Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 613: Line 613:


I only reverted twice!! The others were ALL manual edits. He on the other hand reverted 7 and by now I'm sure 8 times. I should not be blocked nor should I have been reported. My edits were good and improved the page as even he Island Monkey admitted. If he is not blocked I will be shocked. There must be a way to prove my edits were manual and not reverts like his.[[User:Rose Marie Aragon|Rose Marie Aragon]] ([[User talk:Rose Marie Aragon|talk]]) 12:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I only reverted twice!! The others were ALL manual edits. He on the other hand reverted 7 and by now I'm sure 8 times. I should not be blocked nor should I have been reported. My edits were good and improved the page as even he Island Monkey admitted. If he is not blocked I will be shocked. There must be a way to prove my edits were manual and not reverts like his.[[User:Rose Marie Aragon|Rose Marie Aragon]] ([[User talk:Rose Marie Aragon|talk]]) 12:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I even compromised and left in the edits that we were discussing on the talk page to avoid conflict!! But no he kept going. Make it 9 now 10 reverts by him to my 2.[[User:Rose Marie Aragon|Rose Marie Aragon]] ([[User talk:Rose Marie Aragon|talk]]) 12:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:38, 4 June 2011

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Night w reported by User:Taivo (Result: protected)

    Page: List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Night w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

    Comments:

    Night w ended up on the losing end (10-2, Night w being one of the two) of a mediation where a very clear and overwhelming consensus was reached to implement a single-list sortable table instead of the status quo version. Night w has refused to accept the result of the mediation and has resorted to edit warring instead of allowing the consensus to implement the version that was agreed to and that the mediator noted was the result of a consensus: "I suggest that a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2 has developed here for it to be implemented directly over any objections." (Ludwigs2, the mediator) --Taivo (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a summary of the consensus for implementation that was reached. Overwhelmingly, the editors involved chose to implement Sandbox 3i2 and then discuss adjustments after implementation. Night w is simply practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Taivo (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice. The mediator's comments (here, if anyone wants to read the whole thing) were followed by a vote to close, in which 3 out of 8 editors preferred implementing the proposal at a later stage; the mediator then closed the case with "no apparent possibility of consensus". If there has been a ruling of "no consensus" then there is no consensus for your proposal to go live. Discussion went on during this here, during which another editor suggested waiting until an uninvolved mediator had ascertained the level of consensus. This was requested here and here, but the request to hold off for a reply was apparently ignored. Nightw 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a 3RR vio here, but Night w's last revert stated that he wanted an uninvolved editor to decide if there was a consensus. I've reviewed the discussion, and I do see a clear (though not unanimous) consensus to implement the list, so I reverted back to that version. I would consider any reverts he performs from this point forward to be clear WP:EW violations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is not the kind of thing usually posted on article discussion pages... Nightw 19:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's irrelevant to whether or not you're edit warring. See WP:NOTTHEM for more commentary on the topic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't an attempt at turning things around on the nominator; just thought it wasn't really in line with how WP:ANEW are normally conducted. Nightw 20:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the version supported by the party reported here for edit warring, the version supported by the distinct minority of editors, and not the version that the uninvolved editor Sarek of Vulcan found to be supported by a consensus was the version that was protected. --Taivo (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As always. See WP:The Wrong Version. Kuru (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am, of course, aware of the "Wrong Version" problem, but when the Wrong Version is against consensus, a fix must be made, which it was in this case. --Taivo (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The lost library reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Warned)

    Page: United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: The lost library (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 14:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 12:29, 31 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431580673 by DocKino (talk) made it seem as though the U.S. never sent in troops and always surported authoritarian governments which is not the case")
      12:56, 31 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431707625 by A520 (talk) the information provided is beneficial to the article, and fits with other information provied in the section") (no intervening edits since previous revert)
    2. 15:23, 31 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431832450 by Golbez (talk)information is commen knowledge, and if you feel it is poorly wirtten then reword it so it is not don't just delete if you dont like how it is phrased")
    3. 16:06, 31 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Contemporary era */ moved information, slight rewording")
    4. 16:14, 31 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431846510 by Chzz (talk)plese do not undo revisons with out stating reason thanks")
    5. 14:47, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431954418 by DocKino (talk)made it seem as though the U.S. never sent in troops and always surported authoritarian governments which is not the case. reword without ommisons")

    —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    was advised about 3rr more than 24 hours ago which is the trime i was advised to wait befor making any further edits also the edit i made had been disscaused piror as well the edit had nothing to do with the issue from yesterday. -The lost library (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • To be fair, after being warned by several users myself included, the lost library did stop reverting that change back in. I will say that he did attempt to make all his engagement about the subject on user talk pages and edit summaries. My reccomendation is an "official" warning to use article talk pages, not a block. i kan reed (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned I consider this a malformed report, since there is no evidence presented that the editor received a 3RR warning (and none could be found in the user's talk page history), only a notice that this report had been created, and the editor ceased edit-warring after being notified. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.143.54.206 reported by User:Plasmic Physics (Result: page semi-protected)

    Page: Raccoon City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 86.143.54.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [7]

    Comments:

    Accompanying talk page has been reverted also. See [8] for user contributions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Page: Talk:Raccoon City (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

    Previous version reverted to: [9]

    Comments:

    The user is not responding to the warning in the form of a page-protection, as he/she is continueing to revert the accompanying talk page. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 1 month by Kuru. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: moot)

    Page: Joseph Smith, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    The above occurred within a single 24 hour period, and were followed over the next 24 hours with these two reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ...John Foxe is fresh off of a one day block for edit warring/3RR violation

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple editors having been trying on the Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.

    Comments:
    This is the fifth time in five weeks that he has violated 3RR on this page (first two time as reported here, third time here, and fourth time here). John Foxe is fresh off a one day block for edit warring/3RR violation from the last violation, along with User:Routerone. User:Routerone, who also participated in this recent edit war (though only 3 reverts in the same 48 hour period as John Foxe's 6 reverts), was recently indefinitely blocked for chronic edit warring [16] on that same page. The same argument could be applied, and IMO more aptly, to John Foxe's recent behavior. For consistency, shouldn't John Foxe's chronic edit warring over the last five weeks on the same page result in the same consequences as Routerone's? If not, I'm curious why not? --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment John Foxe has agreed to stop reverting the disputed material, which should give the talkpage time to solve this issue (there are several relevant discussion threads - please use them). As there are several editors making alternative proposals and/or edit warring at that page, I recommend protection for a couple weeks as a next step. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous and I would request that the "moot" be removed to encourage further comment. If further comment shows that it is indeed moot, then fine. You've also failed to respond to my queries about consistent consequences for similar behavior. I find it especially ridiculous that the same latitude that you are willing to give John Foxe has not been given to Routerone. Again, both are coming off of the same one day block for edit warring and yet Routerone (who only had 2 rapid fire reverts) get an indefinite block while John Foxe (who has a 3RR violation and two additional rapid fire reverts) gets a warning. How is that consistent? John Foxe has clearly and chronically engaged in edit warring by going well beyond the 3RR limit five times in five weeks, no other editor on that page has crossed that clear edit warring line (note, I am not saying that other editors have not edit warred) in the same time period. How is that behavior not chronic edit warring? How does another editor with less reverts come out with a harsher by at least an order of magnitude? Existence of discussion and participation in discussion does not permit a user disregard basic rules against 3RR and edit warring. As the protection policy page states, "persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking". The only persistent edit warring is by John Foxe, so I don't thing that protection is the answer (especially since it's been tried before, and during that time John Foxe stated his intention - and followed through - to continue edit warring as soon as protection was lifted). --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article already had two weeks of full protection, ending on 12 May. John Foxe's name keeps being brought up in connection with the warring on this article. I think we either need an expressed commitment from Foxe to wait for consensus, an editing restriction or a long block, in that order of preference. Foxe was warned of the last 3RR report (24 May) in plenty of time to add his comment or make a concession, but did not reply here. I hope others will comment on what should be done. In Foxe's recent contribution history I noticed this comment but it's unclear what he has agreed to. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm restoring 2over0's close as 'moot' to the header of this report. It was removed here by a single-use IP. In the light of that, my comment above should only be seen as a suggestion for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For practical purposes, I'm the only non-Mormon editor at Joseph Smith, and a number of folks there would rejoice if I were to be blocked. FyzixFighter's position is especially interesting because he never makes edits at that article. He steps in only to revert my edits or try to have me blocked.--John Foxe (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that it is fair that John Foxe won't be blocked as long as he holds to his agreement to not edit war, but I also agree that if he isn't blocked, then neither should Routerone be blocked. Routerone has not done anything more egregious in this editing war than John Foxe. Also relevant to the discussion is that this isn't something that has only come up in the last month or two. There was a similar issue with John Foxe four or so years ago as shown here. Zashitnik (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    John Foxe's statement is misleading; COgden, for example, is a nominal Mormon who takes a very naturalistic approach (i.e. Joseph Smith made it all up). Believe me, there are enough non-apologists working on this article that I we could have a very reasonable, balanced approach without John Foxe. Frankly, he just wears us all out with his random digs thrown in at places where no reasonable academic with an eye for comprehensive holism would put them. Twice he has replied to my questioning his choice of placement for material by saying "this is important because it reflects negatively on Joseph Smith," as if that by itself is a reason to include or not include something. Mormon history is very complicated, there are dozens of pages that are are spun out of the JS article if we want to find a more thorough discussion for some of these issues. For example, in the "ethics section" a few quotes are cherry picked from literally dozens of different discourses. Why these ones? If we want to have a page on Joseph Smith's complicated political theology, fine, but do these few particular quotes justify their own section? It's not that he's fixing apologetic material (which I respect as a Wikipedia editor), but that he's just wasting our time with these random hits that ruin the flow of the article. But we can discuss this until the sun goes down, a look at his edits and rationales will confirm what I am sayingKant66 (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, practically speaking, I'm the only non-Mormon editing at Joseph Smith, Jr.. COgden's a liberal Mormon, remarkably knowledgeable about early LDS history, but still a church member. Plus, he's an administrator, so he can't step into the fray as easily. Otherwise, I'm the only one over there who represents the vast majority of English speakers who are non-Mormons.
    Looking at the four-year-old attempt to block me that Zashitnik dredged up was a walk down memory lane. But in essence it'a just another chapter of the same book: the story of a non-Mormon editing at a Mormon article.--John Foxe (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Newsrooms & User:213.146.159.4 reported by User:Mtking (Result: 24h)

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

    User being reported: 213.146.159.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: Newsrooms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Time reported: 07:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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

    as User:213.146.159.4

    1. 10:41, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* History */")
      11:13, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
      11:16, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")
      11:29, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")
    2. 11:33, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")

    and as User:Newsrooms

    1. 13:29, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431984258 by Mtking (talk)")
      13:35, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")
      13:40, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")
      13:41, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")
      13:43, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")
      13:43, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")
      14:06, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* History */")
      14:15, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")
      14:15, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")
      14:16, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")
      14:33, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")
      14:56, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
      15:03, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
      15:05, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
      15:05, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
    2. 15:11, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* History */")
      15:18, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")
      15:21, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Awards */")
      16:25, 1 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Offices */")
    3. 07:32, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432074733 by Mtking (talk)")
      07:33, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432074616 by Mtking (talk)")
      07:34, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432073897 by Mtking (talk) These awards are notable in the legal sector, look at other law firms with wikipedia pages they are also listing awards that are not 'nobel prizes'")
      07:37, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* History */")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Mtking (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the posting of this there has been one more revert - here. Mtking (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:mtking reported by User:Newsrooms (Result: Malformed)

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


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

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


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

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

    Comments:

    Can someone please assist me in my edit for Olswang, before the page is deleted again. I was trying to add in the appropriate law related awards the firm as won over the years, and they kept being removed. Other law firms in the 'magic circle' have been allowed to publish awards on their wikipedia page the same as the ones I was trying to post without their pages being deleted. Can someone please assist me as to why my edit resulted in the removal of the page but the other law firms are still available? All awards were referenced to the appropriate websites to verify them -newsrooms

    User:Brian Boru is awesome reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Captain Carrot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [17]

    Page: Fastback (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Previous version reverted to: [23]

    Page: Magog (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Previous version reverted to: [28]

    Page: Young Allies (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    • 1st revert: [34]
    • 2nd revert: [35]
    • 3rd revert: [36]
    • 4th revert: [37] (edit summary: don't care)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39] (Note: This is the user's talk page, not the article talk page, see below)

    Comments:

    User has been removing the bibliography sections from comic book related articles, without giving an explanation. As per WP:VAND this is considered vandalism under the Blanking, illegitimate guidelines, as no reason was given. User refuses to discuss this in any way[40][41][42][43], other than to leave vague edit summaries that do not explain why the content was removed. I have also directed his attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars, which not only says that bibliographies are allowed, but gives guidelines to how they should be laid out.[44], which he has not responded to and continued to remove bibliography sections. He refused to stop and explain his reasons for removal, despite several [45][46][47][48] warnings from editors.

    User is also removing the other bibliography sections, but the edit warring is what I'm currently trying to address. As per WP:VAND, I believe my reversions are exempt from WP:3RR, but if this is incorrect please let me know and I will cease such edits in the future. - SudoGhost™ 16:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He has violated WP:3RR on a third article, Magog (comics). - SudoGhost™ 17:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked the user yet again for explanation, and he has yet again refused to explain, yet continues to vandalize pages by removing content without a valid explanation - SudoGhost™ 17:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of indefinite –MuZemike 18:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:85.210.31.165 reported by NeilN talk to me (Result: blocked 24h)

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

    User being reported: 85.210.31.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 18:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 10:06, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
    2. 15:42, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
    3. 15:48, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
    4. 16:46, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
    5. 17:00, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
    6. 18:02, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
    7. 18:07, 2 June 2011 (edit summary: "")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

    --NeilN talk to me 18:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.226.119.107 reported by User:Chester Markel (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Page: Femininity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 74.226.119.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 18:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

    Comments:
    This matter is also under consideration at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USchick. Chester Markel (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Chester Markel (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zm69051 reported by User:Tweetybird83 (Result: No Vio)

    Page: Future Steel Buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Zm69051 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [51] (@ @ 20:57 / June 1, 2011, same user under different account)

    • 1st revert: [52] @ 14:45 / June 2, 2011
    • 2nd revert: [53] @ 15:04 / June 2, 2011
    • 3rd revert: [54] @ 15:17 / June 2, 2011
    • 4th revert: [55] @ 15:32 / June 2, 2011


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57] (in between 2nd and 3rd revert @ 15:08)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58] (in between 3rd and 4th revert @15:30)

    Comments: The user committed multiple reverts over the span of an hour from 14:45 to 13:32, even after warnings not to turn this into an edit war. Also, this user's multiple attempts to delete the article almost seems like vandalism, especially when others are keen on improving the quality of the article instead of just deleting it. Tweetybird83 (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Tweetybird83[reply]

    • Comment As a note, the first 'revert' is not a reversion. That is the previous version reverted to. It does not qualify for WP:3RR, but is still technically edit warring. Also odd that a new user (the reporter) was created with the sole purpose of removing a speedy deletion, which the creator himself cannot remove. - SudoGhost™ 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This appears to be somewhat of a bad faith nomination. User:Zm69051 has only made five edits in total to the article, only three of them reverts. The first "revert" listed above is his first contribution. It should also be noted that User:Tweetybird83 appears to be a single purpose account or a sockpuppet, as this account was only created today after the article in question was nominated for deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Allow me to clarify: I believe User:Alannaestes and User:Zm69051 are the same user under different accounts. They made four edits collectively. Does this count as a violation of WP:3RR? Not posted in bad faith, just wanted to know. Tweetybird83 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Tweetybird83[reply]
    Unless I'm mistaken, the 'previous version reverted to' and the first diff seem to be identical. Was that an oversight in changing the report? - SudoGhost™ 23:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was an oversight. I have changed the link. Is it considered a 3RR or am I mistaken? Tweetybird83 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Tweetybird83[reply]
    Technically, no this is not 3RR, as you have no proof of the other user sockpuppeting - which is an interesting claim, given your brand new edit history and limited contributions... MikeWazowski (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Given that you just signed your post as Saracates, only to change it to Tweetybird83 later, I'm pretty certain that you are the same editor as User:Saracates. That would give you 1 2 3 4 reverts of your own no? TDL (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation found on the accused. This is a malformed and bad-faith report. Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet of Saracates. I see no evidence that Zm69051 was issued a 3RR warning (the diff provided doesn't point at one, nor does any such warning appear on Zm69051's talk page). Furthermore, the accusation that Zm69051 and Allanaestes are the same doesn't hold water, since Zm69051's activities consisted of removing a speedy-delete tag, and Allanaestes added one (possibly in retaliation for Allanaestes' article SteelMaster Buildings being speedy-deleted). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, the user reported was User:Zm69051, not User:Tweetybird83. - SudoGhost™ 23:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, you're right. Corrected. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.235.14.67 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 72h)

    Page: The Prisoner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 66.235.14.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    (see below for reason for reporting after only 2 reverts)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below

    Comments:
    User (apparently a static IP) was blocked for edit warring on 31 May 2011 (diff of block template) for 31 hours due to persistent edit warring with no discussion. Yesterday, about a day after the block expiring, user began adding the same information. The only change in users behavior is the use of an edit summary to add the info, although it's not helpful and not addressing the concerns of other editors. As multiple editors are asking user to discuss on talk page and user has not done so, I can't see any solution to prevent disruptive edit warring other than an additional block of increased duration. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Clearly the same user, clearly continuing the same behavior immediately after the prior block expired, and clearly hasn't gotten the message in spite of being previously blocked that edit-warring is unacceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zzz111zzz reported by User:Tarc (Result: blocked 24h)

    Page: Michelle Obama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Zzz111zzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [61]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. IMO, the addition of unsourced, negative commentary to a WP:BLP does not warrant discussion. This person was reverted by 3 different editors.

    Comments:

    Tarc (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:160.94.47.16 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: Block, semi)

    Page: NBCUniversal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 160.94.47.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [69]

    • 1st revert: [70]
    • 2nd revert: [71]
    • 3rd revert: [72]
    • 4th revert: [73] (editing from 67.220.12.124, apparent WP:SPA address from the same city as 160.94.47.16
    • 5th revert: [74]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

    Comments:
    IP editor intent on dding his own personal grudge/synthesis about NBC Sports into NBCUniversal article - which not only doesn't belong due to the synthesis problem, but doesn't directly relate to this article. Multiple editors have removed this content, yet the IP continues to revert. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Blocked one month + semi. Multiple IPs pushing the same material. 160.94 is a school IP that has received many warnings and was recently blocked for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kurdwiki reported by User:Rafy (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [76]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

    Comments:

    I reverted first after he blanked a referenced section without any reason.--Rafy talk 20:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Technically, that's only three reverts. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's still an edit conflict as he refuses any mention of "Kurdish irregulars" in that section although all given sources supports it.--Rafy talk 00:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be counted as four reverts since I would take the original section blanking as a revert. In the talk discussion the editor displays no hint of any willingness to compromise. He seems to be engaged in promotional editing in favor of the Kurds. He does not want them to have any share of the blame for the massacre of the Assyrians in 1920, for example. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Inspectortr reported by User:NortyNort (Result: 24h)

    Page: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Inspectortr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [83]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89] and [90]

    Comments:
    See page history for the full scope of disruption this last week. Despite disagreements against user on article talk, they continue to revert to the text.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Matt Downey reported by GB fan (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Page: Nick Clegg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 01:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

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

    1. 13:06, 28 May 2011 (edit summary: "This has already been decided and it shall not be included")
    2. 20:51, 28 May 2011 (edit summary: "This has already been decided upon before, the addition of one (extremely biased) source doesn't change facts as established on the discussion bored. Understand?")
    3. 21:14, 28 May 2011 (edit summary: "I've looked at the sources and none are real proof, as was shown on the discussion page where it was decided to not include this unless Clegg announced that he had been a member. None of the sources have proof.")
    4. 21:39, 28 May 2011 (edit summary: "I agree they don't, do why add claims back on?")
    5. 21:30, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 431479374 by Avaya1 (talk) I'm getting tired of this. Check the talk page, this was decided some time ago")
    6. 23:05, 29 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
    7. 08:11, 30 May 2011 (edit summary: "There is no new evidence, reason, or purpose for the consensus to have changed.")
    8. 00:23, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432435780 by Avaya1 (talk) This has been discussed on the talk page. There was essentially consensus and there is no reason for the established article to have been changed.")
    9. 00:51, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432443728 by NeilN (talk) Nobody had disagreed in 3 years, that is pretty much consensus.")
    10. 00:58, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "Not really. There is no new evidence or reason for the change. This is being pursued on ideological grounds to make Clegg seem more right wing. I don't care if he is or isn't, but this isn't the place to try to make him look one way or the other")
    11. 01:09, 4 June 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 432447474 by GB fan (talk) There is no consensus for these changes anywhere, you can check the talk page. I can prove to you that these edits are done politically if you like?")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —GB fan (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Dreadstar ☥ 02:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Itsbydesign reported by User:Der Golem (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [91]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

    Comments:
    I've done very simple edits to Sade Live, an article about an artist's tour: I changed the 1-event poster to an international one and I fixed the format of a reference. The user reverted 3 times without a single comment or edit summary, although I uged to discuss every time and warned not to edit war. Then he just posted warnings on my talkpage like "Welcome to Wikipedia" and resumed plain reverting. Maybe problems with WP:OWN.--Der Golem (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment I thought I would comment here. Itsbydesign is known to exhibit WP:OWN throughout the musical tour articles of Wikipedia, and continuously Edit wars, without providing any reasonings or edit summaries. Yes, he's disruptive and I do believe a thorough administrative action should be taken. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rose Marie Aragon and User:Island Monkey reported by User:Island Monkey (Result: )

    Page: Raymond v. Raymond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rose Marie Aragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Island Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_v._Raymond&diff=432289970&oldid=432289635


    • 1st revert: [99]
    • 2nd revert: [100]
    • 3rd revert: [101]
    • 4th revert: [102]
    • There are many more, but meh.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103] and [104].

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

    Comments:


    I only reverted twice!! The others were ALL manual edits. He on the other hand reverted 7 and by now I'm sure 8 times. I should not be blocked nor should I have been reported. My edits were good and improved the page as even he Island Monkey admitted. If he is not blocked I will be shocked. There must be a way to prove my edits were manual and not reverts like his.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I even compromised and left in the edits that we were discussing on the talk page to avoid conflict!! But no he kept going. Make it 9 now 10 reverts by him to my 2.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=432510150"