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 Heqwm2 (talk | contribs) at 06:14, 30 January 2010 (→‎User:Loonymonkey reported by Heqwm2 (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


    User:Anonywiki reported by User:Tony Sidaway (Result: blocked by User:Vsmith)

    Page: Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Anonywiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2] (Diff shows warnings at 20:33 and 21:04, 31 December, 2009)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

    Comments:


    User:Tonyesparsa reported by User:Marty Rockatansky (Result: Indef)

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


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

    • 1st revert: [4]
    • 2nd revert: [5]
    • 3rd revert: [6]
    • 4th revert: [7]
    • 5th revert: [8]

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

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

    Comments: I don't really know what's his problem, just keeps reverting the same thing over and over again. I asked him once and no response. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Please notify User:Tonyesparsa of the 3RR rule, e.g. with a {{uw-3rr}} warning. You've made no effort to discuss this with him, and you've left nothing on the article's talk page. The two of you are disputing the venue and opponent of a future match, to be held in March 2010, and neither of you has provided any reference for your knowledge. Per WP:CRYSTAL it seems doubtful that a future match should be mentioned at all, unless widely discussed. (If so you should easily be able to find a reference). Note that you've made as many reverts as he has, so if he were blocked due to this report, you probably would be too. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the reference. According to WP:MMA future events are ok to add after being officially announced. Its not like he disputes the opponent, the name he adds there's no fighter by that name. i got about 10,000 edits here on kickboxing and martial arts.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - It seems there is no boxer named Jeffrey Helfer. Tonesparsa did not reply to my challenge on that subject, and has continued to revert the article to show Jeffrey Helfer as the March 2010 opponent of John Wayne Parr. This editor had previously created the unsourced article Jeffrey Helfer which looks to me to be a hoax, and was speedied by another admin as a G3 (blatant and obvious misinformation). I'm blocking Tonyesparsa indef as a vandal-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx for adding a temp protection, seems like the guy doesnt wanna give upMarty Rockatansky (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yorkshirian reported by User:RepublicanJacobite (Result: Stale)

    Page: British National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [9], not all reverts are to this version so details are in full in the comments section


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been blocked before for edit warring, including an arbitration finding of fact that they have edit warred.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in the edit war, unless you count reverting the apparently erroneous removal of a request for a quotation as "edit warring".

    Comments:

    Revert #1 is a revert of this series of edits, which removed apparently non-policy compliant information about Dewsbury. Revert #2 is adding back "frontpage headlines of Masked mob stone police followed in the Mail on Sunday" which is a revert of this edit which removed "frontpage headlines of Masked mob stone police in The Mail followed". Revert #3 is an obvious revert of this edit. Revert #4 is a revert of this edit and this edit. Revert #5 is adding back the term "intransigent" removed in this edit. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hubschrauber729 reported by User:Sherlock4000 (Result: Restriction)

    Page: Angel Penna, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Hubschrauber729 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [15]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

    Comments:

    This user has a history of deleting the "Italian-Argentine" category from hundreds of articles, and has been previously advised not to do so by Alexf (here), so this has been discussed with Hubschrauber ad nauseum. User claims to care about "unsupported categories," but only attacks those in this group, while pushing an unsupported category on Michael Klukowski. All the articles he objects to being categorized as Italian-Argentine have unquestionably Italian surnames. Many are also cited as such, though this is silly because, short of a blood test, none of the ethnicity claims on any of the thousands of bios in Wikipedia can be proven. This is a matter of patent fact, and common sense. This is more than I can say about Hubschrauber's contention that Michael Klukowski is Austrian, and with no sources or consensus (just like with this problem). He was, by the way, overriden, and has attempted pettifogging articles to death with others on Wikipedia, such as the Turkish community of editors.

    Obviously, this is an inconsequesntial issue, and I hate wasting time on this. It's gotten so that my "Wikitime" has been pissed away on this, instead of on translating and copyediting articles or adding new ones–my preferred activities on Wikipedia. I am only trying to nip this one in the bud, becuase my experience has been that, if you let it slide, the disruptions snowball. If you doubt this, ask Marek69, to whom I alerted of a serial disruptive user (Marek had him banned). As with anything, some people only log on to bother others for kicks.

    Thanks for your trouble, Sherlock4000 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed action; please comment - I perceive there have been a vast number of reverts about Italian surnames across a range of articles. (Likely to be at least 50 articles per wikistalk). It appears that Hubschrauber729, Sherlock4000 and 76.91.189.163 are the main participants in the war. The IP just mentioned was blocked for 31 hours per an ANI thread. After his block expired, the IP resumed adding the categories, by systematically undoing Hubschrauber729's edits. This edit war ought to stop. One possibility is an editing restriction stopping these three editors from changing any Italian surname categories in either direction for 90 days, unless a consensus is found. I ask for comments by other editors on this plan. Would especially be interested to know if other admins think it's a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Heck, I'm no admin, but I think it's a great idea! Temporary "topic-specific" bans have a way of quelling edit wars (at least until the 90 days are up, right?) Doc9871 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am removing categories from articles that do not source their Italian heritage. The category cannont be added just because a name sounds Italian. That does not prove anything. I have asked Sherlock why he keeps adding these unsourced categories, I get no response other than a 3RR warning on my page. I have not removed the category from articles which Italian heritage is sourced (I did from one article, it was a mistake). I am guilty of edit warring, but nothing else. I have nothing against Italian people, as may be perceived, you can see I have also removed categories such as "Argentines of Spanish descent" and "....German descent". I aslo disagree with the way Sherlock is going about this. His edit summaries say "Category removed without consensus". What does that mean? Do editors need consensus before removing unsourced, and possibly untrue additions? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Hubschrauber729 already agreed to stop warring. I would request 76.91.189.163 and Sherlock4000 to (i) provide reliable sources for their claims; (ii) immediately stop adding categories or/and unreferenced information on this topic "Italian-Argentine" heritage to mainframe articles. Materialscientist (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the vandal in question has agreed to stop (I see he snuck in a deletion on the Sergio Massa artcle), the idea sounds reasonable and fair, in the interest of being able to spend more time editing and less time dealing with disruptions. The categories stay as they are, and any future additions need sources: a standard which should be applied to all bios, not just those of people from Argentina.
    This, by the way, is why I consider Hubschrauber a vandal: he devotes inordinate amounts of time attacking Argentine-related articles, when it's no secret that the nationality of bios on Wikipedia with unreferenced claims (including those of descent) run the gamut. A quick glance at Mexican, Brazilian, and Chilean bios, as well as others, will show that many of those suffer from the same problem (categories inferred from surnames, alone, not to mention embellishments). That this user focuses all his energies on one nationality, and that he was such a pest about adding an Austrian category to the Michael Klukowski article without sources (or even, as with my edits, a good reason) is therefore proof positive of malice.
    His claims of impartiality are likewise just more chicanery. A case in point, among others similar, is his deletion of referenced material on the bio I wrote on late tango composer Juan de Dios Filiberto. The user deleted the Italian-Argentine category, of course, and then quietly pulled out half a sentence from the text (you read right, half, and all referenced): the half that states his father was Italian, while graciously leaving the half about his Spanish mother. Good to see chivalry still exists!
    I've had my disputes on Wikipedia with others, sure, but I've never started them. By comprarison, Hubschrauber has decided to pick these stupid fights by selectively attacking articles on grounds that fly in the face of common sense (whatever happened to that, right?). That and the many other inane disputes he took up with others is what convinced me that bad faith lurked behind the user's protestations of "unverifiable" this and that. A common enough tale on Wikipedia, as you know.
    So, thanks again for your time and trounle. God knows we were all a little happier before this individual declared these wars (as if we didn;t have enough of those in the world).
    Take care everyone, Sherlock4000 (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result - All three parties are restricted for one month from adding or removing ethnic categories on articles that were placed solely due to the person's surname. Sherlock4000 is reminded not to attack other editors on noticeboards. The IP is warned that a sanction for abuse of multiple accounts may be applied if he participates in any more edit wars. This restriction expires early if an a consensus is reached in some appropriate forum, and it can be appealed at WP:AN. I am glad that some assurances have been made above, which if they are followed, may mean that these editors have already agreed to do what the restriction is calling for. Admins should comment further if they would prefer a different result. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lordvolton reported by LotLE×talk (Result: 24h)

    Barney Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lordvolton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 22:43, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ added section relating to the ethical issues regarding Frank's relationship with a Fannie Mae executive.")
    2. 22:45, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ minor grammatical fix.")
    3. 04:55, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ reverted back to original. The material is relevant -- please go to the discussion section if you want to debate the merits.")
    4. 14:51, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ SEE DISCUSSION BEFORE REVERTING WITHOUT DISCUSSION. THIS IS MY SECOND REQUEST.")
    5. 15:10, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339933519 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)See discussion section. Please read edit histories.")
    6. 15:25, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "added two additional cites.")
    7. 15:49, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ added 5th cite.")
    8. 15:51, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Minor grammatical fix.")
    9. 17:36, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339953466 by Abrazame (talk)See my comments in the discussion section.")
    10. [20]

    User was warned at:

    Additional reversions followed, including after user responded (below) to this report.

    —

    Contentious edit warring to insert material in probably violation of WP:BLP. Poorly worded and long addition making claims of corruption against a political figure, single sourced to an editorial. In any case, Lordvolton restores the material against the removal up it by numerous editors. LotLE×talk 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: Material similar to that inserted by Lordvolton was in the article back last summer, and was removed after detailed discussion on the article talk page. I don't think the wording was ever example the same, so that probably doesn't per se count as a reversion the first time LV inserted this new round of WP:SOAPBOXing. LotLE×talk 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lulu has made reverts without joining our discussion on the talk page -- I've invited Lulu to participate (see my revert notes and the discussion page). Unilateral reverts absent any dialogue after repeated attempts to begin a discussion are evidence of POV editing in my opinion. Lordvolton (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite my best efforts to create a dialogue an "anonymous" editor just reverted again. The ip address is 149.77.52.78 I've left a note on Lulu's page asking them to please participate in the dialogue which doesn't seem to be an option being embraced by the editors.
    Please advise. =-)
    Lordvolton (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, accusing each other of POV violations isn't going to make anyone any happier. I think it's safe to say that how to treat Barney Frank's relationship with a bank executive affects the POV of the article, whether that's what people are setting out to do or not. That's a content question for the article talk page. I think there are four reverts in there but I'm not sure and I don't think it's really worth trying to figure it out if everyone's okay now. Since it's too late to self-revert I'd suggest you pledge not to make further reverts today and be more careful in the future, that way nobody has to get blocked. Other editors seem to be edit warring too, they just haven't crossed 3RR. Everyone really needs to go to the talk page on this and not worry about which is the "right version" for now, although I think it's been talked about before. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are six actual reverts by Lordvolton in there, and s/he has given no indication of any willingness to stop edit warring at any point. Nor, FWIW, any willingness to respect WP:BLP. An appropriate sanction is the only way to convince the editor that this is not appropriate editing behavior. Given the egregiousness of the behavior, I think the sanction should be rather longer than shorter. LotLE×talk 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad block. Punitive and uncivil. There was no ongoing issue as the material was already reverted several hours prior and there was no indication that further reversions would be forthcoming. There was also no warning or collegial discussion. Please try to be more cooperative in the future Ed. Also, it would be helpful if you made suggestions for on how to resolve issues raised by editors working in good faith, instead of just ignoring comments and pushing buttons. Pretty disappointing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:King of Mercia reported by CTJF83 chat (Result: No action)

    Heather Trott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). King of Mercia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 04:07, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Just quoting what Bushell has said.")
    2. 04:12, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339860452 by Frickative (talk)")
    3. 23:01, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
    4. 00:28, 26 January 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted unnecessary criticism of character, as discussed earlier.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —CTJF83 chat 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - No action. There have been no reverts in the last 24 hours, and there is evidence of a compromise on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not, it took 24 hours for an admin to get to this, ridiculous. CTJF83 chat 05:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Although in the interim I've blocked him for BLP violations. I wasn't aware of this report, but next time, I'm leaning towards indef since this editor seems to want to have it all his own way. Rodhullandemu 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:78.3.252.238 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Marin Čilić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 78.3.252.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [23]


    Still ongoing

    [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

    Then another day or so's worth of edits from other IPs.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

    Comments:Way too many to list comprehensively. This has been going on for a while now, from multiple IPs. This IP has been the most recent.
    Page probably also should get some page protection, at least temporarially. I won't file a separate report from that, but I'll let the deciding admin make that call. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The revert war there was indeed over top. Some kind of silly nationalism, claiming that a sportsman belongs to some entity (which is not a country) .. Semiprotected the article for a week, but not sure this will stop the parties, thus better watch this and other relevant articles. Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.249.106.3 reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked)

    Page: 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 67.249.106.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [34]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] (also [51] [52])

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

    Comments:
    Keeps re-adding the same essay about the pronunciation of 2010 even though several editors have noted that it is way to long for this article. There are in fact many more reverts than the four listed above. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just came here to post that. Admin intervention ASAP would be helpful. — CIS (talk | stalk) 20:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See [54] for continued inclusion of edits. ttonyb (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Haskanik reported by User: Alan Cox (Result: 31h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338870224


    Unfortunately this is a mass revert of every change anyone or thing (even robots) make to the users version of the page (which itself has serious bias problems and contains probably defamatory claims).

    The reverts affected material added by Alan Cox only, not other contributors. Please check the history. Haskanik (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually untrue - you reverted corrections from bots too (you may not have intended to but you did Alan Cox (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haskanik&oldid=340234187

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

    Comments:


    Tried discussion, generated a long long set of threads, user continuously reverts to his own personal version. Not attached a diff therefore as it covers many issues (including one or two where the other editor had a point and I fixed them but even while I was fixing them he kept reverting all the changes - including reverting to old spelling errors while complaining about new ones !

    PS: I'd be happy for a neutral third point of view to also review the changes being made and look for a constructive process.

    Alan Cox (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've provided a detailed analysis of some of the changes made by Mr Cox on the Talk page. Note that significant references have been removed by him. Haskanik (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be more than happy to work with you if you would stop reverting the page and would provide references to the views espoused. I note you've just stopped reverting it all blindly again however including undisputable typo fixes, and introducing unreferenced probably defamatory statements. Can we now move to discussion and a 3rd opinion ?. Alan Cox (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the Alan Cox, i.e. the one who works on the Linux kernel? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. That would be AlanCox (talk · contribs) - as previously disclosed - Alison ❤ 07:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Consistent reverts by Haskanik to a version that removes cited facts and re-adds obvious typos is vandalism, that should be rightfully reverted. NJA (t/c) 08:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Simpleterms reported by Tbsdy (Result: Protected)

    Page: David Tweed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Simpleterms (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:

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

    Comments:
    Editor has been asked a number of times on their talk page and in the edit history to please discuss his changes to the David Tweed article on the talk page. Both myself, Lankiveil and Gillyweed have posted to the talk page asking what the issue is, but editor has not responded. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from Toddst1: It appears that the reporting admin, Tbsdy has violated WP:EW on that page too:

    While not a 3RR violation the admin is clearly engaged in an inappropriate edit war. Note that those are not admin actions. Toddst1 (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Neither have committed a clear 3RR, though the dispute has gone on for long enough now. The removal of cited text, and major changes to an article is a serious issue, and I do not blame the admin acting in a non-admin capacity from reverting without proper talk page discussions taking place. I've fully protected the article for a month to encourage talk page discussion to reach consensus. Editors are recommended to review the helpful structure found at WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 08:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:216.234.144.40 and related, reported by User:Rjanag (Result: 24h)

    Page: The Elements of Style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Users being reported:


    Previous version reverted to: [59]


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Comments: Someone from these two related IPs has been repeatedly adding a reference to a blog post to this article (the various diffs are all slightly differently-worded additions of essentially the same paragraph; I have also excluded from the report one instance of section blanking that was not technically a revert but was disruptive). His edits have been reverted by myself, User:Zhang He, and User:Skomorokh (although Sk. only reverted his section blanking and thus should not be seen as taking a side in the content dispute).

    I should point out, though, that the user has not reverted since I issued the second warning a few minutes ago. I will be gone for most of the day soon, though, and unable to report him if he does revert again, so I'm just leaving this report as a precaution. If someone sees him revert again you can consider it a real edit-warring report; if he doesn't revert and starts to engage in the discussion, feel free to close the report. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I just checked back and the IP editor has continued reverting (see the 6th revert above, after I filed this report). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:201.192.6.114 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: Stale)

    Page: Template:Star Wars (edit | [[Talk:Template:Star Wars|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 201.192.6.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [63]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

    Comments:
    Anon IP continually disregards consensus about the inclusion of a link. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jcmenal reported by User:HJ Mitchell (Result: Blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [70]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

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

    Comments: I am uninvolved in the edit war, it was brought to my attention by another, uninvolved, editor. I haven't linked to diffs because the edit war is obvious to anybody reviewing the history of Mexicali. Jcmenal was warned about the 3RR violation and reverted after the warning, hence the report. It should be noted that the editor has previous warnings and blocks for edit warring. They have been notified of this report HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I restored the changes that user Talpis done without any talk/discussion, apparently the account was created to make such changes in English and Spanish wiki, please check the user contributions, I already sent a message in the Spanish wiki, still waiting for user response.Jcmenal (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact remains that you violated the 3RR, were warned about it and continued to revert rather than bring this to one of the noticeboards where your concerns, if true, could be addressed. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User Talps created the account to made vandalism in the article, and according to Wikipedia is not an edit war.--Jcmenal (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)I am now extending this report to cover User:Talpis who was also warned and has since performed another reversion. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avidius reported by User:NJA (Result: Both blocked 48h)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [72]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Very recent edit war block, so they know the rules.

    Comments:

    User:Atmapuri reported by User:Fatehji (Result: Protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to: First time, on Jan 18th, reverted initial edit to this: [73]

    Basically from Jan 18th until today, and ongoing...

    (And there were probably a few more I missed.)

    Oh yes, even as I wrote this he changed it back again. (see 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11th reverts). I believe that's 5 in one day or 24 hour period.


    Please see some of the more recent discussion exchanges and comments made by this person as reasons for reverts. He does not "get" what editing is, nor does he understand what a "reference" is. On top of his this primary sources and repeated reverts, his logic in general is flawed and is based on very tenuous grounds in the discussion tables. See my comments below for specific details.

    Have created a dispute resolution request. Was advised his behavior was "wrong!" by an editor, yet was advised, based on his prior reverts and non-compromising activities that only an administrator could help. Posted up an Admin Request, but now that posting seems to have strangely disappeared. Have tried to reach consensus on discussion board. I have repeatedly mentioned on the discussions and postings that he is breaking rules of editing. Article is now semi-protected, but he's still reverting. Will gladly post up the edit warring and 3RR warning on his page... It's not the first time at all he's been warned, actually. Apparently he DELETED such reference from his talk page, when he was previously given a free pass for 3RR'ing his first time.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86] There's a lot of back and forth here at first. Much of it is admittedly my frustration with his lack of logic and outlandish claims, but later on, it gets a little more clear. Eventually I identify specific points within his posts and reverts they are non-consensual and that make little sense to enhancing the article, and link to weak internal and external sources. The last few posts from me I think, clearly get to the heart of the dispute, yet, he continues to revert and his responses are neither addressing my points, nor attempting to reach a consensus.

    Comments:

    The main frustrations I have now is the same one I had at his first reverts. He uses a weak primary source to propose the negative and harmful effects of this yoga, based on the beliefs of one teacher that "practice... can lead to permanent mental damage", which:

    1. Is not backed up scientifically by this primary source 2. Actually the source's book is 99% about the positive effects of Kundalini Yoga, so the warning seems strangely cherry-picked (See: Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda).

    He then links to a so called "Kundalini syndrome" page, which:

    1. Itself is flagged for lack of professionalism (needed professional verification), and 2: Itself does not directly mention "Kundalini yoga" (or any specific form/branch of yoga) as a reason for "symptoms".

    His mission seems to create and maintain a negative correlation between "Kundalini yoga" and "Kundalini syndrome", which actually isn't directly related - only in name, "Kundalini" because they both refer to changes in a spiritual energy source called "Kundalini energy". To be clear, the "kundalini syndrome" page refers to "kundalini energy" and NOT "kundalini yoga". Thereby, he makes this very thin leap in "logic", which he maintains at top page prominence in the article, which basically implies that practicing kundalini yoga without a "master" teacher leads to "kundalini syndrome". I have made motions to strike this based on very thin referenced material, and not particular to this form of yoga at all, but when mentioned, refers to more general, indefinite forms of spiritual practice. This is highly refutable and illogical connection to be made directly, as I have shown in numerous postings, over a dozen different cited and referenced edits, and also on the discussion pages.
    --Fatehji (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Note that this will hopefully force discussion on the talk page to develop consensus. Should you get stuck, refer to the helpful structure found at WP:DR. This is better than a block as it's an obvious on-going dispute, and honestly you both got carried away. NJA (t/c) 20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cshay reported by User:Bob K31416 (Result: Blocked 24 hours )

    Page: Avatar (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Cshay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [87]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion by other editors with Cshay, Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Fixing_the_inflation_adjusted_issue, especially near what is currently the end of the section.

    Comments:

    Cshay and Theremes may be the same editor, I'm not sure. In addition to the material that Cshay was edit warring over, Cshay tried to include in one edit the same material that Theremes was trying to include by edit warring previously. Theremes was recently blocked for edit warring but returned and continued edit warring. Then Cshay came. As of now, I haven't reverted any of Cshay's edits, so I haven't been involved. I reverted one of Theremes edits before when that editor was edit warring. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User appears to be claiming ownership of article per diff [96]. Telling another editor not to revert. SpigotMap 22:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cexycy reported by User:Rapido (Result: 12h)

    Page: Living Next Door to Alice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Cexycy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    See: [97]

    • Despite the discussion here: [98]
    • And warnings: [99]
    • And above edit warring report: [100]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

    Comments:

    Don't think we're getting anywhere. I reported Cexycy last time 3 days ago, and there was discussion on the article talk page. Despite this, he has reverted back to his version (no sources added or anything - just the same version as before) with the edit summary "Remember the discussion please". This isn't consensus building, just a continuation of the edit war. So I think we are not getting anywhere! He keeps trying to steer the conversation to the fact I nominated some articles he started for AFD some weeks ago... but little or no discussion on improving the article. Rapido (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theremes reported by TheRealFennShysa (Result: Blocked 55 hours)

    Page: Avatar (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Theremes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [103]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]

    Comments:
    Theremes is a relatively new user who is determined to insert his preferred text (now shown to be synthesis and original research) into the Avatar article - problem is, his text is based on false references that don't claim what the editor claims they do. Previously blocked on January 22 for trying the same thing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - This is literally the exact same issue in this editor's short existence here. He created himself, went right to the article with his unbelievably objectionable and unsourced claims, and has done nothing but reinsert the same content over and over again. His first short block did zilch... Doc9871 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I feel your pain and recently got caught up in a similar edit war (trying to maintain the integrity of the article during an ongoing dispute) the text of the 3RR Policy states that "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting."
    I would suggest an apology for the reverts and a request for protection if the BRD process isn't working while the discussion and attempt to reach concensus on the edits in question takes place. Nefariousski (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no consensus for this editor's inclusion of this material. Every editor participating on this article agrees the content cannot stay as it is. The editor does not seem interested in apologies or mediation, only in constantly reinserting the material. I do agree with what you're saying about reverting and edit war participation, but this is an unusual case... Doc9871 (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - we have tried discussing it with him - the consensus was that it didn't belong, and this was the only attempt at discussion he made, outside of edit summaries. He has to kow the policy on edit-warring - he's consistently removed every warning he's been given on his talk page. The bigger problem, however, is that he simply refuses to accept anything but his preferred version, and his references don't match up with what he's trying to insert. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with you in concept, WP:3RR is a brightline policy (no grey area). The policy doesn't give a whole lot of room for interpretation. Disruptive editing should be dealt with via Page Protection or user blocks instead of reverting the edits. Rollbacks exist for this exact reason. I unfortunately learned this the hard way after being dragged into a very similar edit war and was thankfully only warned. In light of repeat offenses and further digging around in diffs, comments and history I do agree that in this case blocking is more appropriate than warning and request for apology as I previously stated (mea culpa for not doing more research before commenting). Nefariousski (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. This could be something for SPI... Doc9871 (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it almost seems too coincidental. DrNegative (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hyquest reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: 31h to the IP)

    Page: General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Tucson Theological Seminary
    User being reported: Hyquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also appears to be editing as or in conjunction with 174.18.20.181, and User:Azggardner


    Previous version reverted to: [118]


    Per the article's history this editor admits to warring. In addition to the warring, the editor seems to admit to making COI edits (claiming they are "his/her" pages). The same editor has also disruptively edited the Tucson Theological Seminary article which is being discussed for deletion as evidenced by that article's history. The IP user also blanked this article's talk page.

    I would also note that I think the General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc. should again be reverted (including for copyright), but I hesistate to do so so that I do not run afoul of WP:3RR myself. Another editor has already done this.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

    Novaseminary (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit seems to indicate that 174.18.20.181 and User:Azggardner are the same person, and strongly suggests that all three are the same person. Novaseminary (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the anon IP (now blocked through other process) is the same as User:Azggardner, but not the same person (though editing in conjunction with) Hyquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as discussed on User talk:174.18.20.181. Novaseminary (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - 74.18.20.181 has been blocked 31 hours by Materialscientist. This IP is the same person as Azzgardner. A new user, Hyquest, has joined in discussions. Novaseminary is helping to sort it out, and has explained our policies. Blocks for the new editors will follow if the message is not received. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bmpowell reported by User:SchoolcraftT (Result: Protected)

    Page: Mountain Parkway Byway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Bmpowell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Mountain Parkway Byway


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bmpowell#3RR_-_Mountain_Parkway_Byway

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mountain_Parkway_Byway


    Comments:
    He dosen't accept what I tell him is correct and that the information needed to be changed. He used inaccurate informtion and clams that he is right.
    Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raj2004 reported by User:Goethean (Result: )

    Page: Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Raj2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [123]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

    Comments:


    User:Ferocious osmosis reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 h for both)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [130]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

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

    User:89.168.224.187 reported by Fred the Oyster (talk) (Result: )

    1996 Manchester bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 89.168.224.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 00:16, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340622818 by Fred the Oyster (talk)Facts are facts")
    2. 00:24, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340626237 by Malleus Fatuorum (talk)The source is utter crap")
    3. 00:27, 29 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 340626744 by Fred the Oyster (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Automyte reported by User:LTSally and by User:Willdow (Result: 31h)

    Page: The Watchtower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Page: History of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Automyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [136]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

    Comments:

    User is targeting two articles, repeatedly adding POV diatribe against The Watchtower magazine at The Watchtower article; repeatedly adding improper WP:EL at History of Jehovah's Witnesses. There have been multiple reverts of user's work from several editors and several pointed comments on user's user page, all without effect. The user has not discussed any edits. LTSally (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Loonymonkey reported by Heqwm2 (Result: )

    Page: [[:<Political censorship]] ([[Special:EditPage/<Political censorship|edit]] | [[Talk:<Political censorship|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/<Political censorship|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/<Political censorship|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/<Political censorship|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/<Political censorship|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:<Political censorship|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views)
    User being reported: [[User:<User:Loonymonke|<User:Loonymonke]] ([[User talk:<User:Loonymonke|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<User:Loonymonke|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<User:Loonymonke|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<User:Loonymonke|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<User:Loonymonke|block user]] · block log)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_censorship

    I added edits to this article, which other editors repeatedly deleted without discussing on the talk page. What little response there has been, has been nonsense that has been repeated despite my refuting it. Heqwm2 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is exactly the sort of pointy disruption that has gotten the reporting editor blocked repeatedly. Heqwm2 has just come off of a one week block for edit-warring and immediately launched into warring over the same edits on the same articles. I would also add that his personal attacks and comments are extremely disruptive and have the effect of chasing other editors away from discussion. These kind of comments [143] [144] [145] (and these are just a few of many, many examples) should be enough to block this editor again, regardless of their edit-warring. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop posting false information. I was not blocked for edit warring. I was blocked by an admin who first claimed that he was blocking me for vandalism, and then when I challenged him, switched to claiming that he had blocked me for edit warring, a claim he refuses to defend. You are making a personal attack to distract from the issue. Furthermore, I have given you chance after chance to discuss my edits, which you have refused to take, instead wasting my time with wildly disrespectful responses. You are the one not attempting to reach consensus. You are the one edit warring. And it is not the same edit. I have tried, over and over, to modify my edits to address the basis on which you claim to object, and each time I am rudely shot down.

    My most recent attempt to edit the article: have you made any effort to discuss it? No, you have not. Yet you insist that you are not edit warring.

    When I explain why your argument on the talk page is invalid, and you respond by simply repeating your argument without any acknowledgement that I have a counter argument, that is completely unacceptable. It says to me that you have absolutely no respect for me or the consensus-building process that editors are supposed to participate in. You and other editors are repeatedly insulting me and trying to threaten me into not editing, and then claiming that I am "extremely disruptive and have the effect of chasing other editors away". What hypocrisy.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BotfieldCatflap reported by Woogee (talk) (Result:)

    BotfieldCatflap (talk · contribs) repeatedly edit wars on the Tiktaalik page, reverting to his preferred version. I usse him a 3RR warning, but he did not reply, and continues to edit war. Has yet to use a Talk page. Woogee (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kbrose reported by Fnagaton (Result: )

    JEDEC memory standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kbrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 06:19, 29 January 2010
    2. 16:49, 29 January 2010 Note the unhelpful comment about "rvv".
    3. 00:04, 30 January 2010


    • Diff of warning: here
    • The user also left this untrue insulting message on my talk page [146]. I have a feeling the user will not stop their behaviour.

    —Fnagaton 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hoising reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: 07:07, 24 January 2010 UTC


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:32, 30 January 2010 UTC

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
    Comments:

    I happened across this edit war fairly late. I reverted User:Hoising's changes leaving an appropriate edit summary, indicating he needed to discuss the issue and instructing him not to continue edit warring.[147] The next time I saw the page, Hoising had breached 3RR but hadn't been warned, so I left warnings for both involved editors.[148][149] Hoising read the warning, deleted it and then made his latest revert. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=340853965"