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 Turkish Flame (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 24 November 2009. 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


    User:Nyttend reported by Sswonk (talk) (Result: No action)

    National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 17:53, 9 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Name for the Frederick Ayer Mansion")
    2. 18:11, 10 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Link")
    3. 16:29, 17 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "This is the official name; we can't change the official name unless there's an error. Also changing alphabetisation: C before Y")
    4. 03:33, 18 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "These aren't names of properties on the Register")
    5. 13:07, 18 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Deviance from the Register's formatting is at variance with the policy of WP:NRHP and at variance with WP:V")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1]

    Comments:

    User Nyttend is reverting proper formatting of ship names/linked article titles to match the ALL CAPS style found on lists provided by the National Register of Historic Places. Other users are attempting to use consistent styling, in accordance with WP:ALLCAPS. Nyttend did not specifically mention the reversion in the first two reversion edit summaries and those reversions were included along with several other copy edits. The last three diffs show a 3RR violation beginning at 16:29, November 17, 2009 followed by two further reverts within 24 hours. The edit summaries provided by Nyttend indicate that names are being changed which violates the "policy" of the WikiProject WP:NRHP and result in unverifiable material. In fact, only the capitalization and use of periods within names of ships are being changed, the names are obviously correct and unchanged. N.B.: The article contains several dozen images and over two hundred {{coord}} listings, and as a result may take some time (up to 10 seconds) to load diffs.

    —Sswonk (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There has been no action on the above post for 12 hours, other than a relatively mild suggestion at Nyttend's user talk, which has received no response.[2] However, shortly before that post Nyttend did delete[3] the {{uw-3rr}} notice with the summary "I'm not in violation of 3RR, and you've done at least as many reversions." I am just learning that 3RR violations occur at the fourth revert in 24 hours; however, I have never done more than two such reverts on this or any article—the edit summary presents a falsehood. Irrespective of Nyttend's sysop status, which should not have any bearing here, his actions are disruptive and contrary to the consensus formed at the article talk page. I am adding this comment to draw attention here, Nyttend apparently has not learned anything from a similar block incident from five months ago.[4] Something more than a deleted template and unresponsive behavior is expected. No acknowledgment and outright unsupported denial is tantamount to declaration of the right to behave disruptively on Nyttend's behalf and should be addressed further. Sswonk (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result -- No action. Nobody has tried to change either to or from the all-caps style since 18 November, so for the moment there is no edit war. If it resumes, it will present a puzzling situation. Since Nyttend is an admin, we assume that he knows how to negotiate to get a consensus for his change. I had hoped he would reply to this report, since he has been properly notified. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.12.221.125 reported by User:Crotchety Old Man (Result: Semiprotected)

    Page: Black Hawk Down (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 74.12.221.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [5]

    A "new" IP has started reverting: [12] And again: [13]

    It'd be nice if an Admin would actually pay attention when I make a report. No idea why I bother with these. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Comment: A sock-puppet investigation (or CU) may be prudent. Despite these being his/her first edits, the user sure is oddly familiar with lots of Wiki-policy.

    Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the fourth so-called "revert" above was not a revert at all, but me attempting to incorporate (and here too) into the body of the text the fact that a third film critic also considered the film above to be racist (instead of including a huge chunk of text with the word "niggers" in it like Crotchety Old Man kept reverting to). On the other hand, Crotchedly Old Man's three edits (first, second, third) were all reverts; take it for what it's worth. 74.12.221.125 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've now gone over three reverts & I apologize for this. But what is happening on the article is that one user has added an opinion from a film critic that was published on a website that describes itself as a guide to "alternative opinion" on Philadelphia, and this opinion on the film above contains racial epithets as well. How on earth is this acceptable? 74.12.221.125 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh man, that is so disingenuous. My IP changed because I switched off the computer dude, nor have I pretended anywhere to be a different person. You have reverted twice too -- just as many times as I have; only you did not even bother showing up once on the article's discussion page to discuss things over with us. Had you done so, you would have known that consensus had been reached. I was even pointed to the reliable source noticeboard, where I then posted [15] and the editors there also agreed with these changes. I wasn't "vandalizing" but editing the article according to what everyone else agreed on! You, on the other hand, reverted me without even so much as once bothering to join in on the discussion although I even explained to you that consensus had been reached after you first revert. The fact is, you twice reversed my changes without having the benefit of consensus or general agreement on your side, or even attempting to acquire it through any reasoned discussion, whereas I had both which is the only reason why I even edited the page again. 76.69.231.153 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't defend the reverting actions of the accused, but there are two other parties involved in this edit war, and at the time of writing the accused is the only party who has made any attempt to resolve this on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The "accused" is the only one who violated 3RR, which is why this report was initiated. And funny that you now make your way over here, given your edit-warring history on the very same page. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never broken 3rr. When I was involved in a dispute on the article my reverts were always accompanied by further discussion on the talk page and clarifification of policy on various noticeboards. That isn't edit-warring, that is editing through consensus because I was attempting to advance the debate at all times. This is not dissimilar to the dispute I had over sources which is why I feel sympathy for the anon IP. I can't seriously believe that this sources stands up next to the sources we currently have, and I also don't understand why you think it's ok to plagiarise a massive chunk of the review when both other reviews had the racism critcism briefly summarised. I also don't see how a 'professional' critic can be considered credible when he uses the word 'niggers' in his review. It would helpful and courteous if you could at least explain your stance on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - Semiprotected. The arrival of the second IP, also from the Montreal area and with identical views, does suggest sock editing. I note that some editors (including the sock) seem to have been acting as a force for restraint, trying to find good sources for the suggestion of 'racism' and trying to limit the extravagant language. Probably nothing for us to do here, since the Talk page needs to decide that issue. Crotchety should file an WP:SPI report if he thinks that one of the registered accounts on this article is the same as the two IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WVBluefield reported by User:Atmoz (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Talk:Michael E. Mann (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Michael E. Mann|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: WVBluefield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [16]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A. Having been previously blocked as User:BluefieldWV for edit warring, user knows about 3RR.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. User restoring private email to talk page.

    Comments:

    This is a freaking talk page people, and the editors removing the material I added were doing so without reason, which is a violation of WP:TP. The private email in question was reproduced by a reliable source. The question on the talk page is directly related to numerous reliable sources reporting some interesting news about Mr Mann. WMC should really watch himself here because he has a direct WP:COI with the subject as they both blog together. WVBluefield (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: warnings re 3RR were removed incivily [21]; also note that a number of the reverts in question falsely allegenge vandalism, e.g. [22] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing article talk page threads for no good reason is vandalism. And speaking of irony, you shouldn’t talk about other people's incivility[23]. WVBluefield (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The threads were removed for a good reason. You were told of those reasons. You have repeatedly removed any references to this from your talk page, e.g. [24] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You and your little crew can edit anywhere you like .. just not on my talk page. Get it? On a side note, the last time I reported you for a 3RR, one of your buddies came quickly to your rescue, and didn’t block you even though you violated 3RR. I wonder if they will give me the same courtesy seeing as how the edit warring over your rude and intemperate removal of my talk page comments has now ceased.
    NOTE: WMC never once gave an explanation for the removal of talk page thread ... not a one. WVBluefield (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh: a glance at WVB's talk page history will show him removing multiple warnings and explanations. Apparently he requires all editors to give him the same explanation, whilst, apparently, not posting to his talk page at all William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If by multiple explanations by many editors you mean one explanation by one editor, then yes you are absolutely correct. And considering that your last post to my talk page, aside from today, was a persoanl attack [25], you will have to forgive me I don’t appreciate you blanketing my talk page with multiple duplicate template warnings. WVBluefield (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the incivility continues [26] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listen, I’m out of here for the weekend, so do whatever you want, but if the purpose of a 3RR block is to stop an edit war, its not needed as the edit war ended once Onorem decided to do something rational. If the block is meant as a punitive measure for my 3RR transgression or to punish an edit war, I hope the blocking admin will take into consideration that the other editors involved never took the time to explain their deletions to an article talk page (cant stress that one enough) and the one editor that did, gave me a link to a policy and had obviously not read the talk page material themselves. WVBluefield (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The combo of edit-warring over this kind of material and fierce personal attacks is too much. Yes, we're all about prevention, and as facing no consequence for this kind of behaviour encourages it, this block is preventative. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Degreeoftruth reported by User:TallMagic (Result: warned)

    Page: John Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Degreeoftruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [27]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

    Comments:
    Because of this edit [36]. I have suspicion that this fellow is the same person that has been banned previously for vandelism of this article and a few others. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Fred_Ridge for that history. I also suspect that he may be the same person that made an anonymous IP revert during this same period[37]


    TallMagic (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned The user hasn't reverted since you [s/]he was left the second warning. I've left the user another ... hopefully [s/]he'll get the message. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I appreciate your attention to this matter. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:96.237.134.44 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: 31h)

    Page: Federal Reserve System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 96.237.134.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [38]


    The IP editor has persistently been trying to add material that is clearly original research and lacking in viable sources. Despite comments from several different editors, trying to point the IP towards the problems, they ignore the main points and latch onto minor issues. This has been happening on the [Federal Reserve System] and [Criticism of the Federal Reserve] articles over the past few days. The same material was added a while ago to the [Legal Tender Cases].

    The allegations of original research include accusation that I an the ONLY person in the whole wide world that believes the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional and therefore illegal body. I pointed out that a google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=mF4IS4_2N4fvlAfRkrGFBA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CBEQBSgA&q=Is+the+fed+unconstitutional&spell=1 even includes a wiki site http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_Federal_Reserve_unconstitutional discussing that issue. The objection is TOTALLY bogus and other objections are equally bogus.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of those making the Original Research accusation states in his own talk page that "I know nothing about the issue" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4wajzkd02#Printing_Money_addition_to_Federal_Reserve_System and as wiki does not seem to care much about "accuracy" - see bellow for complaint about "TRUTH" - it is unlikely that this editor will learn much reading a wiki article, which is likely all that he/she did.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]
    Original research warning: [44]

    And I keep pointing out that it is not original research and the some of the material I was trying to add is even included in another wiki article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#Legality - which starts off with - Some critics argue that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. EXACTLY what I was trying to add to the main Federal Reserve article with an small expansion of WHY people think it is unconstitutional and illegal. The total addition amounted to one small paragraph.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45] (and all subsequent posts on that page)

    Please see the following link where the sum total of Ravesfires contribution to the discussion is summarized - excluding his numerous statements of Origin Research - I have repeatedly asked for specific complaints and he has failed to respond - his attitude shows a total disrespect of wiki CIVILITY policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ravensfire#Your_complaint_of_edit_war_in_the_Fed_articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:
    This is more for persistent warring than 3RR. The IP is wanting to add WP:The Truth to the article, despite the various problems pointed out multiple times (and ignoring some fairly clear supreme court rulings against said truth). This has been going on for several days, so the IP is a particularly persistently, although extremely polite, advocate.

    Ravensfire (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP (me) wants to add a small paragraph to a section called "criticism of the Fed" of the main Fed article so that it includes one of the most widespread criticisms of the Fed. Assuming that wiki has no interest in accuracy (sometimes known as Truth), then it should not advertise itself as on online encyclopedia, but should switch to advertising itself as an online fairy tale.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Stale Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reopened the 3RR case with Deacon's permission since the IP has continued to revert. Will leave a new warning and see how things go from there. EdJohnston (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IP has continued to revert because he sees this issue as a major criticism of the Federal Reserve and that criticism is not original research. This criticism is ALREADY in various place is wikipedia and wiki.answers. Ravensfire continues to NOT respond with specific objections as to what is original research [46] I have asked for specific objections several times and he has failed to respond except objecting about a link. To satisfy his objections I replaced that link to a link to the same material at Yale Law School. He may be suffering the condition described under WP:OWN.[47].

    This page in a nutshell: You do not own articles (nor templates and other features of Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so.

    To quote from the discussion page: Yet again - If anyone believes that the addition needs more cites or better cites, wiki provides a neat little feature where you can tag the article with a cite needed marker at the appropriate spot. Please be CIVIL, mark the places where you believe a cite is needed and I will attempt to provide one.
    If I cannot provide acceptable citations I have no objection to the deletion of those portions I cannot find citations for. The first step to this process is getting a specific objection as described in above. Ravensfire can't seem to be bothered to make those specific objections and is actig as if he OWNS the article. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)96.237.134.44 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result - 31 hours for edit warring. This user has reverted articles 11 times since his first edit on 17 November. He continues to crusade for an originalist view of the powers of the US federal government in the economic sphere. He has provided many quotes from 18th-century primary sources. Supporters of WP:FRINGE views are advised to work patiently through our system, stick to what can be found in WP:RS, and follow the undue weight rules. I see no hint of any willingness to follow policy or to wait for a Talk page consensus before changing articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GraYoshi2x and User:Badagnani reported by User:Ronz (Result: Both warned)

    Recent Pages:


    Users being reported:

    Comments:
    Ongoing dispute discussed in May'09 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China/Archive/May_2009#Naming_convention_for_Chinese_foods_and_usages_of_Wikitionary, and in Oct'09 at User_talk:Badagnani#Your_revert_warring.

    I vaguely recall other discussions on this, but cannot find them.

    See also User_talk:Badagnani#Your_edit-warring_with_GraYoshi2x, User_talk:GraYoshi2x#Your_edit-warring_with_Badagnani, User_talk:GraYoshi2x#Lamest_edit_warring. --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I warned both users that I would block them if edit-warring continued, as edit-warring across so many articles is quite disruptive. I had been informed of this before the AN3 report was open, but if anyone else thinks more action is needed then feel free to look into it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your interest in my editing. I edit with our articles, and our users, foremost in my mind. The other editor is a long-term stalker who devotes often more than 50 percent or more of his/her edits to undoing my own, no matter what the subject, on a consistent and persistent basis since March 2009. I note that this report was made after the other user had undone every single edit of mine, getting them the way s/he wanted them. Badagnani (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result - Both warned. If reverting continues, blocks will be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the first-cited discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China/Archive/May_2009#Naming_convention_for_Chinese_foods_and_usages_of_Wikitionary, it had consensus against GraYoshi's mass deletion of wiktionary linking of characters, with nobody supporting his position. When someone continues mass deletion against policy agreed by consensus, how can one stop this without being accused of edit warring? --JWB (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Consider making a list of some articles that ought to have Wiktionary links. Then propose the list at WT:CHINA and see if other editors support your adding the links. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zaferk reported by guyzero | talk (Result: 48 hours)

    Kapi'olani_Medical_Center_for_Women_&_Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zaferk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 00:43, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 01:11, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327028548 by PhGustaf (talk)") 1st revert
    3. 02:24, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327033588 by Tarc (talk) nobody said it was fact, thus usage of the term 'claimed'") 2nd revert
    4. 02:32, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327042551 by Guyzero (talk)") 3rd revert
    5. 03:00, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327043084 by Guyzero (talk)") 4th revert
    • Diff of warning: here

    —guyzero | talk 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 24 for the vio, and an extra 24 for the fringing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gagayonce reported by User:Lil-unique1 (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: I Am... Sasha Fierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Gagayonce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Original version


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Gagayonce

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: although no formal discussion took place on the talk page, plenty of warnings were given on talk page.

    Comments:

    The user has show complete disregard for the rules. With the first warning i provided a detailed explaination of why these covers are not allowed on the page. In rapid succcession the user continued to add the content back to the page. I could have probably stopped trying to revert his/her edits but as far as im aware i did the correct thing by remaining calm and using an appropriate warning template. Please can someone intervene. Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vsmith, Dougweller, Ckatz reported by Granite07 (Result: No action)

    Page: Pole shift hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Users being reported:


    Previous version reverted to: [48]

    The page prior to edits and after edit by user:RJHall: [54]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. User_talk:Vsmith#polar shift reverts
    2. Talk:Pole shift hypothesis#"See also" links

    Comments:

    A mediator has been requested. This request is an elevation of earlier requests to temporarily stop reverts until consensus is made. It appears that everyone involved is more-or-less equally qualified as far as the topic of this page goes. Earlier requests for discussion have been abruptly rebuffed. I honestly do not believe that any further discussion will result in a constructive discussion or serve as a benefit to the page. It appears that positions are being taken and a trained mediator is now needed to defuse everyone involved. [55]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs)

    My reverts were on the 14th, the 18th and the 19th. We have Granite07 and 2 IP addresses that link to Stanford University continuing to add this disputed material, with a high probability that they are the same person (including a comment from one of the IP addresses " I had planned to eventually write a section on the deluge aspects and the links were for my own future reference.". Granite07 is aware (see the talk page) that other editors are opposing this, but wrote ":You are correct Bob, but Wikipedia:Consensus only applies in this frame if the opposing editors are not acting in collusion and are acting in good-faith, we have not established this. That this many formal editors would have such a strong opinion on a fairly obscure page is suspicious." Granite07 has replaced the contested material after yet another editor, not named above, reverted him diff. Yes, there does appear to be edit-warring going on, but when it is (pretty clearly) one editor against 4.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets place Granite07's comments in context (and your [Dougweller's] thinly veiled threat to wield admin power to shake me to my bones!
    It's generally considered a bad idea to template the regulars. It is particularly a bad idea to warn someone of 3RR who had only made 1 revert in 24 hours, and 3. And combine that with using 2 IP addresses to replace the same material and ignoring the objections of 4 other editors, plus accusing them of acting in collusion -- not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC
    Granite07 has agreed that the IP addresses are his diff "I think it is 3 IP addresses if you look closely, two are nearly identical, differing only in the last few digits. This is not deceptive only non-stationary. The templating is per the instructions for protocol. The 'if not for' rule applies here. If not for four editors appearing to act in collusion, (two are obvious friends) and two are typically vandalism reverters, your non-collusion claim looks thin at best." Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I believe that Granite07's decision to file this report was ill-advised, and I can only presume that he mistakenly initiated the action through an error in judgment. For my part, I state categorically that my edit to the pole shift article can in no way be considered as anything even remotely related to 3RR. I am also disturbed by the editor's decision to make unfounded suggestions of "collusion" amongst editors who happened to disagree with him. In future, I would hope that Granite07 demonstrates significantly better judgment than he did in handling this situation, and that he perhaps first take a moment to honestly consider if it is in fact his own actions that are causing the problem. --Ckatzchatspy 08:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No mistake, please do not suppose an error has been made, human bias is not at fault, cognitive reflexes can be wrong, but not this time. It seems apparent why I have asked for a mediator. Post to User:Ckatz discussion page:
    I very much disagree with your [Chatz] opinion on your edits to the polar shift page and removal of the edit warring warning. You clearly became a contributor to edit warring with your revert. You engaged after discussions had began on the talk page, a request for mediation had been submitted, multiple requests had been made to stop reverts without discussion and it was clear your edit would only contribute to this escalation without any possible benefit. You should not be surprised you were named as a contributing editor to an edit war. In addition as noted on the discussion page you infrequently contribute to the page and those contributions (as important as they are) are confined to vandalism and other deductive edits rather than true contributions. You are free to modify (hide) your talk page any way you want. Granite07 (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I'd like to ask for a suspension of this edit war until a mediator is available. I think my reasons are obvious Granite07 (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm an Administrator. No, I was not threatening to block you, I'm involved in this dispute. In fact, you are apparently trying to get me blocked. I am wondering however if you misunderstand the purpose of this board when you talk about "a request for mediation had been submitted." If you mean this complaint, you are on the wrong board. I note that there are now 5 editors disagreeing with you. This comment " The admins have spun a tale of deception that is shear paranoia || convenience. I understand the tie goes to the admin and that admins hang together and the solidarity of the Wikiadmins, but try to have some discretion and a holistic view on this." here [56] is not at all helpful either. What deception am I accused of spinning? Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I was under the impression you had read the material, this is the mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-20/Pole shift hypothesis. I am not trying to have anyone blocked and was unaware that is what you threats were. The edit war posting is only per the mediation suggestion to try other avenues first, it seems to fit the definition of edit warring, and the edit war page advises to post notices to all aprticipants. As you know the definitoon of edit war is sufficintly broad to encompass reverts by multiple editors acting as a group as well as not needing to have a strict 3 reverts critera to be an edit war. Holistically we can all agree it was an edit war. Granite07 (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no one has notified me of any mediation. This page is here to get people blocked for edit warring. 5 editors disagreeing with one editor normally suggests one edit warrior. Your continued personal attacks at Talk:Pole shift hypothesis has lost any sympathy I had for you. And I have not threatened you at any point - please either withdraw the accusation or prove it. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What deception am I accused of spinning? " The admins have spun a tale of deception that is shear paranoia || convenience. I understand the tie goes to the admin and that admins hang together and the solidarity of the Wikiadmins, but try to have some discretion and a holistic view on this." Copying excerpts of conversations is one form of spin, the rest of that post is as follows:
    I will not edit the page until mediation makes a decision, so help me God, so you can remove the blocks. And if you read the material and feel it in your heart, revert the edits to my last contribution, then lock it :) Granite07 (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Granite07 (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation. If anyone was going to get a warning or block, it'd be the reporting editor for tendentious escalation of a fairly frivolous dispute. Granite's waiting for mediation now ... so nothing to do here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Opinoso reported by User:Likeminas (Result: 72 hours)

    Page: Chilean people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Opinoso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [57]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

    Comments:

    User Opinoso is edit warring across several articles, including Chilean people, Demographics of Chile, and Brazil (latter recently protected due to severe edit warring). Although he has not technically gone past 3R today, he's clearly edit warring and that's the main concern of this report.

    I tried to discuss the issues with him on his talk page and the article's talk page but he seems unwilling to reach common ground and instead resorts to reverting. Likeminas (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Some samples of Opinoso's general behaviour:
    Calling legitimate edits "vandalism" (something he has already been warned several times not to do). Also a "blind reversal": [63].
    Edit warring, blind reversal: [64].
    Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [65], but the source is here: [66]. Article ownership.
    Edit warring. Edit summary says, "the source does not exist": [67]. Article ownership.
    Edit warring, article ownership:

    [68].

    Sheer article ownership: [69].
    Edit warring, article ownership, summary edit states "This IS NOT the place to post texts from geneticists to claim a point o view": [70].
    Edit warring, blind reversal (reintroducing grammatical mistake), summary edit includes "Do not destroy articles, please": [71].
    Edit warring: [72].
    Although the reverted edit is sourced, summary edit says "Removing personal criticism about American racial classification, This opinion is not neutral.": [73].
    Gaming the system to keep false information in Wikipedia (summary edit states, "Removing unsourced. Brazilian census does not make any differenciation about racial mixture. If Caboclos are counted as Pardos, they're officialy counted as Afro-Brazilian."): [74].
    Summary edit says, "Restoring old version of it because of its new unsourced racialist informations". But there is nothing "racialist" in the reverted edit: [75]
    Edit warring: [76].
    Article ownership: [77].
    Attributing dishonest motives ("trying to sell") to other editors: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82].
    Edit warring: [83], [84], [85].
    Attributing dishonest motives ("Correct passage removed by an user who wants to hide facts for some personal reason") to other editors: [86].
    Attributing dishonest motives to other editors: [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. Ninguém (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) NW (Talk) 20:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William_M._Connolley reported by Flegelpuss (talk) (Result: No Violation, WP:BLP clearly applies)

    Phil Jones (climatologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    1. 08:23, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Gnomatic (talk) to last version by Atmoz")
    2. 21:37, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "rv: no, per BLP, exactly as before")
    3. 21:44, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "rv, BLP exemption to 3RR invoked, see BLP noticeboard")
    4. 22:09, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "rv, BLP exemption to 3RR invoked, see BLP noticeboard")
    5. 22:17, 21 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 71.239.229.241 (talk) to last version by William M. Connolley")


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=327185608&oldid=327185229

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phil_Jones_(climatologist)#News_about_Phil_Jones_and_the_CRU

    Comments:
    Connelley's behavior is extremely unethical, and he has an extensive record of engaging in censorship in gross violation of Wikipedia's rules. Please consider much stiffer penalties than just banning for a day.

    Flegelpuss (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thank F for at least having the grace to include my edit summaries, where I explicitly invoke the BLP examption to 3RR, which I believe applies in this case. I've also started a discussion of this matter at WP:BLPN William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that the "attempt to resolve the dispute" is dated 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC), i.e. after all the reverts.
    Note also that anon edit warring continues at Phil Jones (climatologist). It could do with being semi'd William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and one last thing: 71.239.229.241 (talk · contribs) most certainly has broken 3RR there William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Blocked by BozMo. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When an editor cries "censorship", it's a good bet that he's POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More relevant, when one includes heavily negative information based to a blog, WP:BLP applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently Flegelpuss was a sockpuppet, now blocked, see [93]. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:88.110.76.101/User:Jujimufu reported by User:Jujimufu/User:88.110.76.101 (Result: Protected)

    Page: J. Z. Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 88.110.76.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: article's talk page, user's talk page, and presumably this one as well (I have no explicit confirmation as to whether these two users are the same person, and user 88.109.47.240 has avoided answering the question when answered.)

    Comments:

    There has been a conflict between us on whether User:88.110.76.101's recent additions constitute a violation of the WP:OR guideline or not.

    I have reported myself with him because in this situation I feel I may be biased, due to the recent conflict between myself and User:Mindgladiator (see previous edit warring reported by me - might be archived soon). I personally feel his additions constitute original research. I agree fully with the user that Glen Cunningham in his interview agrees that he has lied to students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, but I believe that the conclusion that this somehow compromises his integrity with regards to the comments present in the J. Z. Knight article consist of original research and have no place in the article.

    With regards to the McCarthy comments, I believe this is slightly irrelevant biographical information, related to McCarthy and not to Ramtha, and it has not place in the paragraph. Furthermore, the phrasing makes it look out of place, so maybe that's the issue (for me).

    As I said, I am not particularly strong on my position on this, and I feel like I should doubt my own integrity on the article, due to the recent and heated conflict with User:Mindgladiator - which is why I am reporting both of us. • jujimufu (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    One and two - I refrained from reverting the edit a third time to avoid ending up in an edit war, but the reason I am reporting my self is because, as I said, I may be biased due to my recent conflict on edits of similar character on the same article. • jujimufu (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi.. It seems that Jujimufu is not allowing me to make any additions to this article, I have been adding well sourced references and citations but this user is removing them all. I propose that this user takes a break on editing this article and lets other users get involved. The most recent revert made was a well sourced article on J.Z. Knight as a mother. Why this should be removed I cant imagine..

    88.109.47.240 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    After writing this above I have returned to the article to see that my addition if a well sourced article about JZ Knight being a mother has been removed by Jujimufu. I dont know what this users problem is with my addition but for now I think I will leave this article alone as there seems very little point in making changes to improve the content.

    88.109.47.240 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    and again.. Jujimufu has seen fit to remove my additions. In the chat to me Jujimufu talks about my reluctance to get into a coherant discussion, well I am not that interested in a discussion with this user, I add well sourced citations or links and they are removed, my chat with this user is seems to be returned with a long responses, and I dis-agree with a lot of the statements and do not want to waste time attempting to make this user see my point of view.

    88.109.47.240 (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Article protected by another admin. Editors are urged to discuss matters on talk during the three days of protection, so they can reach a consensus on the disputed items. Protection may be extended if people start reverting again after protection expires without having made any effort to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.151.103.174 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: 24h)

    Page: My Name Is Bruce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 81.151.103.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This isn't a 3RR, but a long term edit warrior, who is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.143.126.252, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.145.113.100, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.152.153.128 and dozens of other IP addresses who only shows up to revert edits, on this and other articles. User never discusses edits. Geoff B (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's back as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.135.0.201. Geoff B (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So how long are we gonna keep this up? Each time the IP is blocked and he is back immediately with a new IP, and we're back at square one because we haven't blocked the entire IP range yet. Eik Corell (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semiprotected My Name is Bruce. If you believe the same guy is targetting other articles as well, you can report them at WP:RFPP or open up a WP:Sockpuppet investigations report. It seems the IPs are too far apart for a range block. Perhaps you could start making a list of the IPs in your user space somewhere, that could be filed later if other reports are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Justtobefair reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 48h)

    Page: Stormfront (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Justtobefair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [94]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106][107]

    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by User:Blueboy96. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chhe reported by Malke 2010 (Result: No Action )


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


    • User Chhe is reverting without discussing. I believe he's up to four reverts now. Restored material that is questionable as to copyright violation and also restored inaccurate information that had been deleted for lack of citation and untrue. Never makes constructive contribution to page, only comes around to revert all new edits.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC) -->[reply]
    In defense, I only undid Malke 2010 twice both of which were quite clear cut the reason why and one of which was because he removed an entire section from the article. He had previously been blocked for having done this very same thing quite awhile ago. You will have to read the archives unfortunately since the matter was quite extensive. As far as the reverts Malke 2010 listed above they aren't even reverts. The 1st revert is me adding a citation to the page after another user said he thought the section needed more citations after a discussion came to fruition after Malke 2010 blanking the section. The 2nd revert is actually one of my reverts and was legitimate as explained in the edit summary. He was removing factual info that could easily be verified so I added it back. The 3rd revert is again not a revert, but me simply adding more citations per another users comment. Also, the matter is currently being discussed in the talk page although I must admit that I find Malke 2010's actions in the past and currently highly indicative of POV pushing. I think this report of his is an attempt at revenge for me previously reporting him here for edit warring on the same page in which he was blocked.Chhe (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the only section I removed was the copyright violation section which Chhe restored with phony references. The entire section comes from a blog and needs to be deleted. Also, Chhe keeps vandalizing the "Activites since leaving the White House Section" by inserting that Karl Rove was questioned by the House Judiciary Committee regarding Don Sieglman's felony convictions. This is false. I added the House Jud Comm transcripts to prove it, but Chhe reinserted it again anyway. the House Jud Comm has never investigated Don Sieglman's conviction. Rove has no involvement with that. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has, however, upheld his felony convictions.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I write to defend Chhe, whose words above ring very true to me. It's my opinion the entire situation at the Karl Rove article needs attention. Malke2010 was previously blocked last summer for issues concerning the page and his discomfiture with me (his contribs show he is a pretty much a one issue editor) who insists on rapid wholesale changes to the article including splitting it, with little time for discussion or reaction into an (imo) unneeded new article 'Karl Rove in the Bush Administration' (rendering future changes to the split off section invisible to those who have watchlisted the original article), content removal of entire sections (again with little discussion or time for reaction) and talk page abuse, including accusations of vandalism in the most recent edit summary and uncivil language regarding sourcing. I have not had time to look into the actual issues raised, but the action of Malke 2010 in bringing this here gives an impression, as Chhe notes, of a motive of retribution.
    As Rove is a polarizing public figure, I would prefer an admin(s) who can genuinely be unpolitical, neither left or right, and judge the situation on its merits. Chhe is reacting with honest indignation, as I see it. As I say, reading the current Rove talk page will be of interest, but to get a complete picture of Malke's issues some study of the Karl Rove Discussion Archive 7 and 8 will be helpful. Indeed, the situation with Malke 2010 grew so ugly last summer that it had a chilling effect on further work on the article. In my view, it unfortunately appears that Malke 2010 didn't learn much from his block a few months back. Study of his interaction with blocking admin Black Kite should also prove instructive. By the way, Malke 2010 made the spurious accusation at that time that BK was a friend of mine. Untrue, both in Wikipedia and real life. Thanks, and sorry to see this back here, Jusdafax 01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To the talk page with both of you, since you are both clearly willing to discuss. Next time try that first. Prodego talk 04:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ReligionScholar reported by Jeff3000 (talk) (Result: No action)

    People of the Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ReligionScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 08:10, 22 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "ihave put the discussion in the talk page but yet have received no reason. i am undoing this vandalism and will report "warrior" if he continues to add things. give your reasons in the discussion page")
    2. 03:32, 23 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327344007 by Warrior4321 (talk) see talk page or create seperate page not in islam section.")
    3. 03:48, 23 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327407699 by Warrior4321 (talk) i am fixing it up, i will add the section.")
    4. 03:57, 23 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327409178 by Jeff3000 (talk) why? it was in the correct format. i did not delete anything")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Jeff3000 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing discussion on the talk page, and a user who seems to be well intentioned, should not lead to a block. Indeed, I find the way ReligionScholar has been treated on that talk page to be far below what WP:BITE and WP:AGF would require. Prodego talk 04:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bugboy52.40 reported by User:TVC_15 (Result: no action)

    Page: Earwig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Bugboy52.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [111]


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116] [117]

    Comments:

    • As indicated in the links above, Bugboy52.40’s repeated deletions have been described as edit warring by at least three editors including me, and I keep adding more sources (total five now, including two medical journals) to support the statement he keeps deleting: that earwigs have been known to crawl into human ears. It’s a surprising subject to generate an edit war, but there it is.TVC 15 (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is any additional edit warring, I will block. However, I hope that ZooFari's edit will stop the edit war, and that discussion will take place on the talk page to resolve the issue. Prodego talk 04:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems to be misleading in the fact that I moved the information, and that it is not removed from the article and the referts stooped after two. See thisBugboy52.4 | =-= 10:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't misleading. WP:3RR applies to revert actions "of any kind," not just clicking "revert," so the four deletions all count. The deletions definitely removed the information and all five sources from the article. An ungrammatical addition after the third deletion re-phrased using weasel words and restored only one source, leaving out the other four sources (including both medical journals). Three editors (including me) described the repeated deletions as edit warring, and only the deleter disagreed.TVC 15 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weasel words by no means and I didn't no revert in any way, I moved it. I simply rephrased it and moved it to its appropriate section, the article has to be organized in order to pass GA. And it frustrates me that I can't even move a statement and remove unreliable refs (which would not let it pass) to improve the article without being accused of something. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:151.57.205.197 - edits to Turkish state railways (TCDD) (Result: warning)

    Article Turkish State Railways. I removed some information from this article, to be added to a History of rail transport in Turkey article. At around the same time I added further information, and expanded the High-speed rail in Turkey article.

    The above user constant reverts the changes, including removing tags (requests for references) [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]

    One of the reasons why the user says they are reverting is that Ottoman railways linked to the article - I created a stub for "ottoman railways" since the redirect is a nonsense - ottoman railways predates the scope of the article - the TCDD did not exist until after the dissolution of the ottoman empire. For the same reason I started the stub article History of rail transport in Turkey to contain the information I removed.

    Apart from reverting to original versions the user has been removing tags. In all the current edits the user has not made any additions, or attempts to improve the article, additionally making extra work for me having to reinsert info they have removed as part of their reverts. In addition the section on history is currently tagged as being for potential copyright infrigment, but the user has ignored me an re-adds it to the article.

    I have contacted the user on their talk page and thought that we had gained some sort of understanding. However their actions do different. I am finding everything they do currently to be non - constructive.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not clear from your diffs whether he's reverting or editing, and he seems to be new, so I've left him a 3RR warning, and I'll put the page on my watchlist. SlimVirgin 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ok. I have removed a clear copyright violation from page, and invited the editor to the talk page. I will avoid further edits and movement of text without discussion as this seems to be my part of the problem. I am currently awaiting feedback from Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_November_21 about the other text.Shortfatlad (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wdford reported by User:MastCell (Result: warning for Wdford and Zara1709)

    Page: Medical uses of silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Wdford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 12:48, 22 November 2009

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Aware of 3RR; see own words on talk page and prior warnings.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion at Talk:Medical uses of silver from here on down.

    Comments:
    Wdford (talk · contribs) was previously topic-banned for 6 months from Ancient Egyptian race controversy for dogged and persistently tendentious POV-pushing. I'm concerned that we're seeing similar issues on a different topic here. As a side note, I see 3 reverts in the same time period from Zara1709 (talk · contribs), but no other clear violations of 3RR; I'll leave it to the reviewing admin to decide what, if anything, to do there. MastCell Talk 17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note their pending mediation case here - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing the 3RR violation, Mastcell. SlimVirgin 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at the history, and Wdford and Zara seem to have been reverting each other wholesale, so I've left warnings for both, and I've put the page on my watchlist. I hope that's okay for now. SlimVirgin 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlike Slim, I am seeing the 3RR violation, but am uncertain about blocking. It should be noted I have recently returned to Wikipedia after the kerfuffle where he was banned from the ROAE article, thus totally missing all of that, but recent discussions with him have been cordial and constructive, and his take on that matter seems perfectly sane, albeit a little eccentric in minor details. This is of course unrelated to silver in medicine, where I have no knowledge of the content matters at hand and for all I know Wford is pushing total nonsense.
    • However, my impression of Wdford is that he is perfectly open to reasoned discussion and will work with quality sources, although perhaps it would be best if someone other than Zara, with whom Wdford has previously had run-ins if I remember correctly, talked to him about this. Blocking for 3RR here would be justifiable, but I am hesitant to do so as the 4th revert looks more like a slip in a complex sequence than anything else, separate as it is from the other 3. It is somewhat more tempting to revert Wdford's most recent edits (if this hasn't been done already), and then protect the page for a week or so. I leave the decision, however, to others. Moreschi (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's fine with me. If the edit-warring stops, or at least slows down, I'm happy regardless of whether anyone is blocked or not. MastCell Talk 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nigelj reported by User:WVBluefield (Result: )

    Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Nigelj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

    Comments:

    These took place over 27, not 24 hours but it shows a gross pattern of edit warring with multiple editors to remove material from the article. Not every RV is obvious, but 8 of the 10 cited RV’s make very clear that an edit was “undone”, so please look closely. WVBluefield (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: while this looks like an impressive list, the few I looked at were all reverting edits of banned socks (User:EggheadNoir, User:Tanshai) or explicitly claimed (IMHO, correctly) BLP exemption to 3RR. I think that reporting people for reverting banned socks amounts to disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have identified the 3 (out of10) reverts that Nigelj made against a sockpuppet. It should be noted that this still leaves us with 7rv's in 27 hours and the reverts were made before either of the above two editors were identified as sockpuppets. WVBluefield (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've left in the BLP exempt reverts. I haven't checked that you've got all the socks, either William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:186.36.24.47 reported by User:Likeminas (Result: )

    Page: Chilean people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 186.36.24.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [135]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

    Comments:

    IP has reverted (two different editors) 4 times within 24hrs. He's been warned on edit warring and asked to please join the discussion at the talk page to no available. There seems to be strong evidence that shows that 186.36.24.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of user Kusamanic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please review. Likeminas (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sukiari reported by Verbal (Result: 48 hours)

    Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sukiari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 09:35, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "restored "exculpatory leak" and threat of violence")
    2. 09:39, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 09:41, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 09:44, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327638080 by Verbal (talk) per talk, where?")
    5. 09:50, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "")
    6. 09:54, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327638928 by William M. Connolley (talk) stop removing links and apropos additions.")
    7. 10:05, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327640088 by HaeB (talk) explained, and the ip is wikileaks.")
    8. 10:20, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327641591 by Stephan Schulz (talk) wikileaks is widely cited on the wikipedia")
    9. 10:23, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327641902 by HaeB (talk)It is indeed directly verifiable, and wikileaks was down not 15 minutes ago per DNS resolution desp")
    • Diff of warning: here

    These are just the clear reverts, there have been many more such edits but I feel this is more than enough to show that 3RR has been broken in under an hour. These edits are also restoring material that breaks WP:BLP policy and links to illegally obtained copyrighted emails and data. This has been pointed out to the user on the talk page, but they continue to edit war.

    —Verbal chat 10:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Independent report of the same behavior, merged to make one case:

    Previous version reverted to: N/A. The going is hot at the article. The user keep re-adding a link to the stolen email archive in violation of WP:ELNEVER to various versions of the article.

    Arguably, the first is not a revert, but just a plain policy violation, so the numbering may be off by one....


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Unneccessary, user has been here for year. Still, there is one at [153]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Link_to_the_leak_is_apropos..., also see the users talk page.

    Comments:

    It's a hot topic in the blogosphere at the moment, but this behavior is simply unacceptable.


    --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lekim74 reported by User:Anomie (Result: )

    Page: List of country calling codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Lekim74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [154]

    Note this is not a WP:3RR report. It is a report of WP:Edit warring.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164]

    Comments:

    On 28 September 2009, it was announced that Abkhazia was going to stop using numbers under Georgia's country code (+995) and start using numbers under Russia's (+7); apparently this offends Georgia.[165] This change was reflected in the article List of country calling codes the same day. On 13 November, Lekim74 registered an account and immediately edited to manually revert this change. Thinking that was an odd edit, I looked into the situation, discovered that the code was recently changed as mentioned above, and made a more thorough changeover to the article. Lekim74 edited to manually undo those edits again three days later, and I reverted; at this point, I would not have reverted again without talk page discussion. Two days later, Lekim74 edited to manually undo the edits again, User:Glenn L reverted and started a talk page discussion, and I posted to Lekim74's talk page to notify him of the discussion. Lekim74 redid his edit again the next day, I warned him that further reverts without discussion would lead to a block; Lekim74 has manually reverted to his preferred version 4 more times since then, and has not once commented to the talk page (or, in fact, made any other edit to Wikipedia or even used an edit summary).

    At no point has anyone violated WP:3RR (I suspect this is by accident rather than design on Lekim74's part), but it seems clear from his contributions that Lekim74 is only here to continually revert in an attempt to keep this one bit of information out of this one article. Anomie⚔ 12:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William M. Connolley reported by User:WVBluefield (Result: )

    Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 1st revert: [166]
    • 2nd revert: [167]
    • 3rd revert: [168] removal of citations and sourced allegations of academic intimidation
    • 4th revert: [169]
    • 5th revert: [170]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [172]

    Connolloy along with several other editors have been edit warring on this article since it was created. Connolloy was not reverting any sockpuppets in the above instances. The short term solution is to block the offending editors and allow them some cool down time. A longer term solution would be to impose a 1RR restriction to limit these kinds of infractions. WVBluefield (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    A block doesn't seem to be necessary here, and would likely be counterproductive (unless it is WVBluefield's intent to inflame the situation). WMC's most recent edits were five hours ago; WVBluefield's template warning arrived about twenty minutes ago. Looking at the article history, it appears that a single prolific edit warrior (Sukiari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) racked up at least nine reverts of the same material within an hour's span of time. At least seven other editors were reverting the addition of a an external link to a copyright violation; that accounts for two of WMC's reverts above. As soon as Sukiari was blocked, the article calmed down again (such as it is; right now the article in any form probably represents a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SYNTH). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Removing links to copyright violations falls under 3RR exceptions. And WVBluefield's templating a regular 5 hours after the fact and then reporting him without further edits (or even any indication that he is online) seems to be hardly appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    5 Hours ago I was still asleep so I don’t see what that has to do with anything, I don’t live here. The way to deal with a user like Sukiari is to report him here, not engage in an edit war with him. Contrary to your claims Mr Schulz, none of Connolly’s edits dealt solely with CW violations are were all related to disputed content. He was using claims of CW (rightly or wrongly) to also revert non CW content. It also goes without saying that since WMC has a significant conflict of interest he should be treading very lightly on this topic in the first place. WVBluefield (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Not sure I buy the copyvio argument. The point of WP:COPY is to protect the legitimate commercial and artistic interests of authors of creative content. In this case, it looks like the policy is being mis-used to suppress politically damaging material. I would think a link to the material might fall under an exception to WP:COPY - it could certainly be argued that there is a strong public interest in the material being released. Ronnotel (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove it first, argue that there should be an exception after that. Wikipedia leans toward the conservative side on copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Technically I think I'm guilty. If it helps, I promise to leave the article alone for the next 24h. To weasel, I think I could claim that [173] and [174] might just sneak in under the BLP or unsuitable-external-links exemption, though I think that would be pushing it. I'll also point out that [175] appears to have been an uncontroversial improvement to the article William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mo HH92 reported by User:Manticore55 (Result: )

    Page: Stephanie Meyer - Criticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: {{userlinks|Mo HH92}


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


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

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

    Comments:


    User:69.158.55.58 reported by User:Turkish Flame (Result: )

    Page: Newly industrialized country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 69.158.55.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    69.158.56.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [179]

    Comments:

    This IP user is pushing his/her POV continuously. At least, a protection to the article is required. --Turkish Flame ☎ 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=327681835"