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 Joo (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 7 May 2010 (→Discussion). 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:DIREKTOR reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Declined)

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


    [1]

    Previous version reverted to: [2]

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:DIREKTOR]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

    Comments:I just want to say that User:DIREKTOR has yesterday also been engaged in reverting precisely User:Theirrulez at my talk page [9] also breaking the WP:3-RR by wrongly acusing him of being a sock (my report at wikiquette [10]). Today, he has been revrting another user on the talk page of the user he was the day before reverting on my talk page. Despite the possibility of, in the second case, the reverted user being a sock, isn´t User:DIREKTOR obligated to wait to a sock to be confirmed before reverting it everywhere, specially on other users talk pages, or even worste, when clearly indicated by the users not to? (I had prohibited User:DIREKTOR to intervene at my talk page for some time now, and he disrespected that on several ocasions, and today, the User:Theirrulez has also expressed that didn´t wanted him removing coments from his talk page). FkpCascais (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe you should get a new hobby. You've reported DIREKTOR in three different places now, this being the third since the others didn't get the result you wanted. Your constant noticeboard postings are becoming disruptive, and it's time to pursue other steps in the dispute resolution process at this point. AniMate 05:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn´t reported him on this incident. It´s not my fault he makes many incidents in daily basis... I already said, I´ll report all incidents, and you can find my reporting disruptive only if you support disruption on WP. Isn´t you that also discredited my reports on him (or co.) on two other ocasions? Y [11] E [12] S! Is that coincidence? Or, should I say, like you just did on User talk:DIREKTOR about this, a "triple crown" for you, too!!! FkpCascais (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! lol... this is just getting silly. I've been reverting an obvious sock of User:Ragusino (as I understand, 3RR does not apply to reverting socks). The sock's been trying to WP:OUT me in edit summaries, so I really do not think its some innocent new guy who thinks he knows my name. :)
    The behavior of User:FkpCascais, however, is outright WP:HARASS. During the past few days, he's reported me four times under completely nonsense accusations that were rejected outright or just ignored. [13] [14] [15] He's been WP:STALKING me around, edit-warring & reverting my edits for personal reasons on five or six separate articles, as well as trying to WP:CANVASS other users against me into his little WP:CLIQUE. All this because I dared to oppose his edits. Am I supposed to just take this abuse? :( --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not want to comment on this issue, because I don't fully know it, but User:FkpCascais is now reporting a different incident of 3-rr violation. This time User:DIREKTOR allegedly violated it on User:Theirrulez's talk page. That said, I think User:DIREKTOR tends to be overzealous in his accusation of users being WP:SOCKS and, thereby, reverting their edits. He acts in good faith, I'm sure — and I've already told him so —. But perhaps he should take it a little more easy... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IT's literally impossible for one person to edit war, why is only one user being reported? What about the new user whose only edits have been to edit war on this talk page? I already know why, because FkpCascais is obsessed with trying to get DIREKTOR blocked. I renew my plea to you all to take this dispute up the chain to ArbCom or simply ignore on another no matter where the postings occur, the admin corps is tired of these constant reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The other editor reverting User:DIREKTOR's edit was User:Kancetha, the user being reverted in the first place. The diffs are the following: [16], [17], [18] and [19]. In this case, aside from the report, User:FkpCascais was innocent. That said, perhaps it might time to take this entire issue to WP:ANI to get an interaction ban... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation is too complex for WP:AN/I. I think the only option is arbitration or some other step in WP:DR. AniMate 19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wander why the simple cases I reported are "too complex"? I was blocked for 24 hours for reporting a meatpuppet of him without any assumption of WP:AGF, (here, see [20], brutal, ah?) but when I report him, "everyone is so tired" and you are trying to make me look like I am "obscessively" trying to block him? Did I ever ask for block? It´s just too obvious how some of you are just trying to discredit my reports defending a user that is constantly on daily basis breaking rules on WP, is constantly trolling everybody disagrees with, in most uncivil manner as possible, even making blatant counter reports with total false acusations... ah! and already banned only 6 times... Do you User:Beeblebrox and User:AniMate really want to cope with such behavior? I will continue reporting any wrongdoing I see, whatever oposition I find, and "real" wikipedians should be just greatfull. I´ll just remind you that attacking me for reporting, and defending disruptive behavior, is disruption itself. FkpCascais (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And regarding other solutions, as WP:DR, well, they apply to "disputes" and here, there are no disputes, but rather one user constantly breaking WP rules, and some people constantly ignoring and discrediting my reports... FkpCascais (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's too complex because there clearly is a sockpuppet involved here. It's too complex because for the history behind this one needs to look through all of the reports you've filed. It's too complex because the only person blocked for one of your reports is... you. Why not do us all a favor and pursue one of the other steps in WP:Dispute resolution? AniMate 21:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Us"? FkpCascais (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "meatpuppet"; "constantly trolling"??? Dearie me. If, as you promise above, your strategy remains to "continue reporting any wrongdoing I see, whatever oposition I find", you may perhaps find that these somewhat intemperate remarks come back to haunt you. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Justin A Kuntz reported by User:Imalbornoz (Result: Stale)

    Page: ARA General Belgrano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [21]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

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

    Comments:

    Justin is involved in an Arbcom case. IMHO, even though he has made many contributions (mainly in British Overseas Territories articles) he shows a significant case of lack of self-awareness about his battleground mentality (assuming bad faith, accusing others of POV pushing, reverting sourced edits...) I hope that the result of this report helps him to calm down, view his battleground mentality from a more objective POV and start to act more collaboratively. In this sense, maybe just acknowledging that he violated the rule (4 reverts of 2 different edits from the same user in the same page in less than 24 hours) and issuing a warning would be enough. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Worth mentioning that the diffs are all nearly 24 hours old now, and that Justin has since tried to discuss the issue on talk.
    You say: I hope that the result of this report helps him to calm down, view his battleground mentality from a more objective POV and start to act more collaboratively. You seriously think that your following Justin - with whom you were involved in a bitter dispute over Gibraltar - to other articles and reporting his errors there is likely to do that? The opposite: it's likely to inflame the situation and make future consensus far more difficult. It's likely to spread the battleground mentality over Gibraltar - for which you are at least partly to blame - away from Gibraltar-related articles to other articles. I hope that this report does not mark a precedent because it is deeply unhelpful. Pfainuk talk 10:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Justin has edit warred (for the nth time), and broken the 3RR: those are the facts. If nothing happens, he is going to be reinforced in his behaviour (does anyone really think that ignoring someone's abuses is the best way for that person to improve?) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss the point completely. Again. Maybe he did break 3RR - twenty-four hours ago - and maybe he could and should have been reported at the time. But you accept that the only interest you have in the article is Justin's presence. In these circumstances, given your history of dispute, your reporting this can only serve to inflame the dispute over Gibraltar. You are not the image of perfect conduct in the Gibraltar dispute, and it's high time you realised that avoiding fanning the flames of that dispute would be a good idea. Pfainuk talk 12:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I inadvertently crossed the line whilst engaging with a newbie user making good faith edits but contrary to our policies, this never needed a 3RR report and certainly not 24hrs later. I engaged a newbie on the article talk page and both their and my user pages to direct them toward policy guidelines. Two other editors have agreed with me (and by Imalbornoz's standards being Argentine the opposing side). Yet Imalbornoz feels compelled to make an utterly misleading 3RR report. I do happen to think there is something that needs to be done and thats to take immediate action against an editor who is stalking another. Please. Justin talk 12:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Savant1984 and User:Zargulon (Result: Protected)

    Page: Posek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Savant1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zargulon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:Zargulon on April 22 introduced a novel way of spelling Hebrew into the Posek article. He is supported by User:Savant1984. I reverted his novelty on several grounds, as explained at length on the talk page. WP:BRD clearly indicates that in such a case, the editors introducing the novelty should first establish consensus for their edit. This Zargulon and Savant1984 have not done, but they do continue to undo my reverts of their edits, in which they time and again restore their novelty or variations thereof. On April 24 I asked for outside input on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#English_rendition_of_shva. [27] This post was acknowledged by Savant1984, [28] and various editors have since stated their opinions on the talk page of Posek. That discussion on the talk page has clearly shown that 1. the change in spelling made by Zargulon and Savant1984 has no consensus. 2. that there is no other change in spelling that has consensus. 3. that the issue of the best spelling in English of the Hebrew words is a general one, and should not be discussed on the talk page of any single article (an argument which Savant 1984 specifically agreed to himself in this edit).

    This article was protected on April 25 by User:NuclearWarfare [29], who at that time considered it a content dispute. In view of the fact that said two editors insist on repeating their edit, which from the beginning was a novelty and against which strong arguments have been brought forth and which enjoins no consensus, I ask to 1. regard this as a behavioral issue, and 2. to warn Savant1984 and Zargulon that they should not continue to edit war, and 3. that if they still think that they are right, despite all the arguments and opinions to the contrary, that they should seek broad consensus before making any more similar edits. Debresser (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have notified Savant1984 [30] and Zargulon [31] of this post. Zargulon has removed my post [32], and continues to undo my revert with no edit summary even after that. [33] [34]. In order not to violate the 3RR rule, I will leave it up to any uninvolved admin to undo his last edit to Posek and restore the previous version which is in accordance with the way this article was until April 22 and the consensus on the talk page. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected for a period of seven days It looks like a content dispute to me, with several parties making some attempts to discuss (albeit while, sadly, reverting the article as well). I am generally not permitted to revert and block or revert and protect. However, now that the page is protected, if it becomes abundantly obvious that Savant or whoever you claim is being belligerent no longer wants to chat on the talk page because the article is protected at his or her version, do feel free to send a message to me on my talk page or make a request for unprotection at WP:RPP. -- tariqabjotu 16:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree with you. This is not a content dispute, as I have shown above. In addition, referring to the serious version of WP:Wrong version, I'd like to repeat my request to undo the last edit by Zargulon. Debresser (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw what you wrote the first time. My original comment stands. -- tariqabjotu 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case I can only hope some other admin will disagree with you and (after consulting with you) will agree to what I requested in the first place. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, for the record, I wish to note that even the most cursory examination of the talk page and edit history will reveal that I have consistently avoided edit warring in favour of discussion. My last edit was an attempt to establish (I think quite reasonably) appears to me to have been the consensus at the time in place of the unilateral reversion to the original spelling by Debresser. I respectfully take exception to Debresser's claim that this is a matter for behavioural reprimand and appreciate tariqabjotu's discretion on this point. Savant1984 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record I will agree that both Savant1984 and Zargulon have partaken in the discussion, but at the same time insist on being right, in disregard of proof and arguments from Wikipedia guidelines and factual findings to the contrary, including a lack of consensus for their opinion. I agree that Zargulon has been the less pleasant in the talk page discussion, and he has also done three reverts today (without edit summary). I hope Tariqabjotu or others will see reason and 1. unprotect the page and undo Zargulon's last edit 2. implement the other recommendations as to how these editors should go about gaining consensus before making further edits like this. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Savant1984 has agreed to undo the edit and seek consensus in a broader and more appropriate forum. [35] Zargulon has not replied, but posted the following slanderous post on Savant1984's talkpage, [36] from which it is evident that he seeks no discussion or compromise, and is in effect a disruptive editor. I therefore strongly request to reprimand Zargulon for his edit warring and slandering, and request his edit be undone and the article unprotected. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Insider201283 (Result: Protected)

    Page: Network TwentyOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Insider201283 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There are scores - most recent is [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Network_TwentyOne#Documents, amongst others. Note statement that all other editors are acting in "bad faith."

    Comments: Perhaps a long article ban would get this user to stop being a SPA whose sole editing now appears to be to prop up multiple MLM companies - has a history of this problematic behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also that User:Financeguy222 need to be sanctioned as well. Perhaps ban all the SPAs from the article and let me fix it? Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hipocrite and another user User:FinanceGuy222 are repeatedly trying to include poorly sourced allegations against a company while simultaneously removing the well sourced statement the allegations were dismissed. This kind of editing should be instantly removed under WP:V. I have listed the dispute for mediation Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-05-02/Network_TwentyOne, these editors continue to make the edits, User:FinanceGuy222 does not even discuss in Talk. The reasons "why" have been explained to death in Talk and on user pages. The page should stay as it was before the current dispute arose while it's dealt with in mediation. In general, poorly sourced allegations should not remain at all, however leaving them in while removing the indisputable and sourced fact they were disputed is not acceptable behaviour. I'd note that despite Hipocrites claims of SPA, I edit a wide range of articles in the direct selling industry and occasionally contribute elsewhere. FinanceGuy222 has contributed to only this article. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "I'm right, you're wrong" is not an excuse for edit warring. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Adhering to WP:V - Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page is however. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V is not an exemption to WP:3rr, and the vast majority of your reverts did not remove any content, let alone remove unsourced content. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3RR is inconsistent with WP:V. In the event of inconsistencies, policy always win. I pointed out the inconsistency in 3RR in March on the 3RR talk but received no responses. I've now proposed some minor rewording to fix this. [40]--Insider201283 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your proposed changes to policy will not gain consensus, and even if they do gain consensus in the future they are not currently applicable. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I pointed out the inconsistencies in the policy well before the current dispute. There's clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm following WP:V, you're following WP:3RR. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Still reverting - [41]. Hipocrite (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a completely different edit and section of the article. You removed sourced material [42] claiming a couple (not all) of links were broken and bizarrely claimed it had nothing to do with the company when the company is explictly mentioned in the sources. I fixed the broken links and put the sourced, factual material back. If a link is broken you should note that and attempt to find a replacement, not delete swathes of text. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a revert because you removed the number 1,100. Hipocrite (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that meant to be a deliberate "gotcha" edit was it? How juvenile. In any case I did note that edit and it did not accurately reflect the source, as the number referred to South Africa, not SA and Ukraine as per your edit. Furthermore it's almost certainly an outdated number and it's inclusion adds nothing while potentially being inaccurate. But yes, I should have noted my reasoning for removing it in the edit fixing the broken source links. Mea Culpa --Insider201283 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    <-SPA account User:FinanceGuy222 has AGAIN removed the fully sourced statement that these court allegations were dismissed. In the process he also reverted other links to broken versions. All done, AGAIN, without either discussion here or on the Talk pages. Can someone please stop this user? --Insider201283 (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE to ADMIN - I'm guessing you'll most likely lock the article for a period. I'd request you don't leave it in the status of having serious allegations against the topic of the article included, but with the fact the case was dismissed removed. This is it's current status and fixing this problem under WP:V is the excuse Hipocrite used to report me to 3RR. Thanks. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (I'm an involved admin, but...) See WP:WRONGVERSION. Unless you wish to claim that the current version is a WP:BLP violation, you don't have a possible point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RomaC reported by User:Cptnono (Result: No action)

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


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

    • 1st revert: [[43] - Reverting of an edit that was not vandalism although he asserted it was on the user's talk page. I half agree with this edit actually.
    • 2nd revert: [44] - Again
    • 3rd revert: [45] - Reverted my attempt to remove two figures that appear to be incorrect. His reasoning was that I also adjusted the wording of another part (my bad for not saying so in the edit summary, thought it was minor enough)
    • 4th revert: [46] - Reverted something not covered in the above reverts. Still the infobox and still under 3rrs intent
    • 5th revert: [47] - Revert of another editor who reverted him (again the figures thing)


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    • [48] - Response to a message he left on my talk page regarding the first revert.
    • [49] - Warning on the article's talk page about it (almost the same wording)

    Comments:
    Kind of sucks since RomaC and I worked together to get that bit of the infobox figured out. However, he should not be reverting another editor under the false assertion that he is a vandal when it is a content dispute. He knows how to use the talk page and used it instead of reverting or not working with any attempted edits. Overly rash that borders on incivility.

    And to be fair, Jiujitsuguy seems to be at 3 so going over 3rr is close. His edit was what kicked it off. Shame the both of them didn't simmer down enough to chat instead of hitting revert over and over on this one since it should be easy enough to fix. Cptnono (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Follow up: RomaC responded on my talk page while I was creating this that he is taking off for a bit. If he is taking a self-imposed wikibreak (even if it is just a couple hours) then any action would probably be unneeded.Cptnono (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cptnono asked me to comment here. RomaC may have ceased editing for the time being, or may not, it is too soon to tell. Regardless, before I saw this report, I gave RomaC an ARBPIA notification, since he had not previously had one. I'm not going to close this report but it had been my intention, prior to seeing it, to impose discretionary sanctions (not limited to RomaC) if the edit-warring continued following the notification. CIreland (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's keep in mind that WP:3RR is a bright line rule. RomaC should self-revert or face the typical consequences. Breein1007 (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe a warning and a break are all that are needed to prevent continued disruption. He has received the warning and appears to be stepping back. If an enforced block is needed to drive the admonishment home then he did it to himself.Cptnono (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:209.244.42.199/User:209.244.42.199 reported by User:Jonny2x4 Result: No violation

    Page: Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 209.244.42.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (anonymous user who also used the IP numbers 209.244.187.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 209.244.187.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), 207.75.185.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: link

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link

    Comments:

    • I already reported this user a week ago and a decision was made to lock the page for four days, as can be seen here. Ever since the page was left unprotected, the first thing the user did was revert to his preferred version of the page (again, with no justification on the edit summary). I see no point of warning him again. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GageSkidmore and myself reported by User:WCityMike (Result: Resolved)

    Page: Brian & Stewie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: GageSkidmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported: WCityMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Added section to article lead regarding episode's framing device. Reverted by user. Requested that he permit consensus on the decision to be worked out; requested Wikipedia:Third opinion. User kept reverting (initial and [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]); to not whitewash it, I've been reverting it right back ([56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]) and so equally am guilty. Request administrator intervention, which will allow tempers to cool and also give time for users to add consensus as requested on talk page and third opinion board. Also, respectfully, think user has a bit of a WP:OWN problem if one examines edit history. &#151; WCityMike 06:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is such a lovely discussion. Gage (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking back at the article, I'd like to retract my opposition. I have no further intensions of reverting the article until there is a consensus established. Gage (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! &#151; WCityMike 06:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved
       – I think we'd both agree, or at least I hope so, that the issue is resolved then. Gage (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AshtonBenson reported by User:Mattnad (Result: Protected)

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


    Previous version reverted to:


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

    Other warnings (OR and RS) by other editors have been deleted from AshtonBenson's talk page, [69], [70], [71] by the user.


    See Talk:Apple_TV#AshtonBenson_and_Apple_discussion_forums and Talk:Apple_TV#Power_Management_Limitations

    Comments:
    There are more reversions by this using dating back into April including a few Anon IPs that were probably socks (see edit comments and then look at article talk page about meat-puppetry). While the edits may be technically just outside of the 24 hour rule for the latest 4 edits, the editors recent singular focus on this content would suggest he's warring. Mattnad (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Mattnad (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PoeticJustice 4all reported by User:Wehwalt (Result: stale)

    Page: Duke University students rape accusation case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: PoeticJustice 4all (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [72]


    3RR warning: [77]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Sorry, our efforts have been all over the user's talk page but he won't listen.

    Comments:
    At least six reverts to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale, no reverts in the past day. Any further edit warring will be looked upon very dimly, however. Tim Song (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AlistairMcMillan, User:Mattnad and User:HelloAnnyong reported by User:AshtonBenson (Result:protected)

    Page: Apple TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: User:AlistairMcMillan and his meatpuppets User:Mattnad and User:HelloAnnyong


    Previous version reverted to:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]


    See Talk:Apple_TV#AshtonBenson_and_Apple_discussion_forums and Talk:Apple_TV#Power_Management_Limitations where User:AlistairMcMillan has directly violated WP:MEAT, writing "Can someone please remove that badly source content he keeps adding? And also back me up here that we need content to be backed up by reliable sources and we don't accept anonymous discussion forums as reliable sources?" This request constitutes a "recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" and is in violation of WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets.

    Comments:
    There are more reversions by this user and his meat puppets (User:Mattnad and User:HelloAnnyong) dating back into April including a few Anon IPs that were probably socks (see edit comments and then look at article talk page about meat-puppetry). While the edits may be technically just outside of the 24 hour rule for the latest 4 edits, the editors' recent singular focus on this content would suggest they're warring. AshtonBenson (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See previous Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AshtonBenson reported by User:Mattnad (Result: Protected) for context. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh.. wow. I'm a longstanding contributor to the third opinion project, and that's how I got involved here. Alistair made the request for a 3O here, and I accepted it here. I think this is the first time I've ever been accused of meatpuppetry for giving a 3O, but prior to my involvement I had never been involved on that page. I had never even spoken to AshtonBenson or Alistair prior to my involvement as a 3O. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this speaks for itself as a tit-for-tat reaction to this Edit Warring post above. Of course there's is no collusion (that I'm aware of) between the three editors who disagree with User:AshtonBenson except that we've all read the WP:RS guidelines and have separately tried to work with this editor. I'm not hopeful reason will work here to resolve this editorial dispute.Mattnad (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for protecting the article, but you protected the wrong version (or, perhaps, arranged the timing of your protection action to occur immediately after one of the deletions). As a result, this discussion is in an awkward state. Please undo the controversial deletions until this has been resolved. Thank you. AshtonBenson (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tonz29 reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: No action [Closed by reporter per WP:NEWCOMER])

    AusAID (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tonz29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 03:08, 5 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 360012767 by Bidgee (talk)")
    2. 03:10, 5 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Projects */")
    3. 03:46, 5 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 360208587 by Bidgee (talk)")
    4. 03:59, 5 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 360213881 by Bidgee (talk)")
    5. 04:02, 5 May 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 360214190 by Bidgee (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    This is possibly 202.6.56.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also added unsourced content and reverted (using the undo) disruptively. Bidgee (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    —Bidgee (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Not sure if this note will appear here, but yes it was the same user. I am trying to update information that is wrong. Being an inexperienced Wikipedia user I am totally confused about who exactly I am supposed to be interacting with about why edits are being changed or what I am doing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonz29 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you had of read the messages/warnings left on your talk page you would have seen some links to some policies but also you could have asked for help on your user talk page, which myself or other contributors would have helped. Bidgee (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. I did read the links in the messages I was sent. It may seem obvious to you but to an inexperienced user it's quite confusing. I don't even know what the talk page is or how to "ask for help". I tried to work out how to email you and couldn't. The problem seems to be my lack of referencing (???) even though the information I was changing is unreferenced and wrong. Everytime I tried to get my changes back up and put in references the page would just be reverted. Again confusing when I'm trying to do the right thing. And then I get labeled as a disruptive user. Eh??? Really really disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonz29 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    When you need/request for help use {{Helpme}}. With sourcing it is best to use a template within the <ref></ref> tags but also primary sources (IE: AusAID) should be used as last resort if secondary sources can't be found. Bidgee (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. Thanks. I'll do that. Using secondary sources is a bit tricky though because the page is about AusAID itself so a fair bit of info will come straight from the source (organisational structure/location/projects etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonz29 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HP1740-B reported by User:Fram (Result: 30 hours)

    Page: Dutch people
    User being reported: HP1740-B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [88]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94] (user was in previous disputes made aware of the 3RR rule, and has been blocked in 2008 for 3RR on the same page)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95] and all following edits there

    Comments:
    We both started with a series of consecutive edits (restorations of old material by HP1740B, removal of some of these by me), and then moved on to single edits. For the sake of clarity and fairness, I have considered a serie sof consecutive revert edits as one revert. HP-1740B is an editor who mainly focuses on the article Dutch people, and has gotten into conflicts there before. He often leaves for weeks or (in this case) months, abruptly resuming editing while ignoring everything that happened inbetween or any discussions from the past. His first listed revert is such a revert to his version of six months before. The next four are more obvious reverts. Fram (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a matter of principle for myself and Wikipedia policy. Fram, an admin who I consider thoroughly biased to me, removed sourced sections (which stood for 6 months, not six months ago) of the article without discussing them on talk.
    If the information was unreferenced, he or she would be right; but it wasn't. Just because I took some time off of editing doesn't mean you can just go ahead removeing whole referenced sections without any rationale. It just doesn't work that way.
    I thought the discussion had finally started on talk; well I know it has, and I consider it typical of Frams attitude towards me that rather than discussing on talk he/she chooses to try and get me out of the running here instead.
    I fully acknowledge that I have broken the 3RR; but be very mindfull of the fact that it has nothing to do with edit warring; it has to do with admins thinking they're God and that the rules that apply to all Wikipedians (providing rational explanations on talk when performing such actions) are somehow not applicable to them.HP1740-B (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not acted as an admin or used my admin tools in this dispute. I am acting here as an editor like everyone else. Please note that the last revert is not reverting me but reverting another user, and that my removal of the sourced but irrelevant section was done three months ago, and that that was only one of the things reverted repeatedly. Fram (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And there we have it! YOU thought it was irrelevant, and that's all the justification YOU needed. That section is sourced and was there for over six months. You are supposed to discuss such changes on talk. You as much as anyone else.HP1740-B (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Our justifications are the same: I thought it was irrelevant, you thought it was relevant. You don't need to shout (as has been said to you before), and this is not relevant for the 3RR anyway. You did four reverts, against different people, in less than a day, despite being aware of this rule. Other issues shouldbe brought up elsewhere. Fram (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time; no matter what your justification was , you should have placed in on the talk page instead of removing a whole referenced section with no rationale whatsoever. Which is what you did. Furthermore, I think I have a right to explain my actions. That I'm not some troll or pusher of unsuporter biased information; but someone who wants the rules to go for everyone. Someone who doesn't take kindly to the behavior you've displayed. HP1740-B (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    HP1740-B is the only person who has been repeatedly highlighting Frams admin status on the talk. Fram has never during the disputes made any claim based on being an admin nor has he threatened to use any admin power. In this dispute Fram has behaved as any editor, so the whole admin thing is a distractor in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I never made any accusations here on Fram abusing his admin tools, that is something you just made up. I mention him being an admin, because admins are supposed to respect Wikipedia policy and behave accordingly. If they do not, this should be mentioned as they're supposed to follow Wikipedia policy.HP1740-B (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Every editor is supposed to do that. New editors may be excused for not knowing the rules, but you and I are both experienced enough. You have above justified your actions with "it has to do with admins thinking they're God and that the rules that apply to all Wikipedians are somehow not applicable to them", which is a personal attack (nothing new there), and a completely irrelevant reference to me being an admin (which you did tiwce in the past days on Talk:Dutch people as well, so it's not a one-off expression). And you have in the past (october 2009) stated on Talk:Dutch people about me that "You are an administrator with a clear agenda; in fact your partiality towards me is no secret. In my opinion, an administrator who is involved to such a degree in a certain article should either refrain from editing it or refrain from using his or her administrator-status to pressure other contributors." Fram (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not put words in my mouth. I have justified my actions by the fact that you removed sourced information that stood for 6 months without any rationale on the articles talk page.
    You can try to cloud that fact by trying to undermine my credibility by either your interpretations of my remarks and your actions (do you want me to mention your affair with User:Jack Merridew? which nearly costed you your admin position?) but that (stood for 6 months, sourced, no rationale on talk) is the reason I reverted you, and stopped reverting you as soon as you started to discuss the matter on the talk page.HP1740-B (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "and stopped reverting you as soon as you started to discuss the matter on the talk page." I commented on the talk page on these edits on 4 May at 7:28[96], and haven't stopped replying since. You reverted four times after that, and you didn't stop reverting at all, the last revert is yours. Fram (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you posted a message on talk, doesn't mean you were discussing anything. Nor did it stop you from reverting. Discussing is listining to each other; not just stating your opinion and going back to reverting to your prefered version. Which is something you only stopped doing today. Why should I even be explaining this to you?! HP1740-B (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we please limit this to the accusation brought against HP1740-B per WP:NOTTHEM. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I presented the situation at hand: the undiscussed removal of referenced sections which were in the article for 6 months. It is Fram who started (however childish that sounds) bringing in other, complety unrelated matters and accusations. He ows my rebuttal to himself.HP1740-B (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of thirty hours While a protection would have normally been a wise alternative so that discussion on the article could proceed, it's quite clear that HP1740-B's tone toward this content dispute is noticeably less productive and collaborative than that exhibited the others involved in this dispute. The nature of his edit-warring is simply too hard to ignore. -- tariqabjotu 14:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Iadrian_yu reported by User:Rokarudi (Result: no vio)

    Page: Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Iadrian yu (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: [101]

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

    Comments:
    Comment: Iadrian yu started to delete Hungarian names from the template that was created by me. After warning him, he made a redundant template and started to replace the original bilingual template to the monolingual template created by him on the individual pages for the tributaries of the river. [103] Formerly, there was an in-depth discussion on the language usage in templtaes at Bilingual template without prejudice. The editor provokes edit warring at John Hunyadi article as well.


    I deleted the Hungarian names template in accordance with wiki rules, WP:NAME, official names section. The template is bilingual despite all wiki rules having in mind the Romanian law that the official language is Romanian ONLY and that Romania is not bilingual country. I replaced that template with the one in accordance with wiki rules. The result of that discussion was There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives. I can`t see any similar example anywhere else or in Hungary so in Romania also we should use the official names, Romanian names. About John Hunyadi, there is another Hungarian user the problem , more precise WP:OWN and WP:GAME but that is not the subject of this discussion.iadrian (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I count two reverts. Tim Song (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: later blocked for 3RR on John Hunyadi - see report below. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kittins floating in the sky yay reported by - Barek (talk • contribs) - (Result: )

    Celtic Nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 16:55, 5 May 2010 (edit summary: "←Redirected page to Nationalism")
    2. 17:31, 5 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 360326748 by Fishshaw (talk)")
    3. 17:41, 5 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 360329890 by Fishshaw (talk)")
    4. 17:59, 5 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 360332657 by Fishshaw (talk)")
    5. 18:41, 5 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 360338025 by Fishshaw (talk)")
    6. 19:37, 5 May 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 360346522 by Fishshaw (talk)")

    —- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See also user's reply to 3RR warning on their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The only reason I haven't also reported user:Fishshaw for the other side of the edit war is that Fishshaw hasn't continued following the warning to their user talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See also WP:ANI#Edit war on Plaid Cymru. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rokarudi reported by User:iadrian_yu (Result: Reporter blocked for a week)

    User continously wants to provoke an edit war like here calling for other users to "help".

    Thank you.iadrian (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I talked with User:iadrian_yu, and (s)he now understands what (s)he was doing wrong ((s)he didn't before). So the chances of a repeat are somewhat reduced. I told them how to apply WP:1RR, which I hope (s)he'll adhere to from now on. <cross fingers>
    Blocks are intended to be preventive, not punitive. Can we reduce the block, and test to see if the lesson has been learned? If it hasn't, we can always reblock later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support lifting the block if User:Iadrian yu would formally accept a 1RR/day restriction for their future edits. Such a restriction would be enforceable by blocks. Nationalist edit wars tend to be very fierce, and I personally favor literal-minded application of the rules in those areas. Iadrian yu's previous record includes abuse of multiple accounts (see his block log, the entry for 18 March 2010). EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I support what Ed suggests. AGK 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Block log states that the report of multiple accounts was a mistake, and he was promptly unblocked. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, say we make that 2RR, and for 1 month, and then review? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Modification: I would support a 2RR-per-day restriction, similar to what Ed suggests. (On reflection, I'd rather we go a little above 1RR, but I agree that some limitation needs to be set if Adrian is to be unblocked.) What Kim suggests also seems like a good idea. Somebody should consult with Adrian as to whether he'd be willing to agree to these terms. AGK 01:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (Copied from talk page:

    Yes, i am Ok with it. iadrian (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    )

    User:Zinbarg reported by User:Jayjg (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [104] Previous version reverted to: [105]

    POV tag
    WHO/Aids - AMA 1999


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings: [128][129][

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Circumcision#POV Tag

    Comments:

    • User:Zinbarg has essentially edited just 3 articles in his Wikipedia history, Circumcision, Sexual effects of circumcision, and Diabetes mellitus - almost 80% of his edits have been circumcision related, with almost 70% to the Circumcision article itself. His Talk: page comments show an even higher percentage of edits to Circumcision as an article and a topic. Since December he has insisted that the lead of the Circumcision article cannot contain a sentence on HIV/Aids, nor list the date of an AMA report. He returns to Wikipedia on an irregular basis, and immediately deletes the material he objects to from the lede, or adds a POV tag; as he stated in one edit summary, "No HIV in it's own paragraph in the lead, or we need the POV tag." He is essentially holding the article hostage; either he gets his way, or he defaces the article. Lengthy discussion on Talk: has proved fruitless; despite his claims being (in my view) thoroughly refuted, he remains adamant. He now no longer even bothers to respond to the relevant Talk: page discussion, but merely pops in once a week to revert, alluding to the Talk: page, as if the discussion had somehow been settled in favor of his doing this. His edits have been reverted by seven different editors in the past 6 weeks (e.g. Atomaton, Jakew, Spaully, Avraham, Jayjg, Coppertwig, JoshuaZ). He seems intent on doing this indefinitely. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this report Zinbarg has reverted again: [130] Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Haldraper reported by User:Joo (Result: )

    Haldraper kept deleting relevant materials from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section of the Catholic sex abuse cases article:
    a. despite objections from other editors (including yours truly)
    b. despite attempts by other editors to discuss reasons
    c. later proceeding with deletion again and again after stating reasons in a cryptic manner but without waiting for others to respond.

    Here are some of the diffs: joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Removed i) Christian Science Monitor survey results, ii) comment by Newsweek on no significant difference, iii) Shakeshaft's criticism of media over-focus on the Catholic Church and her statistics
    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=356979570&oldid=356961967

    2. Removed quote by Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children + info on insurance companies premiums not different for all denominations + Shakeshaft's statistics
    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357240469&oldid=357237190

    3. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics which were reported in Weigel's criticism of media coverage
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357378714&oldid=357369452

    4. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics from Weigel's quote again
    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357586234&oldid=357584584

    5. Removed Context section (Applewhite's quote). Moved Applewhite's quote to the Inaccuracies section and removed Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section.
    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360036257&oldid=360018666

    6. He placed an OR tag in the Context section which says: "This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references...". After I have spent lots of time searching and adding the relevant references, he has just removed ALL the additional references for the Context section (again without discussion) writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation". joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493

    7. He reverted (removed all the further references that I added), claiming "RV to non-OR/SYN version". Yet why did he put the OR-section tag there in the first place before the further references were given? And why does he still leave the OR-section there?

    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360285649&oldid=360254763

    8. John Nagel reverted Haldraper's deletions. Haldraper removed Applewhite's quote and the Context section (again and again) and put it (without the references) in the Inaccuracies section (yet he wrote on the talk page earlier that Applewhite was not talking about inaccuracies) and removed Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section again.

    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360478889&oldid=360478667

    9. Haldraper removed "Context" subheading and the second part of Applewhite's quote where she stressed that "we must consider the historical context of any given episode".

    See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360524736&oldid=360515309

    Points 1-4 have been resolved through the intervention of several other editors. Points 5-9 remain unresolved.

    See discussions at
    1. here

    2. here
    3. here <-- latest joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I am a Page Patroller with this article under my Watchlist. The article, Catholic sex abuse cases, was page protected on April 27, 2010 upon my request because the content was being edit-warred with WP:RECENTISM type material. While this action has lessened the edit-war, several editors continue to revert one another and violate WP:NPA with uncivil remarks. On May 5, 2010 I placed the POV tag on the article because the content has become DISPUTED and edit reverts were approaching a 3RR situtation. As a neutral editor, I discussed all my concerns on the affected talkpage to include conversations on 3RR, civility and NPA. This morning I delivered two substitute 3RR advisory standarized warnings to the following editors in these diffs:

    Please note: I have this page under my Watchlist and noted this post. As per my post on one of the editor's talkpage, I was not ready to take action to this noticeboard but as per the affected talkpage, advised others to come here and file a report vis-a-vis ranting on the article talkpage. I felt I had to comment now because it is apparent to me that neither editor considers themselves properly aware of what 3RR means especially when edits/reverts take place to an article that has disputed content. --Morenooso (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    While I agree that edit warring itself is a problem, it's also important to consider whether the editor has good reasons for the reverts. Haldraper has been changing his reasons all the time. E.g. First he moved Applewhite's quote into the Inaccuracies section. Then he wrote that her quote is not about inaccuracy. Then he put an OR tag above Applewhite's quote. And that tag asked for references. When I've sourced enough references to support Applewhite's quote, he removed all the references writing in the Edit Summary that a quote does not need references. Then he moved Applewhite's quote into the Inaccuracies section and deleted Jenkins' quote about only one pedophile among thousand plus priests there. Surely, this kind of behavior deserves some censure/action? joo (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me much of the problem stems from Joo's lack of grasp of how Wikipedia works: to cite a minor example, he asked me indignantly on the talk page how I could see his contributions history when he couldn't see mine when of course every editor's is visible by clicking on 'contribs' in the revision history.
    That's really irrelevant and I wasn't indignant, just puzzled. I am indignant though with your repeated deletions and repeated shuffling of Applewhite's quote in the Criticisms section (as outlined above) and yet refusing to discuss most of the time. joo (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More seriously, I have yet to see any evidence that he understands WP:OR and especially WP:SYN (indeed he questioned why I was referring to 'encyclopaedia policies' on a talk page, suggesting he sees it as a forum for general discussion outside Wikipedia rules), hence his rather strange decision to pepper a direct quote with refs allegedly supporting the points the person being interviewed was making. Haldraper (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See the context of his use of WP:OR on what I wrote on the talk page here and read what other editors have written about Haldraper's edits so far -- Cyrus at here and Huey45 at here and Farsight at here (scroll down). joo (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Up till now, Haldraper, you still have not explained why you've moved Applewhite into the Inaccuracies section when you've written that her quote is not about inaccuracy here. And why did you remove Jenkins' criticism that the media's usage of the term "pedophile" is inaccurate? joo (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: )

    Page: Filioque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Esoglou (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: [135]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]

    Comments:I had retired from Wikipedia and I intended to stay retired. I intend to go back and retire after this is addressed and resolved. This editor Lima/Esoglou would cause any editor whom does not have lots and lots of personal time to get frustrated and leave. Causing good contributors to think wikipedia is a frustrating waste of time and their efforts. This editor abuses Wikipedia policies to frustrate editors. This causes people to resent being a contributor. I have attempted overtime to address this person actually over the course of some years. This editor is disruptive and over uses the sourcing requests asking for people to source obvious things Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue along with reverting and falsifying sourcing because rather then copy and paste I am trying to copyedit (i.e. recently the editor insists that the sources say the word compromise (which I used) rather then the reconcile)


    User:Jetblack500 reported by User:Michig (Result: )

    Page: Alan Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Jetblack500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [137]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

    [144] Comments:

    There are conflicting sources regarding the subjects birth date. This has been discussed on the talk page, with a consensus that we shouldn't state one birthdate as fact without mentioning the other possible dates. User:Jetblack500 appears unwilling to accept this consensus and has persistently removed a note after the birthdate pointing the reader to a section that discusses the different possible birth dates. It may be worth noting that Jetblack500 has also made totally unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry against pretty much anyone who disagrees with him on the topic [145], [146], as well as totally spurious accusations against me of vandalising his citations and removing his comments from Talk:Alan Vega ([147]). I've asked him several times to stop, to no avail, and it's now time for him to be forced to take a break. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=360624524"