] 3RR has not been broken by me. Actualy user Onyxig broke it (it can be seen on the same link). I putted the map, and he removed it three times. There is nothing wrong with the map. It is sourced, and basicly it is a good map. If user Onyxig has some complaints he is welcome to put his sugestions how to improve it.
    --Čeha (razgovor) 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ceha You have returned the same map that was the cause of the page block due to buttload of edit wars and discussions. This map is lingering for weeks and it's the cause of huge disputes. I dont feel like I have done 3RR by returning the page to the point where it was before it was blocked, yet you couldnt wait for protection to go away so you can put it back. Good map? Man it's self made (by you) for God's sake. And sourcing... i'm not even gonna go there. I invite those interested to look into it. I gotta admit though, you are one persistent dude. Kudos for that. Onyxig (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I returned it. I did not brake 3RR by doing that. I did not make revert on the page. You can check onto the 3RR page on wiki what does that rule means... As for map, noone managed to discredit UN sources onto which map was made, so.... When page was protected, administrator which done that did not say anything about validity of the map, he just protected the last version. And if you have anything against the map, you have map talk page to discuss it. I'm sorry, but you can not remove that map without valid reason or because of your feelings. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Ceha validity is questioned a lot of times. You have even been told that these are not direct ICTY UN sources. Put a link up, but dont go fabricating a map making everyone believe your opinions. If you find a copyrighted one soemwhere post it. I just dont want people trusting your "good" work.Onyxig (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources are clearly mentioned and discussed one by one in [18]. There is also a wikipedia discussion on them on [19]. You can not vandalize [20] them an act as nothing had happened...--Čeha (razgovor) 01:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalize what? Here are your sources being sent by someone else [1], and they magically match your map. Nice. Onyxig (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't play dumb. You deleted sources from map as can be seen on [21]. Only person which changed added some sources was I, as it is clearly shown [22] --Čeha (razgovor) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh, can you guys both just cut it out? Onyxig has four reverts in just over 24 hours, and so has not technically violated 3RR, but is obviously edit warring. Ceha, with three reverts in 24 hours, is hardly behaving better. Please stop; I'm watchlisting the article to see to it that you do. Remember that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts a day, and that you may be blocked for edit warring if you continue, even if you don't technically violate the rule. So just stop. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm curious of what to do with the map? The map is validated, UN based, but some users (like Onyxig) have some POV issues to it.
    Also, I would be very gratefull if someone could advise Onyxig to not remove sources from map[23] as such behaviour is consinderd vandalism. Thanks in advance--Čeha (razgovor) 14:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    onyxig reported by Ceha (Result:warnings)

    As we can see here user onyxig broke 3RR [[24]]. Even falsely accused me of doing so. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins please see my comments in my accusation above. Much appreciated. Look into the fact why Republika Srpska article was blocked. His self-made map. Protection should have been left on. Onyxig (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User clearly broke the 3RR [[25]] and is a little bit uncivic, quote ; Ceha and rest of the vultures - stop adding this disputed map . His revert from 00:06, 24 January 2009. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, admins please see article history/discussion, and what this self-made map has caused. I call you a vulture because all you do on that page is push your ignorent biased map across, nothing constructive. Just sick and tired of it. Onyxig (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User Onyxig made a vandalism here [26], he probably tried to remove sources so the map would look like unsourced? Onyxig if you have different opinion on something there is no need to behave as a vandal or to brake wikipedia rules... --Čeha (razgovor) 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Everyone can see the diff. Those sources were sent to you by PRODUCER after you already had the map up. See talk pages, and your own talk pages (diff if necessary) Wow break rules? Wikipedia should allow anyone's garbage up? I dont think so. I'm not a vandal, my contributions to that page are definitely more constructive then yours. And stop with the arrogance even though it goes well with your attitude.Onyxig (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You vandalised my page [27], deleted the sources and broke 3RR. You should be punished for that. Also, you behaved uncivic (insulted other users). You even deleted our discussion from your talk page [28] (I realy don't see a reason for that). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Try acting as a wikipedian, and not as a vandal (which you, by wikipidia definitions surely are).
    As for changes onto the map, everything can be seen from its discussion onto the [29] and image discusion page [30].--Čeha (razgovor) 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spotfixer reported by Hardyplants (Result:no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    • 1st revert: [31]
    • 2nd revert: [32]
    • 3rd revert: [33]
    • 4th revert: [34]
    • 5th revert: [35] he promises to keep on edit waring without discussion or work toward a consensus.
    • 6th revert: [36] - followed me to another page and made a vindictive revert.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [37]

    My first contact with him, I thought he was a Vandal, I was mistaken and take responsibility for that and will be more diligent to determine the issue in the future, it just turns out he has a very strong uncompromising POV. He has been blocked three times within a two week period this month already [[38]]. I have tried to engage him on the talk page but that has been unfruitful so far. Hardyplants (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not strictly 3RR. From the outside, this just looks like you two disagreeing. I think you need WP:DR. Other opinions? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems about right to me, if you're looking for other admins' thoughts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct, I'm not edit-warring. There is a problem, though, in that User:Hardyplants is adamant about getting some biased and poorly written changes into the article and continues to edit them in even though he has gotten ZERO traction with other editors. He's also violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL by repeatedly accusing me of vandalism and marking my talk page up with bogus warnings, which is likewise an abuse of tags.
    Regardless, the consensus in the article's discussion page is against his changes, but it seems that nobody's around this weekend. So rather than edit war, I'm going to leave the bad version up a little while longer to give others a chance to jump in and fix it. If nobody's paying attention, I'll fix it myself in a bit. After all, WP:NPOV still applies. Spotfixer (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't fix it yourself unless you've both agreed on it; otherwise I have the sneaking suspicion you'll just end up edit-warring, which is what we don't want. Instead, wait for consensus, even if it takes a long time. Request a WP:3O? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 17:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't notice your comment here until just now, but a third party broke the deadlock, so all is well. Spotfixer (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    189.7.183.146 reported by PeeJay2K3 (Result:offender blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [39]



    As you can see, the first three reverts reverted my changes of [[FC Barcelona]] to [[FC Barcelona|Barcelona]]. However, with 3RR in mind, I ceased my attempts to correct that after my third change. From then on, it is a simple matter of grammar; whether or not to capitalise the "B" in "Centre back".

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [49]


    You could probably do me for breaking 3RR as well, but this offender is flouting grammatical rules for no apparent reason. Thanks. – PeeJay 14:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The user who (I assume) was created by the IP to continue reverting has been blocked; however, while I won't block you for it this time, please remember not to edit war. You reverted way too many times for me to be comfortable in this situation; try to report it early next time? Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 17:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    67.126.199.247 reported by Andrew c (Result:2 day block)


    • Previous version reverted to: [50]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [56]

    Andrew c [talk] 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 2 days. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 17:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skatergal reported by User:Gamesmasterg9

    I have been attempting to remove large sections of unsourced and NPOV statements from the article Sindhi people. All my edits are being reverted by editors (who may be the same user). They have refused to discuss the matter, in spite of requests by me

    warnings

    and even an Rfc

    The editors have flagrantly violated WP:OWN, as evidenced by their comments here

    An intervention would be greatly appreciated.

    Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no 3RR here; however, interestingly enough, the version you are contesting has more sources than yours. I'm curious how that works out... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 17:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not citing the users for 3RR - I'm citing them for blatant NPOV and jealous ownership of the article. If you take a look at the history, you'll see that I made a number of edits [64], and explained the reason for each one. However, all my edits are continuously reverted and the users in question refuse all my requests to discuss the issue, instead threatening non-Sindhis (like myself) to stay away. I posted here even though its not a 3RR violation because I think it does qualify as an edit war, and I see no other recourse. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point. I'll bring this up on Skatergal's talk page; if they refuse to discuss, we'll go from there. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 05:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Laager reported by AussieLegend (Result:3 days)

    • Previous version reverted to: [65]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [71]

    User:Laager initially added an entry that constituted original research.[72] This was then, justifiably, removed by User:Backslash Forwardslash,[73] resulting in an edit war. It should probably be noted that Backslash Forwardslash's reversion of Laager's first reversion[74] mistakenly only reverted the second of two consecutive edits by Laager,as explained in this edit summary. After I warned Laager he made two more reversions, one reverting an addition made by Backslash Forwardslash,[75][76] and a second identified above as the 5th revert. In all, 6 reversions were actually made. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking. Oh, and thanks for the very well-structured report! Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 17:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're very welcome, although I see I did miss a space. Damn! :) --AussieLegend (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rtr10 reported by Drmies (Result:no action necessary)


    • Previous version reverted to: [77]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [81]

    Rtr10 three times reverted an 'unreferenced' tag, disagreeing with my assessment of the (only) source for the article--in essence, he argues that Rolltide.com is independent of the Alabama athletics department. There's a bit more context: I ended by adding first one, then (to avoid having to reistate the reference tag) three more sources to the article; Rtr10 ended by deleting these last three references, besides calling me a dick, suggesting ownership of the article, and questioning my good faith. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not gonna block here, since this was just a small dispute; no real harm done. I'll leave a small note on the editor's talk page, but in general this could be avoided if you both discuss first (civilly) before reverting. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking into it. I can't say I feel vindicated: I think the actual edit summaries bear out that at least I tried to be specific (and, I believe, correct in my interpretation of WP:RS and other relevant policies), and you have seen, I hope, that I engaged in a conversation on the reverter's talk page--which turned out to a nice way for him/her to abuse me some more. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did he abuse you, if I may ask? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 05:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CnrFallon reported by Malik Shabazz (Result:24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [82]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [87]
    Blocked for 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spotfixer reported by Schrandit (Result:no blocks)


    • Previous version reverted to: [88]



    • The user has been warned several times by different editors over the month: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]

    Schrandit (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I freely admit that I am precisely as guilty of edit-warring here as Schrandit is. Please block us both for a month. Spotfixer (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, in an even more civilized twist, nobody gets blocked. Instead, you discuss on the talk page and don't edit war anymore. If somebody starts pushing against consensus again, do not revert; just report. It doesn't matter if you have consensus at your back or not; edit warring still ends up being edit warring. This way, everybody is happy. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 05:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which page do I report editing against consensus on? Spotfixer (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My talk page, preferably. Causes the least clutter. You could also nudge my pal User:Juliancolton if I'm not active. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 05:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! I was not expecting that. Spotfixer, be like everyone else and deny any involvement in anything! Runs off teehee'ing! ScarianCall me Pat! 05:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to disappoint. Next time, I'll just explain that I have God on my side, so all things are permitted. Spotfixer (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adelanwar reported by User:Snowded (Result:24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: here


    The history goes back before that, the user is constantly placing the same material and refusing to discuss matters on the talk page. He also vandalised my talk page here.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: here and it was then deleted by the user.

    This user may just be totally incompetent and an admin warning, or a short block may change the behaviour. The latest insertion of their material may have been intended for the talk page but its gone on too long. --Snowded TALK 10:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies Brainman 10:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelanwar (talk • contribs)

    • Yes, I'm afraid this has gone on long enough. That last revert may indeed have been partly meant for the talk, but it is nonetheless a partial revert, and furthermore, it seems this edit warring's been going on for longer than just today. That's why I'm blocking, despite some oddities in this edit war (for example, the unusual fact that the editor had to revert ClueBot, who isn't really supposed to show up in edit wars). I think 24 hours is best here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.2.224.110 reported by LK (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [98]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [104]

    This is the long term IP address of a user that has edit warred before. The user has been warned several times before by many different editors, as evidenced by the messages left on the user talk page. The user also engages in personal attacks in edit summaries.

    The user has also ignored a suggestion to self-revert, leading me to make this report. User responded to my suggestion to self revert by leaving a sarcastic message on my talk page.

    -LK (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Main problem here is a bad case of WP:OWN. The article is an essay into which the user has put a lot of work, and is unwilling to accept that the result is inevitably POV. It appears one outcome has been the creation of an account User:NeutralityForever in place of (hopefully not in addition to) the IP.JQ (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    48h for the anon. Warned NF William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Threeafterthree reported by User:Jimintheatl (Result: all warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [105]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [110]


    Contiguous edits count as one, so no vio, technically. But both sies are edit warring, and are cautionned for it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ThuranX reported by Apoklyptk (Result: )


    This is the last known version with the section intact.


    I instituted part of this section mid 2008. After some revisions and discussion, it was agreed to keep it intact (compromised with some changes). Towards the end of the year, ThuranX removes it without discussion or reading the discussion page to find its relevancy. While reintegrating and discussing this entry, instead of compromising and coming up with an alternative (which I have TRIED to work with ThuranX on - see his talk page) instead hes just keeps deleting it. If that's not instigating an edit war, I don't know what is.

    Eliminating an entire section without discussing alternatives in the discussion page and blatantly deleting it over and over again does not adhere to WP:PRESERVE while maintaining a disruptive and WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. Furthermore, I am concerned ThuranX is engaging in sockpuppetry.

    --Apoklyptk (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response I was not the editor who first removed it. see here for that. I agreed with Asgardian that it was unneeded. I brought it to talk, and Apoklyptk initially did not choose to use it. Since then, Apoklyptk only uses talk when he comes to revert, if the section is removed, and at no other time. Asgardian removed it, I removed it, David A removed it Bold Clone removed it. Both David A and I have used talk to explain why we opposed the reinsertion of the text, and two others have removed it. Apoklyptk asserts a broad consensus which did not exist. When the earlier discussion took place, it was left with no defined consensus, and with multiple, in fact more editors than not, opposing it as rumor and speculation. Since then, the information has been disproved (Rulk fought he alleged identity, Ares, in a later issue.) Apoklyptk has stated that he made the original addition and intends to come back as long as it takes to keep it in, that he will 'defend his edit' to the end, and so on. I've tried to explain all this to him, but he seems uninterested in any outcome that results in his efforts being changed, despite the evidence of four editors now opposed, and numerous editors the last time. He makes the assertion he had consensus 8 months ago, I say that even if that was true, consensus can change with new information, and clearly, it has. ThuranX (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone care who red hulk is? I certainly don't. As to 3RR vios, your 5th is to an edit thats not even by T, so if you do care, have another go at filing this. The usual warnings about edit warring to all William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Does anyone care who red hulk is? I certainly don't." - What could that possibly have to do with anything?
    And as far as reposting this, it's obvious he's the only one violently contesting the removal of an entire section, so it shouldn't matter who originally removed if he has re-removed it multiple times thereafter. This is just bureaucratic bullshit. Furthermore, why is the burden of effort my responsibility when I am trying to preserve content?
    As per the response, it's not quite accurate. If no one is going to take the time to read the discussion page and contribute their thoughts (that do not speculate about Quesada's motivations) I guess I'll just have to keep putting it back in. This process is a joke and the editor in question is being disruptive, if I'm the only one who cares, so be it. I'll be tireless in this, but I will no longer be stating my case. Everything I have had to say is out on the talk pages for all to consume.--Apoklyptk (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoenix of9 reported by lyonscc9 (Result: self revert)


    • Previous version reverted to: [111]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [116]

    Phoenix of9 has shown up, immediately after the Rick Warren page was unprotected, and has tried to use the page as an anti-Warren/pro-gay soapbox, and has engaged in what can easily be categorized as tendentious editing. The 3 Reverts all have to do with insertion of characterizations of California Proposition 8 into the body of the document, which has been explained to him as being unnecessary and tangential to the biography of a living person.--Lyonscc (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that my 2nd, 3rd and 4th werent a revert to 1st. I introduced another source to address synthesis issue and changed wording. But I still made a self revert: [117] Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    P has self-reverted, so no block. Both sides are advised to WP:AGF, be civil, and use the talk page for discussion rather more William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And for the record, Phoenix's edits have been well within the boundaries of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, while his accuser has openly flouted consensus (see talk!) and baited Phoenix into accidentally violating the magic reversion count. Spotfixer (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Douglemeister reported by User:CassiasMunch (Result: talk)


    • Previous version reverted to: [118]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [125]

    User:Douglemeister fails to recognize article talk page consensus, does not use article talk page, ignores WP:3RR warning. CassiasMunch (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <sarcasm>Once again, I'm deeply touched by a reporters intensive use of the article talk page to attempt to defuse an edit war</sarcasm>. Rv #3 is from the 20th, so not even close to a strict vio of 3RR. As for general edit warring, you're both doing it. Conclusion: please stop edit warring yourself, and use the article talk page to discuss disputes William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ceha#Help
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=266997756"