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 FluffyPug (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 27 June 2010 (more fix). 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:Off2riorob reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Will not edit the article for a week)

    Page: Caroline Nokes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 17:33, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ its not notable, unless it affects her career or something happens about it")
    2. 17:37, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ what happened")
    3. 14:30, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by Nomoskedasticity; Guy is named in reliable citations, removing is censorship, . (TW)")
    4. 14:34, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nomoskedasticity; Cited content please move to discussion. (TW)")


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1] (user is long-established and is well aware of the rule.)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Currently under discussion at WP:BLPN

    Comments:

    Here's a bit of context for this user's reversions performed today: as is clear from comments here, he is unhappy that contributors to BLPN do not share his views on how to edit the Nokes page -- so today he has been reverting my own efforts to pare down the section on her affair, restoring details regarding a non-notable person. These reversions took place after I suggested that he seemed to be contemplating a course of action that constituted WP:POINT.
    There is also disruptive WP:POINT editing on the article talk page, here.
    I'd also like to note misuse of Twinkle for the reversions performed today and would request that twinkle (and rollback) be removed from his account.
    —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for comment on my talk, I cant see a violation I cant see a warning and I cant see anything that I could revert to remove the complaint. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't see a violation? [2][3][4][5] – what don't you understand? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit one and edit two are not connented to edit three and four at all there is no warring here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't have to be "connected" – you made four reverts on that page within 24 hours, so you breached the 3RR. You are an experienced editor and know about the rule, so did not need to be warned IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is my warning, I didn't get one where is my opportunity to revert if there is an issue where is the continuation of any warring after my warning, none of these things exists. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I only speak English and thus have no clue what that means, but you have been warned about the 3RR many times before (more than once by me, I think!) and so were well aware of the restriction. Why did you break it? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that I have violated policy, if I had a good faith notice would have been nice and a good faith request to revert would have been nice and if you had of given me a warning and I had continued in a similar manner then there would be something worthy of action here as it is none of these things happened and there is nothing worthy of action here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that I have violated policy – well, WP:3RR clearly states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." You did that, therefore you violated the policy, clearly. Nothing requiring that experienced editors receive warnings. You should know. But I debate with you further. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As I tell users wanting to make a complaint, to make a decent report, when 3 reverts have occurred then add a warning to the users talkpage, if the user makes another revert then request him on his talkpage to self revert, if he does not do this then you have a strong complaint. This complaint has none of those strengths. Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason you don't see a 3RR warning is that you removed it from your talk page already. This appears to be a technical 3RR violation. (See the reverts listed above. #1 and 2 remove material from the article, and #3 and 4 are marked as 'Revert' in the edit summary). You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will take a break from editing the article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since he already has a lengthy block log for edit warring and a number of warnings over the last few months, I'm not sure this is an appropriate outcome (imho). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Nomosk. And since Rob insists that he did no wrong, letting him completely off the hook would scarcely be constructive? ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This was not a warning it was a FYI you are reported, the first contact I had had. I will happily agree to avoid the article . Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, that's a 3RR vio, and warnings are not an entitlement. However, if Off2riorob could voluntarily agree to avoid the article, there's no need for a block. T. Canens (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will avoid at all costs. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted and appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Khadija-NJITWILL reported by E8 (Result: 24h)

    User User:Khadija-NJITWILL has exceeded three reverts in 24 hours and ignored requests to discuss their additions to the Environmental technology page. The user has made unilateral additions and deletions of questionable value, and portions of the added content are cut-and-paste plagiarism. I have copied all the proposed content to the talk page for editing and discussion. I am requesting a short block be placed on the user to draw their attention to their own, or the topics talk page.--E8 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - Blocked 24 hours. The person is clearly edit warring. Though they are new, they did not stop after warnings. You've also complained about plagiarism. Though it does appear that the material is cut-and-pasted from somewhere, you should back up the charge of plagiarism by giving links to the original source of the material. Such links could be added to the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amakthea computer reported by User:O Fenian (Result: not blocked)

    Page: List of terrorist incidents, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Amakthea computer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [6]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

    Comments:

    The fourth revert is only a partial revert, reverting back to add one incident instead of two. The editor is edit warring against the existing consensus on the page that add incidents must be described as "terrorism", one that is obviously backed up by policy and has also been endorsed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick. O Fenian (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block might not be necessary for now as they have not continued to revert since their fourth revert and are discussing it on the talk page, this may change though obviously. O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined in light of discussion on talk page. O Fenian, you've been edit-warring, too; 3RR is not an electric fence which one must pass in order to edit-war.--Chaser (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MickMacNee reported by User:Themoodyblue (Result: No action)

    I am reporting MickMacNee for his repeated reverts of a quote I entered in the article Isner–Mahut_match_at_the_2010_Wimbledon_Championships. I entered a quote from a comment made in The Guardian regarding the sportsmanship, integrity and importance of the Isner-Mahut match and quoted the entire quote, as it made several pertinent points and seemed to sum up what many other tennis commentators were making. MickMacNee has edited it down to one sentence, which not only completely changes the meaning of the quote but also has not apparent consensus for the edit. He has changed it back to his version three times, and then sent me a message threatening to report me here. I enclose his message and my response below. It is a violation of the most basic wiki ideas to change someone else's work simply because one person doesn't like it. He offered no rational explanation for his edit other than "it was objected strongly to" and I was very "bold to have added it" in the first place. I wasn't aware I needed MickMacNee's permission to add something to an article that I felt gave it far more depth and information. If I am wrong please correct me, but in looking at his talk page I don't think I am the first person he has done this with. Specifically, I would like him to stop violating WP:EW, WP:BRD and NPOV standards and create a talk section on the article page, get a consensus about what should be done with the quote, and then follow whatever the clear consensus is that the community comes to. His single opinion is not a consensus, and if he feels that "it's presence is objected to, strongly," he needs to demonstrate by whom, other than himself, it is objected to by. I feel that he should have gotten a consensus through to talk page before he begins ripping into something that was posted long before he started working on the article at all.

    This is what I originally posted: A number of players, former players, officials, media commentators and fans all joined McEnroe in commenting on the way that both players conducted themselves. One commentator in the Guardian seemed to sum up most of the comments in saying that {{cquote|[T]his match in one fell swoop reminded people of what sport is supposed to be; intense and competitive, but also with fair play, respect, class and sportsmanship. Isner and Mahut reminded the world that winning might be important, but how one wins is even more so. Today Isner may have scored one more service break than Mahut, but they both, and sport in general, won a much grander victory. These two gentlemen returned class and respect to the field of competition with their sportsmanship, grit, determination and mutual regard for the abilities of their opponent. They were playing for the love of the game, something almost all professional athletes seem to have long ago forgot. In that sense, they won a far more tremendous victory today than simply a tennis match. In ten years, few will likely remember who won this year's Championships. However, people will be telling their great grand children, who will tell their great grand children, about the day that sport regained its soul."[22] (In the article, this was formatted to a quotation paragraph).

    This is what he has reverted it back to three times: One commentator in The Guardian wrote "In ten years, few will likely remember who won this year's Championships. However, people will be telling their great grand children, who will tell their great grand children, about the day that sport regained its soul."[22]

    Here are the messages we have corresponded.
    ....message transcription begins here....
    This is a warning for you to stop edit warring on the above article. If you want your version to remain, start a discusison on the talk page and get consensus for it, but I can categorically tell you right now, it is a blatant violation of NPOV, and it is simply ridiculously long to boot. I have no idea where you got this idea that it is Wikipedia's role to reflect the 'power' and 'gravitas' of an external source's entire quote in this way, but you are massively wrong. I am trimming it one more time, to restore the consensus situation per WP:BRD, namely, you were bold to add it, and it's presence is objected to, strongly, and has been removed pending discussion. If you reinstate it again, I will be asking at the edit warring noticeboard for an admin to remove your ability to carry on being disruptive until you accept that this is not how you resolve disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    You sir, are the one who needs a reality check. You started the war with an arbitrary edit that has no consensus behind it. Simply because you object to a long quote does not mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that it is "ridiculous". As you are the one editing and changing the original post, you are the one who needs to open a talk page discussion and get a consensus. Your opinion is not the rule of law. Where do you find a "consensus situation" (based on WP:BRD) that conforms to your opinion about the edit. There isn't one, and your stating, however forcefully, that there is does not create one. How arrogant is it to assert that I was "bold to add it"? Does everything have to pass through your censorship filter in order to have a consensus? Show me where others are of the same opinion and I will abide by that, but I have looked and found none. The quote was part of the article long before you started editing it to fit your personal standards. If you find this disruptive, than that says more about your insecurity and arrogance than it does about my quote. Remember, YOU edited down a quote that YOU found "ridiculous" without any consensus to back it up. Before you go threatening people with banning, you should look to your own behaviour. How does my editing constitute "being disruptive" and your does not? You have changed my original work three times - isn't that is disruptive and unacceptable? I see no pending discussion, no attempt to find consensus, and no attempt on your part to do exactly what you are demanding of me. Until that is present, please stop threatening me meaninglessly - you say "it's presence is objected to, strongly," - by whom, precisely, besides yourself? Please list them so that I can see a consensus for your action. Absent that, please stop threatening people to get your way. It is unseemly and unnecessary. DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    WP:BRD is pretty clear, and WP:DR and WP:3RR are even clearer. I haven't threatened you at all, I've warned you what the consequences would be if you carried on edit warring. And sorry, but you aren't special, these consequences are what anyone in your position would be facing if they were acting in the same way. Do not fall into the trap of thinking the warning has anything to do with the validity of your content, it does not. But on that issue, if you think your content is valid, it will be a trivial matter to show it has support then wouldn't it? I await to be convinced, but based on my experience in editing thousands of other articles, I remain strongly skeptical that you have a proper handle on what is and isn't appropriate in this situation. You comments about how this one massive quote summarises everybody else's opinions nicely is just out and out editorialising tbh, very concerning. But let's be crystal clear, I am not required to begin that discussion for you, not in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    You have have made no effort to show that you have support for anything, yet seem to think that I need to show solid support for every word I write. That is a pathetic double standard. At any rate, you are correct - you don't have to have that discussion with me. I have posted this whole mess in its entirety on the edit war board and have reported you for edit warring. Please take it up with them. If they say that I am doing something wrong, I will certainly abide by that. However, you asserting your opinion and then arguing that it is the only correct choice is beyond arrogance. I will abide by the consensus that the edit warring board reaches. Please do not contact me again on this issue. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    ....end of transcription of messages....

    Please give me, and MickMacNee, some guidance on this. I simply do not feel that one person's opinion is a consensus for changing something, however forcefully (and almost abusively) he states that it is. I have to admit, his tone is part of the problem here, because I feel that it is also reflective of his attitude. Please let me know what to do here. Thanks. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the only mistake I made here was to massively over-estimate Themoodyblue's experience with Wikipedia's rules and processes. He has notionally editted here since 2006, long before me even, yet he seems to have little or no grasp of BRD or DE, let alone 3RR. He is under some misguided idea that it is me who needs to get support for his disputed content, and that the admins who peruse this board are going to sort out the content dispute for him. Quite the opposite, I warned him for edit warring on the article, while admittedly coming close to 3RR myself as he repeatedly tried to restore the content, but I had explained the facts of the matter to him, and as is normal, warned him that if his next move was another revert, I'd be coming here myself. The only thing to be done here is for Themoodyblue to realise his content is disupted, and if he still wants it in, he needs to show it has support beyond fighting with me or bitching about my attitude to all and sundry. Had I had the first idea how little experience he has, my approach would of course have been more tempered, but it's too late now. Mea Culpa. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone disputes an edit, discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring. It's that simple. Fences&Windows 20:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This is far from the first time that MickMacNee's overly aggressive, antagonistic and abusive attitude has caused disruption. Time and again he picks on edits that most other users find perfectly acceptable, instigates an edit war (often with provocative, disrespectful or dismissive edit summaries), and fires tirades of abuse, disparaging remarks and personal attacks at his targets. His behaviour suggests that he enjoys fighting on Wikipedia. His very extensive block log over the past couple of years speaks for itself (and I see he was indefinitely blocked earlier this year, but managed to have his block removed after a profuse apology and showing apparent intention to change his ways). His habit of vulgar and abusive posts to users who he disagrees with is totally disruptive (examples: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] - and these are just from his own talk page). For how much longer will good faith contributors have to put up with this horribly abusive (and I'd go as far as to call it troll-like) behaviour? 81.155.12.99 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This report is pretty tl;dr. This noticeboard is really meant for reports in which you list diffs showing a 3RR vio or, if you really think it merits administrative action, edit warring that does not actually violate 3RR, rather than long textual explanations of what happened. Those are more suited to our dispute resolution procedures or, if you really must, the drama board. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result - No action. If this is intended to be an edit-warring complaint, it is too hard to follow. We are talking about a heavily-trafficked article, and if your material is worthy of inclusion, you should be able to find supporters for that material on the article's talk page. I suggest opening a discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JALatimer reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: Users instructed to "chill" :) )

    Page: Matthew 6:7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 02:23, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "")
    2. 03:06, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "restoring article")
    3. 04:21, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370200368 by Neutralhomer (talk)already did take it to talk. stop redirecting.")
    4. 04:32, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "saving the article from bulldozing")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you didn't take my suggestion. Options are going to be "block both of you" or "block neither of you because you two are discussing your edits". Which would you prefer? Prodego talk 04:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Question before my answer, why am I being blocked? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Takes (at least) 2 to edit war. At any point you could have just stopped reverting, which would have stopped the edit warring just as much as if JALatimer did. But neither of you did. Prodego talk 04:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take that as the latter. Prodego talk 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Per my post to your talkpage, we will make it the latter. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since JAL seems to have declined that, I have blocked him for 55 hours (longer than normal given the number of warnings and second chances). Prodego talk 05:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IP reported by User:ianmacm (Result: Semi)

    Page: Hans Zimmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    An IP keeps on adding this to Hans Zimmer, despite advice about WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR. Also refuses to discuss on the talk page, and tries to WP:GAME the system by forcing WP:3RR.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IPs reported by User:Pfainuk (Result:s-prot )

    Page: Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Persistent POV warrior using multiple IPs on Falkland Islands to edit war.

    IP addresses:

    all resolve to the same ISP based in Buenos Aires. Pfainuk talk 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sixth revert, new IP 190.224.219.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Pfainuk talk 20:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - but you appear to have full protected it, not semi. Was this the intention? Pfainuk talk 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No I clicked the wrong button in twinkle. :-o I fixed it and its now semi. welcome to leave notes on my talkpage if the ip editor comes back. I see we had this issue before. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Pfainuk talk 20:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Walter Görlitz reported by Metallurgist (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Page: 2010 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:47, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Portugaljunior identified as vandalism to last revision by Big Axe. (TW)")
    2. 22:19, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Discipline */ keep the minutia to the main page, particularly since the table is broken now")
    3. 22:39, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Knockout stage */ as discussed on the talk page. Removing some of the content. Details can be seen on the main pages linked to the article. This page is starting to take too long to load.")
    4. 22:42, 24 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Eliminated teams */ This section is new when compared to 2006 FIFA World Cup. Not sure how the teams would be ranked either. Please discuss on talk page")
    5. 04:37, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370030419 by Reywas92 (talk) Go to the sub article.")
    6. 04:38, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "")
    7. 06:16, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Filming */ Host Broadcast Services is a company. The 3D games will be produced for FIFA by Host Broadcast Services not "the Host Broadcast Services".")
    8. 06:38, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "linking to main article instead")
    9. 15:19, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370099184 by Facts707 (talk) If it were to nations it would be hosts. We are speaking of one nation therefore host nation.")
    10. 15:27, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370103333 by Algebraist (talk) Well in that case, host is correct in American and Canadian English and it was there first so using WIkipedia policy of first edit after stub")
    11. 16:08, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370109738 by Elpincha (talk) restoring qualified qualifier.")
    12. 20:57, 25 June 2010 (edit summary: "bad math. Total goals is 101.")
    13. 01:52, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Who would remove this wonderful image after the discussion that we had about it?")
    14. 16:02, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370265775 by Eduardm (talk) There appears to be a discrepancy between the English and German sites. Our refs are from English sites.")
    15. 16:36, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Round of 16 */ Not required in the general article. All the general details are above. Specifics are in the child article.")
    16. 16:37, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Quarter-finals */ ibid")
    17. 16:38, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* Knockout stage */ Ibid")
    18. 16:53, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Metallurgist; Don't add until there is consesnus. (TW)")
    19. 17:02, 26 June 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 370273369 by Metallurgist (talk) Don't restore until there's consensus")

    —Metallurgist (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Walter Görlitz, you have removed my offer of a negotiated alternative. Does that mean you prefer to be blocked? If you undo the work of other editors in multiple sections, these undoings are all counted as reverts. Entries 15 through 19 of the above list all show you removing the work of others from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He also removed my notification that this was posted. Metallurgist (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible return as IP] Metallurgist (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.175.181.251 / User:Friendsofmary reported by User:Sunray (Result: 48h, semi)

    Page: Mobile phones and driving safety (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User-multi error: "Friendsofmary" is not a valid project or language code (help). / Friendsofmary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [23]


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30] [31]

    Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    Note that since there is both an IP address and a user account involved, a checkuser may need to be run. However, there is clear evidence in the edit summaries of the reverts and the talk page discussion that they are one and the same. For example:

    • In the edit summary for this revert [35] the comment "We finally agree ... enough is enough!" is made. Up until that date, the talk page discussion had been entirely with Friendsofmary.
    • Or note the similarities in style and content of this comment by Friendsofmary [36] and this one by IP 71.175.181.251 [37] Bottom line: Both accounts continue their edit waring. Sunray (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Friendsofmary blocked 48h hours for edit warring and socking, article semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.46.113.209 reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: Semi)

    Page: Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 174.46.113.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 08:49, 26 June 2010

    Previous version reverted to: 00:59, 27 June 2010

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:28, 26 June 2010 and 00:02, 27 June 2010

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Canada#Call to stop censoring article about Canada

    Comments:
    The user is also leaving odd messages about censorship on other editors' talk pages. Seems out to make a point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, but I'm not sure that the month's duration is appropriate - the reported user now has an account and will be able to edit through semi-protection in a matter of days. Thus, I would argue for either a block or a shorter protection (maybe a week?). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the editor persists, we can deal with the situation as it is then. The last semiprotection issued on Canada was for six months so a month is not unusual. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Middayexpress reported by User:StoneProphet (Result: Restriction)

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia&oldid=370313273


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia&diff=370362879&oldid=370349968

    Talk Page:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somalia

    Comments:

    User Middayexpress constantly reverts massive sourced facts i added out, because he just dont like them. In the first instance he reverted back to a version which used exact same source (the UN News), but he cited it wrong. After pointing this mistake out and correcting it with more sources, he suddenly declared the UN (a sourced which he used previously by himself) as a unreliable source and reverted it, adding a strange source of one (now 2) private founded liberitarian american institutes. Those sources do not contradict the stated (see talkpage) facts which i could back up with dozens or more sources if needed, they focus on other points. He dont accepts this, harping on points which are not relevant to the dispute and asserting that there is a big conspiracy of the UN. Trying to resolve the dispute on the article talkpage was fruitless, he is ignoring my arguments and discussing points which arent even relevant to the issue. The talk page archive also shows that different approaches of other editors to change the article were blocked by him too, as he regards the article as his own kingdom.

    It is possible that i violated 3rr this way too, but i want to put this to a temporarily end. StoneProphet (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made the following suggestion to both parties: It seems that you and your opponent have both broken WP:3RR at WP:AN3#User:Middayexpress reported by User:StoneProphet (Result: ). You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will promise not to make any further controversial changes between now and August 1 at Somalia without *first* obtaining a consensus for your change on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well i have no problem with this, but i doubt he will accept any change to this article. Its a content dispute and the actual version he reverted too is the old version -> as long as he can keep this one he has no interest in a consensus as one can see in the talk page archive. :/ StoneProphet (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How utterly disingenuous. Those links above are not me simply "reverting" edits, as this user absurdly insinuates. Except for the first revert (which admittedly was a revert), it is a case of me adding new sources to support my edits, and/or generally expanding the article. For instance, in the link above that the user claims is a "2nd revert", I actually completely rewrote an entire section of the article, improving it with new references and facts. Similarly, in the link above he claims is a "3rd revert", I added a reference from the reputable Ludwig von Mises Institute to support my edit; it wasn't just a "revert" as this user falsely claims. The so-called "4th revert" above is another instance of me expanding my sourcing to support my edits, this time adding references from the World Bank and the Independent Institute. And in the supposed "5th revert", I added yet another source to support my position, this time from the Foundation for Economic Education. The user above has attempted to dismiss all of these sources & characterize my succesively adding them and otherwise expanding the article as "reverting" for one reason and one reason alone: All of the reliable references on the modern economic situation in Somalia (that is, actual studies of the country) conclude that it has managed to maintain a healthy informal economy. That includes the CIA source which the user above misrepresented in his initial edits. I had to go as far as quoting from the paper itself just to get this user to back down, and even then he kept insisting that it asserted that Somalia's economy was in a bad way. As for the UN sources, firstly, I did not initially provide the UN source in question, as the user above falsely claims. It was already in the article before the user started manipulating references. Secondly, as I repeatedly pointed out to this user on both his own talk page and the article's discussion page -- conversations which I had to initiate; the user above was up to then content to just keep knee-jerk reverting -- the UN is not at all a neutral source on the conflict in Somalia (I won't go into the details here since, unlike the user, I have read the instructions laid out at the top of this noticeboard to "not continue a dispute on this page"; quotes & links from the UN itself explaining the situation can be found on the article's talk page). Lastly, it is not possible but certain that the user above himself has violated 3RR:
    It would appear here again that he didn't read the part at the top of this page that reads "Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption." Middayexpress (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You just dont get it: Your sources do _not_ contradict the stated UN facts, they are in a complete different field. You deleted my good sourced and relevant information to reinsert your claims. I have no problem with your Mise institute whatever, but you should not delete my part, because you think the UN and hundreds of newspaper on the world participate in a world-wide conspiracy, and that there is in reality no poverty, no UN aid program and no piracy in Somalia. That is your POV, which doesnt matter, because the UN is regarded as a neutral and reliable source on wikipedia. Despite this you are doing constant personal attacks on me, deliberately misinterpreting cited sources and allege me things i never did - but explaining and correcting this would take me hours and i would have to produce a wall of text like you did, which my sparse time prevents. So lets better focus on the article. Well i start to think it seems to be meaningless to edit the Somalia article as long it is on your occupation, where you prevent absolutly every edit by foreign editors.StoneProphet (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear you have no regard at all for Wikipedia rules and policies (much less other editors) or you would've by now heeded its plainly-stated instruction at the top of the page -- which I quoted above -- not to bring the dispute here. I realize it's much more convenient to try and reframe the discussion as far away as possible from the quotes and links I have already supplied on the Somalia talk page indicating that the UN itself has admitted to being a non-neutral and disruptive influence in Somalia (nevermind its sources), but this is still unacceptable. If you were conversant with actual Wiki policies or even cared about them, you'd already understand that those refs therefore fail WP:QS and especially WP:CONFLICT. Lastly, the Somalia talk page is frequently visited by me because I am one of the article's primary contributors. And not just on the Somalia article, but on all the Somali-related articles on Wikipedia. You see, this is an area I have actual knowledge in, so I share it, as Wikipedia itself recommends. FYI, Somali Studies is an area open to all scholars, Somalis and foreign alike. Attempting to insinuate that I believe that it isn't and is the preserve of locals without my even having so much as disclosed my ethnicity to you is more a reflection of your own preconceived notions than anything. Not good. Middayexpress (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And again more personal attacks while you just repeat the old arguments which are not relevant to the real issue, the same behaviour you have at the talkpage. You are really good in ignoring the points and arguments i actually said, while bringing in thousands of links, which are not relevant to the current dispute.StoneProphet (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thisisaniceusername reported by 64.53.165.54 (talk) (Result: 48h)

    Page: Animal protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 14:46, 27 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "see my response on the issue in the debate page")
    2. 15:23, 27 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "see my response in the debate page, its information in the public domain")
    3. 15:45, 27 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "see my response in the AFD debate page, it's verifiable from origins of attitudes towards animals, a dissertation, reliable source. stop vandalism")
    4. 15:56, 27 June 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "see wiki policy on reliable source yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship I will report you if you keep vandalizing the article")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —64.53.165.54 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.12.191.64 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: )

    Page: Robert J. Bentley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 71.12.191.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [38]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Comments:
    Persistent removal of most page content. IP claims to be removing unsourced/etc. biographical material, but as User:Boromir correctly points out, WP:SELFPUB covers this case. Immediately after final warning, User:166.137.13.70 started removing same information, so likely same user trying to get around warning. As a note, I did revert the article back to original state four times, in good faith as fighting vandalism/page blanking. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    108.6.2.58 / 68.173.229.242 reported by User:FluffyPug (Result: )

    Page: Analog stick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Template:108.6.2.58


    Previous version reverted to: [45]



    Comments:
    An anonymous IP editor (via what appears to be multiple addresses) has been spending a rather excessive amount of time inserting large amounts about the trade show induction of individual controller development text into the Analog Stick article [52]. After multiple reverts where they attempted to mix introduction dates with release dates (apparently in an effort, it seems to make it appear that one company copied another, in this case Sony copying Nintendo), by erasing ONLY one part of the trade show dates [53], another user attempted to end the edit warring by accepting introduction dates from the Wikipedia articles themselves, which the anonymous editor lied about and continued reverting, claiming the links were unsourced[54].


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=370499248"