Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Apoklyptk (talk | contribs) at 21:12, 29 January 2009 (→‎Apoklyptk reported by Dayewalker (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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

    Spotfixer reported by Hardyplants (Result:no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    • 1st revert: [15]
    • 2nd revert: [16]
    • 3rd revert: [17]
    • 4th revert: [18]
    • 5th revert: [19] he promises to keep on edit waring without discussion or work toward a consensus.
    • 6th revert: [20] - followed me to another page and made a vindictive revert.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [21]

    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 [[22]]. 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: [23]



    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: [33]


    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: [34]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [40]

    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 [48], 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: [49]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [55]

    User:Laager initially added an entry that constituted original research.[56] This was then, justifiably, removed by User:Backslash Forwardslash,[57] resulting in an edit war. It should probably be noted that Backslash Forwardslash's reversion of Laager's first reversion[58] 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,[59][60] 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: [61]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]

    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: [66]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [71]
    Blocked for 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spotfixer reported by Schrandit (Result:no blocks)


    • Previous version reverted to: [72]



    • The user has been warned several times by different editors over the month: [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]

    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: [82]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [88]

    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: [89]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [94]


    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]
    Apoklyptk, you appear to be promising to edit war in the future without further comment. I've left a comment on both the Talk:Red Hulk page and also your own talk page. Consensus certainly appears to be against you, please discuss this before reverting so we don't have to wind up right back here at the edit war page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoenix of9 reported by lyonscc9 (Result: self revert)


    • Previous version reverted to: [95]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [100]

    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: [101] 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]

    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 seems to have broken the three revert rule in a 24 hour period (January 28)

    He comes across as an 'edit warrior'. At the start, he arbitrarily reverted the text without providing reasons. Other editors (myself included) reverted his 'reversions'! He subsequently questioned one point or another to continue to revert the text. A few editors tried to address the points raised by him with an appropriate consensus wording. Others (like me) invited 125.17.14.100 to join the discussion at talk page. He did not.

    125.17.14.100 however continued to merrily revert on the pretext of a new point previously not raised. He rejected the consensus wording arrived at to accommodate him. It was a succession of one excuse or the other to introduce changes which he had not raised before.

    I am not sure how one can deal with the succession of issues raised by one individual. This seems to be snowballing and is disruptive. I refer the matter to you. He might have broken the three revert rule today.

    125.17.14.100 then demands evidence. It is in the footnotes also discussed in the discussion page. He does not seem to read the talk page. He then changes the point of contention to introduce his PoV e.g. 'all secular individuals regardless of political party, creed or caste observe the new year on such and such a date' without himself producing the necessary evidence. It all seems so ideological, subjective and against a consensus way of approaching it.

    It is these sorts of edit warring and reverts that contributes to a credibility issue in an otherwise superb on-line initiative such as Wikepedia--Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    48h for edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Muchas gracias senor :-) If only he had tried the talk page. That would have been a useful way to incorporate different views while respecting each contributor. Thank you once more. --Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


    • Previous version reverted to: [102]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [109]

    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]


    Scripturalreasoning reported by Mahigton (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to: [110]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [115]

    User scripturalreasoning responded negatively to my warning at [116]

    I have also (earlier today) placed a request for third-party administrator help in this editorial conflict on [117]

    --mahigton (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SR has definitely broken 3RR, so 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spotfixer reported by Schrandit (Result:no action)


    • Previous version reverted to: [118]



    Some of those warnings were clearly in error and they were also not about this article. Please stop slinging mud. Spotfixer (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than trying to find citations to back up the claim in contention the user merely reverted the page, reinserting the unsourced content and later deleting citation requests. Please keep in mind the user's other two mentions on this page. - Schrandit (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As it turns out, Schrandit is once again mistaken. I did add a cite for the text he keeps edit-warring to delete. This false report is part of a pattern of abuses; he filed a false report a day ago and it was dismissed. Scroll up. Spotfixer (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There is no 3RR violation here that I can see, and the last diff you provided actually adds the citation. Perhaps the two of you should disengage for a while. Kevin (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mshake3 reported by Truco (Result: prot)


    • Previous version reverted to: [128]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [133]

    This case is a bit unique. Mshake3 is a great user who contributes to Wikipedia with marvelous images of wrestling events. However, as of late he has been disruptive with edit warring causing the above article to be fully protected. The case is that he believes that because WWE.com (on the middle right) has an upcoming calender that states WWE One Night Stand has been changed by WWE to WWE Extreme Rules, however, WWE has not formally announced that this name change has occurred. Last year WWE Vengeance was to be changed to WWE Night of Champions, however, we waited until WWE posted a direct link to the ticket and promotional information here. Originally, the edit warring began on the WWE One Night Stand article, which Mshake reverted 3 times. This caused a full protection. As a result, WP:PW began to discuss this at WT:PW#One Night Stand, but Mshake did not want to discuss and he began to change the name of the article at the List of WWE pay-per-view events. There he reverted 4 times, and avoided the discussion at WT:PW. In addition, he began to change the name of the article in an infobox here. He was warned by User:TJ Spyke for adding original research here, and then for 3RR at the link I placed above. He, however, removed those warnings. It would help if he was given "time off" to avoid the disruption he has added.TRUCO 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Time off to avoid the disruption" sounds like "cool down block" which are not allowed. iMatthew // talk // 03:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean it like that, I meant that he needs to have time off so the edit war can stop.--TRUCO 03:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The pages can't be full protected instead? iMatthew // talk // 03:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They already have, but he finds other ways to avoid the discussion and add his own input to related pages like at Judgment Day (2009).--TRUCO 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mshake's disruptions have already led to 2 articles being fully protected (WWE One Night Stand and List of WWE pay-per-view events). He has disrupted multiple other pages that link to those two and based on his comments at WT:PW I tend to believe he will continue his actions once those pages are unprotected. He is ignoring the consensus (which is to leave the current name for now). He shouldn't get a long term block, but has is just being a disruption to Wikipedia right now and not being the constructive editor he has been in the past. TJ Spyke 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I know that he passed 3RR, but you were all edit warring. You should have stopped at the first or second revert and contacted an un-involved administrator for input. By continuing, you were all involved in the edit war. iMatthew // talk // 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We were just enforcing consensus, which is why I seeked protection for both articles so we would stop the edit warring.--TRUCO 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both sides need to take a huge step back. The change to a new name is almost definite, and it has been reported by a reliable source (Dave Meltzer). The WrestleMania example used by those who don't support MShake3's version is not a good comparison, as it deals with a completely separate issue. It also wouldn't make sense for WWE to give One Night Stand the same subtitle for two years in a row, so the change seems like a sure thing. There hasn't been a press release yet, however. So both sides are right in their own ways. Punishing a valuable contributor like MShake3, however, would not help anything. I suggest that this report be withdrawn and that everyone realize that this is about as trivial as it gets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Even Mshake has said he can't find where WWE ever said last years ONS was called "One Night Stand: Extreme Rules". The official site only calls it One Night Stand and the only place they mention "Extreme Rules" is on the DVD cover. This leads me to believe it was just another tagline. If this was just one article, I would agree with you. But this has spread to multiple articles. TJ Spyke 17:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009-01-28T07:46:45 PeterSymonds (Talk | contribs | block) m (13,191 bytes) (Changed protection level for "List of WWE pay-per-view events": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lyonscc reported by Spotfixer (talk) (Result:no vio)

    Rick Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lyonscc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Previous version reverted to: [134]

    1. 03:42, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "Definitely not WP:BLP material, speedy deletion required per the policy, in addition to coatracking")
    2. 03:55, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 267122133 - This is offensive, not a recognized neologism, and qualifies for speedy deletion. Gain consensus first")
    3. 04:46, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "This is a WP:BLP - Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Wait for consensus (24+ hours)")
    4. 04:55, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 267129952 - Please wait for consensus - 3RR does not apply when removing malicious content from a WP:BLP.")
    5. 05:13, 29 January 2009 See previous note. Tele's edit doesn't matter in counting for 3RR, and removal of malicious, poorly sourced material from a WP:BLP is exempt from 3RR - wait for 24-hour consensus
    • Diff of warning: here

    Lyonscc has intentionally violated 3RR and refused to self-revert.

    —Spotfixer (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:BLP, the reverts are not subject to 3RR as they are removing malicious, poorly sourced material - and Spotfixer refuses to wait for discussion on the topic. He is trying to insert language suggestive of anal sex between teenagers into an article on Rick Warren. It seems that if this doesn't violate WP:blp, nothing does.
    from WP:BLP
    I am currently adding this to the BLP noticeboard.
    Spotfixer also has posted threatening messages on my talk page, and has been reported for this breach of WP:CIVIL see [135]. I have rarely edited this article, but Spotfixer and one other user have decided to use this page as a WP:SOAP the past few days, and I've tried to have WP:CIVIL discussion on the topic, but their agenda is rather clear, with contrary comments ignored.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very much not a WP:BLP violation. Dan Savage has coined Santorum (sexual neologism) in honor of Rick Santorum, and it's in that bio. Now he's coined Saddlebacking in honor of Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, which is exactly parallel. Crying BLP is not an excuse for whitewashing. Spotfixer (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The term is brand new and not notable. If, every time Rush Limbaugh created a new term to mock his enemies, conservatives rushed to Wikipedia to add the new derisive term and tag anyone remotely connected to it, it would be no more justifiable than this insertion. Why not wait for consensus?--Lyonscc (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no violation here. I think it's a bit whacked, but BLP policy excuses 3RR in this case (as Lyonscc quoted). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 07:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    130.49.58.34 reported by Foxy Loxy (Result:resolved by contributors)

    Resolved


    • Previous version reverted to: [136]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [140]

    The user is changing the IPA pronunciation of country despite the previous version having sources and the one that the IP is changing to does not. I have tried to discuss the change with the user on their talk page, telling them they need reliable sources (or at least for them to tell me where they got the information from), but the IP continues to revert me. The user has not reached 3 reverts yet, but it seems there is no sign of stopping. I've reverted the user twice, and I don't want to do it a third time (their version is the current version). Can I get some intervention or someone to talk to the IP? Foxy Loxy Pounce! 06:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've decided to compromise by adding both pronunciations. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, isn't it great to see things work the way they're supposed to sometimes? :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WorldFacts reported by EdJohnston (Result: final warning)

    WorldFacts believes that the Israelis were at fault in the USS Liberty incident of 1967, and he wants the greatest possible emphasis to be put on the Moorer report, which blames the Israelis. His repeated reverts at USS Liberty incident constitute edit warring, although they are too slow to violate WP:3RR.

    He has not participated on the Talk page since November 12. So far in the year 2009 WorldFacts has inserted the same paragraph into the article seven times. This does not represent a good-faith effort to find consensus:

    1. 23:02, 28 January 2009 ("Consensus was to keep the entry, not delete it. See Discussion, archive 4. Majority of Non Israeli Editors have no problem with Entry.")
    2. 19:28, 27 January 2009 ("As I said, search for Moorer Report. R-E P-O-R-T - Report. You won't find it, other then the link to the report, hence the reason quotes from the report are being added in, again.")
    3. 21:13, 23 January 2009 ("Actually, "Moorer Report" doesn't appear on this page anywhere. Adding reference to this report as an Independent American Report.")
    4. 16:41, 21 January 2009 ("Browsers Find function confirms phrase "Moorer Report" not found on USS Liberty Page, other then link to report itself. Missing Commentary on report itself added, again.")
    5. 19:07, 15 January 2009 ("1000000000 times reason with 0 value is still zero. There's no mention of Moorer REPORT at all, What part of this do you not understand? Don't start an Edit War.")
    6. 22:44, 14 January, 2009 ("Add Excerpts from the only non government Independent Investigation done on Incident ever. Moorer REPORT is not mentioned in this article.")
    7. 14:39, 9 January, 2009 ("Moorer Report - Only Independent Report -Paul Craig Roberts added commentary. With 9 additional references.")

    I have not been editing the article myself. I am aware of WorldFacts' activities because I blocked this editor on December 16 for a conventional 3RR violation on the same article. The December AN3 complaint was here. Edit warring policies should make some response to editors whose views are fixed in stone and will not accept consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WF is now talking, at least William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really talking. Same old tired shit, different day. The content isn't in according to him, because it is mentioned but not in the way he want. He won't give an inch. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing after a final warning. if the editor reinserts the paragraph without first getting consensus then they will be blocked. This is clear disruption now and preventing the normal flow of editing on the article. Spartaz Humbug! 20:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oicumayberight reported by Aspects (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [141]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [146]
    • Response. The first revert was approve by the User:Termer. See that users talk page. The last was not a revert, but instead a completion of the tag. See the comments in the history. The two in the middle were either misunderstandings from the other user or attempts to downplay the seriousness of the discussion after the fact. So the other user should have been accused of edit warring, not me. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apoklyptk reported by Dayewalker (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to: [148]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: User previously filed an edit war report against another part in the discussion here [154]

    The section concerns a piece of information that has since been shown to clearly be a joke and is completely discredited. Consensus on the talk page is to remove, however, this user appears to have a real disagreement with ThuranX, and refuses to acknowledge that consensus on the talk page is against them ([155] "it stays", [156] "I am just going to keep coming back and putting it back up"). They have inserted the material after multiple editors have removed it, and promised to continue putting thesection back in regardless of other people's opinions ([157] "I'll be tireless in this", [158] "I will continue to place it.").

    Editor does engage in talk page discussion, but not in any productive manner and has refused requests to revert while consensus is against him and discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All contributions have degraded over time because my thoughts and opinions about the matter are disregarded by what I feel is a group of "experienced" editors trying to back each other up. No one is reading the discussion history, and I have been asked multiple times to explain why a section should not be deleted. instead of repeating myself, i have clearly stated my stance and asked everyone to refer to that and respond to that rather than allow things to get off-topic (wherein I will again be asked to explain why it should be there). There is no consensus, only an authoritarian attitude from another editor about what they want it to be - who states there is a consensus when there is none.--Apoklyptk (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=267266338"