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 Courcelles (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 1 August 2010 (→User:Ari89 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: ): Blocked; 2 weeks). 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:Dougweller reported by User:Architecture and Interior Design (Result: see note)

    DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION YOU ARE ASKING FOR

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] - DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE PREVIOUS VERSION

    1. (cur | prev) 21:00, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Changed protection level of Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC))))
    2. (cur | prev) 20:59, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Protected Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC))))
    3. (cur | prev) 20:37, 18 July 2010 Arakunem (talk | contribs) (5,108 bytes) (Undid revision. You MUST discuss this on the talk page. See the New Messages left on your own talk page.)


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT - YOUR SYSTEM ISN'T VERY USER FRIENDLY

    Comments:

    So as you are aware there are a few users including users that you have bestowed "Administrative" priviledges to who for some reason insist on providing incorrect information to the world on this subject. They have blocked and locked down the page of course with their erroneous information in place. At the same time these "lovely people" (I use that term loosely) have the audacity to accuse ME of being the vandal and of edit warring. Certainly there is something you can do to remove these people from Wikipedia and not allow them to carry on their abusive behavior. Other vandals included in this consipiracy are as follows: Taroaldo, Arakunem, Administrator Bart133 and Administrator DougWeller.


    Thank for you help but I think I now understand the policy here just fine. If you are one of the "in-crowd" when you get your little hall Monitor/Administration designation you get to be a big ole, nasty, rude bully without any consequences. The novice user is SCREWED! I am, however, open to accepting apologies. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the drama above, I think the only thing you should be open to at this moment is a ban for disruption. Sorry to put it so bluntly. --Ragib (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ragib's comment is an excellent example of the "pack mentality" that I've had to deal with in relation to this issue. People like Ragib who aren't even part of the conversation or effected by the issue jump in with rude inflammatory remarks trying to make the issue worse than it already is. This is actually in violation of Wikipedias policies referenced in the section "Please do not bite the newcomers." These people don't just bite. They tear at the jugular. Someone like Ragib should be blocked if not permanently banned from Wikipedia. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design

    Thanks. Just to clarify, I'm also uninvolved with both article (despite claims above, I've never edited it) and editors, I simply found A&ID's case here and acted. A&ID hadn't been warned and I preferred to stop the edit warring without blocking a new user in any case. I thought a 24 hour block would give time to stop the edit warring and help the new user. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that this has been reviewed and ruled on can it be removed from this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In due time it will be archived and become part of the historical record of this page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Christopher Carrie reported by User:Tonyinman (Result: Protected)

    Page: Tolkien family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Christopher Carrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

    Comments:
    Possible smell of sock/meat puppetry re user Christopher Carrie and user ddgrant2010

    isfutile:P (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - Protected two weeks. I deleted the section about Royd Baker from the article, until such times as editors on the talk page can double-check it for BLP issues. Taking out that section has the effect of removing mention of Christopher Carrie as well. On talk, ddgrant claims that the material at poynter.org about Carrie 'extorting money' was actually posted at poynter.org by Royd Baker. I hope others will check this out. Whether Royd Baker is important enough to be in the article might be discussed. (The internet law case is not cited to any major newspapers. If it was a truly significant case, why did they not cover it?) A carefully-sourced version of the 'extortion' dispute might need its own article to be covered in a balanced fashion, but might not be important enough to deserve its own article. Given our limited resources, and the lack of direct relevance of this dispute to the life and work of J.R.R.Tolkien, this might incline the editors to leave it out. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:91.152.84.165 reported by User:Sander Säde (Result: Warned)

    Page: Johan Bäckman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 91.152.84.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [8]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Johan_Bäckman#Peltimikko_delivers_false_information_about_B.C3.A4ckman

    Comments:
    Anon user has a long history of tendentious editing and edit-warring in Johan Bäckman and related articles (Rantala incident, Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee ). He is rather rude, accusing me of lies, "campaining against Johan Bäckman", accusing Peltimikko (talk · contribs) of "constantly delivering false information about Bäckman" etc. His talk page is a string of warnings.
    Editor has previously been discussed at AN/I and COI noticeboards.

    --Sander Säde 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result - Editor warned. I see only three actual reverts. While this IP is not the world's most cooperative editor, he does participate on talk and comment on sourcing. I could imagine a block for a week or more if he continues to do multiple reverts in one day. Though this editor often defends a pro-Bäckman point of view, the previous threads at ANI, COIN and SPI were inconclusive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Copperheart0718 reported by User:Paralympiakos (Result: Protected)

    Page: UFC 117 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Copperheart0718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version prior to reverts: here

    • 1st revert: First
    • 2nd revert: [14]
    • 3rd revert: [15]
    • 4th revert: [16] - after this one, I gave up changing it back. It became clear that the user wasn't responding and wasn't willing to discuss the matter in any manner other than "He's American because I say so" after being clearly pointed out to a talk page with sourcing proving him/her wrong. It was only after the final change that the user decided to come up with an incorrect sourcing job.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a diff link, but a link to the entire talk page which is littered with comments by me, as well sourcing to prove it. No such discussion was made by the user being reported, who decided to alter my hidden message, alter the flag and not discuss the changes other than poor edit summaries that gave no factual detail or sourcing.

    Comments:

    I also reported this page to WP:RPP to get it locked so that editing was stopped on both sides. I did this before I violated 3RR myself. However, the user being reported violated 3RR by once again changing the flag. A poor argument was then made on the talk page for the first time, but this was despite requests for the user to take it to the talk page before making changes, not one then the other. For the first three changes by the user being reported, it was clear that no communication was going to take place and that the argument by them was degenerated into a "I'm right because I say I am" argument, after blatantly ignoring requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ginelli reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Advised)

    Page: San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ginelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [17]

    • 1st revert: [18] 22:36, July 27, 2010
    • 2nd revert: [19] 17:14, July 28, 2010
    • 3rd revert: [20] 17:40, July 28, 2010
    • 4th revert: [21] 17:42, July 28, 2010
    • 5th revert: [22] 17:45, July 28, 2010

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

    Discussion topic attempting to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:San_Francisco_Bay_Area#MSA_name.2C_CSA_name.2C_etc.

    Comments:

    User wants to replace the common name of the San Francisco Bay Area with a government demographics classification: "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area". The common name is by far the one in greater usage. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The San Francisco Bay Area is more accurately referred to as simple the "Bay Area" dues to the fact that the region surrounds several different bays, not just San Francisco Bay.  Also, the official designation of the are by the US Census is the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland area. Ginelli (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - Advised Ginelli that he should not change the description of the Bay Area again to his preferred version until he gets consensus for it on Talk. So far, he appears to be the only one in favor, while three people are against it. To have a wider discussion, the steps of WP:DR are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring by various meat/sockpuppets at Sarandë (Result: Semiprotected)

    There are apparently several Albanian nationalists who object to the idea that there could possibly be Greeks living in Sarandë. The edit warring has gone on there for several days now (see the article's edit history). I was not involved, have not been involved, and don't care one way or the other, but when a new user with no prior edits suddenly shows up trying to claim that they know what should and should not be in Wikipedia articles, then it's time for something to be done. Semi-protection, maybe, or some blocks against the edit warriors? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave them a level 2 warning for removing my talkpage comments. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ed. Semi is ok but there are also accounts. I guess we'll have to wait and see if more measures are needed. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Norcalal reported by User:Ginelli (Result: Advised Ginelli)

    Page: San Francisco Bay Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Norcalal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    • 1st revert: 08:47, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,117 bytes)
    • 2nd revert: 08:46, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,108 bytes)
    • 3rd revert: 08:49, 28 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs) (95,072 bytes)
    • 4th revert: 00:35, 29 July 2010 Norcalal (talk | contribs)(95,108 bytes)


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

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

    Comments:

    It seems that Norcalal is using intimidating or harassment tactics to discourage me from making valid edits to the San Francisco Bay Area page. He has an obvious bias toward San Francisco and for some reason seems to think that I am biased toward San Jose. I have tried communicating with Norcalal civilly by e-mail without success. Wikipedia should consider banning this individual until he or she improves their behavior.Ginelli (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ginelli (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - As a WP:CAL member, I am familar with Norcalal and have seen his edits. I consider his edits level-headed, mature and beneficial to all the articles he visits. On the other hand, I just reviewed the article in question, San Francisco Bay Area, and see that three other three other editors have reverted Ginelli for the same reasons as Norcalal has. In fact, had I seen the edits, I would have reverted Ginelli too. Ginelli's talkpage is very revealing as well. In this series of DIFFs, Norcalal chose not to template Ginelli by engaging him to discuss the matter.
    From this next DIFF, TJRC made the same attempt to get Ginelli to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. TRJC is one of the other editors who has reverted Ginelli.
    In the next DIFF, TJRC issued Ginelli a formal 3RR warning.
    In this next DIFF, Binksternet notified Ginelli that his actions were being addressed at this board. Binksternet also has reverted Ginelli.
    In the last formal warning on Ginelli's talkpage, TJRC warned him in this DIFF about no no personal attacks.
    It's probably too late for Ginelli to rescind this section or report, I would urge him to do so and apologize to all concerned. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.82.209.127 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: blocked 24h)

    Page: List of Leverage episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 80.82.209.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    The following reversions have all occurred within the past 24 hours

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: An active discussion about this has been underway on the article's talk page at Talk:List of Leverage episodes#Identifying multi-parters since 15 March 2010. (Yes, it's incredibly ridiculous) I told the IP that he needed to discuss the matter here, as several other editors have reverted his edits. Some time after that he made his third revert for today.

    Comments:
    I've only really weighed into this ridiculous situation today, although I did previously comment on 13 June 2010 on the talk page.[37][38] User:80.82.209.127 has clearly been reading the edit summaries so, even though he hasn't engaged in the discussion on the talk page, he has been engaging in discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP is the latest in a long line of IP's which, by the editor's own admission, belong to the same editor, who clearly uses them to evade 3RR,edit war, engage in uncivil editing, and to edit against consensus. The Leverage situation was resolved back in March, until this editor waded in to revert against consensus with the first of his series of single-purpose IP's, which he can clearly change at will. Drmargi (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was resolved until Drmargi started it up again, once, twice and now trice, didn't care to go earlier, all of which came after some time of a stable page. And I can't change my IP at will. Removal of content that is both sourced and accurate is considered vandalism, reverting that surpasses 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.209.127 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While I disagree that it was resolved, even if you think it was, that doesn't give you an excuse to continually edit war. As for not being able to change your IP, that's not what you implied at WP:RFPP.[39] It's very strange how IP editors with dynamic addresses (that usually change each time you disconnect from and then reconnect to the ISP) keep popping up at the same pages claiming they can't change at will.[40] That these "different" IPs all have similar traits such as a reasonable knowledge of how Wikipedia works, all continually forget to sign their posts, all make the same edits to articles, and all claim when challenged that they have a dynamic IP that changes but then just as easily claim that they can't change their IP is rather curious. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    These same editors also make the same arguments and use the same argumentation style (which curiously mirrors that of a registered editor) and all claim superior knowledge of Wikipedia despite having little editing experience substantively limited to this one article. Drmargi (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Not considering any changes by other IPs, the reported IP reverted enough times that it was a clear three-revert rule infringement. After looking at the talk page, there is no clear consensus on that talk page to support the IP's preferred version of the page. I've blocked the IP in question for 24 hours; I've also added the page to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor has now moved back over to 64.111.25.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and reverted again, using the same rationale as the blocked IP above. Drmargi (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Leverage episodes has been semiprotected by User:PeterSymonds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:187.21.128.77 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 48h)

    Page: Matriarchy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 187.21.128.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 18:04, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    2. 18:15, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    3. 19:50, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "")
    4. 21:14, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "see tal k page: they are mentioned on the article --a goddess worship from neolithic to all ancient civlizations")
    5. 10:32, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "use talk page before rv")
    6. 10:53, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "a bit ironic --iam did use talk page --the stuff i brought to this article comes from many outside sources and from wikipedia itself")
    7. 11:18, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "what is the scope of the article? vanish away matriarchy by two men like you?")
    8. 11:38, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "")
    9. 11:51, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Etymology */")
    • Diff of warning: here

    First I'll say I'm sorry I did my last revert as I've hit 3RR, something I try to never to do - I miscounted somehow, and it's too late to revert myself as the IP simply went on to 4RR and reverted me after the warning, also warning me (touche!). I've been trying to work with this editor who has been placing badly sourced material into various articles. Badly sourced (eg see another editor's comment [375757973=1&oldid=375742018] and badly cited -I've given the a link on how to reference, which has been ignored. She's added links to pdfs with no author or title, she doesn't give page numbers when asked etc (I suspect she has used Google Books a lot and in some cases hasn't been able to get a page number, perhaps not even seeing the pages). She's added cites to the wrong sentence which she knows but continues to do. She's also upset that 2 men are disagreeing with her, which is a bit of a PA. I don't particularly want to see her blocked, but she's consciously broken 3RR now (maybe if she'd started to cite/reference correctly I'd be more patient). If anyone has a better idea how to get the IP at least to not do that and to use references correctly (and cite them in the same form used in the articles, with page numbers for verification), that would be great. Perhaps someone uninvolved will get further than I have managed to do, but I think there is probably a gender and pov issue here from the edit summary about 'two men' trying to "vanish away matriarchy." She's clearly enthusiastic, which is good.

    —Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've informed the IP about this report and explained that if she reverts her recent edits I'll plead here that she not be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote to her and offered help. If she replies, I will help in any way I can. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I give up, she's now reverted someone else and continues to edit. She just doesn't get it. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still waiting for her to reply on her talk. Are you concerned about the condition of the article, or is that secondary to helping her get on the right track? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any malice. Just "unbridled enthusiasm", as Kramer once said. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both. She has reverted yet again, what is she at now? Dab and I can hardly edit it at all today without being blocked. Her actual misuse of sources and refusal to discuss the scope of the article is disturbing. I don't want to see the article protected simply because of one IP who won't listen, any content dispute could be worked out but not if one editor is going to ignore all requests to stop edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleared a huge space on her talk with a final plea. If she doesn't listen this time and continues, I feel I should revert her handy work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's that. She edited since my last post at her talk, so saw the orange message bar. She also commented after I first asked her to stop. So, I rolled the two articles back. Sorry to do it. I hope it was an okay call. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guinea pig warrior reported by Bilby (talk) (Result: 72h)

    Page: Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 11:52, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376036281 by 139.230.245.20 (talk)")
    2. 12:23, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Their can't be "two" Port Adelaide clubs established in 1870. The Magpies weren't even Port's mascot until 1902.")
    3. 12:29, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Stop undoing this page. Just discuss this.")
    4. 12:36, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "I have done nothing but provided proof. The "users" you speak of are IP vandals and the "few disagreeing" are experienced editors.")
    5. 12:48, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Please do not start an edit war. Please discuss this.")
    6. 12:59, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "No, this was originally how it was before you started editing on this page. Get you facts right and stop be biased towards yourself with information you make up.")
    7. 13:08, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "My first edit was 26 February, 2009. Now well both be stopped from editing this page if you don't stop.")
    8. 13:14, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Stop being biased towards yourself. I explained what that was and I have told you over 10 times.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Comments:

    Ongoing edit war between Guinea pig warrior and Sequal1. The page was protected on 14 July 2010 for two weeks, edit warring returned when protection expired. The user has had multiple warnings on previous occasions ([41] [42] [43]) in regard to this and related pages. — Bilby (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about 'Guinea pig' but Bilby, the accuser, seems to get into wars fairly often. Glass houses/stones/pots/kettles? Richmondian (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - Blocked 72 hours. The two participants may lack common sense but they are very sincere. Eventually they will wake up and agree on a compromise. Since GPW and Sequal1 have been fighting for a long time, and their actions have required full protection in the past, regrettably this must be a long block. Any hint of reasonableness might be enough for a random admin to lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They are both very sincere, and genuinely seem to mean well. I'd hoped in the past that they would seek dispute resolution, but the third opinion they sought didn't seem to fix things. - Bilby (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sequal1 reported by Bilby (talk) (Result: 72h)

    Page: Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Sequal1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 12:01, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376073567 by Guinea pig warrior (talk) Here we go again. Everyone vs GPW")
    2. 12:26, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376077159 by Guinea pig warrior (talk)You're right, power was established in 1995, Magpies in 1870.")
    3. 12:32, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "I've tried, I've provided proof, you havent. I've had a very open discussion with you. 2 other people agree with me. A impartial 3rd party agreed more with me than you, yet you keep on changing it.")
    4. 12:39, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "No you haven't! The only thing you have provided is a link saying they split! That means nothing! I've provided you the founding date of the AFL Port Adelaide team, which is 1995!")
    5. 12:56, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Stop reverting against the consensus and without WP:RS and I wont. Lets keep this version,the original from before you decided to change it, which nobody but you had a problem with, and discuss it")
    6. 13:06, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "Your first edit changing history: May 9th, my first correction of history: June 29th")
    7. 13:10, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "You stop! You just proved yourself wrong in that link! See the discussion page!!!")
    8. 13:20, 29 July 2010 (edit summary: "See the discussion. I'm not being biased, I have WP:RS to back up my claims.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Comments:

    As per above: edit warring with Guinea pig warrior after protection expired. —Bilby (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The rev av reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 1 week)

    Page: The Rev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: The rev av (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [44]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]


    Comments:
    User is edit warring to keep out an unsourced section template and to keep in a statement of ownership telling other editors not to touch the section. User just came off a block for edit warring to keep in copyvios on another article. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - One week. The editor continued to revert on 29 July after been blocked on 27 July for edit warring and copyright violations. He shows a long-term pattern of article ownership. I hope he realizes that this is his last chance to contribute to Wikipedia. Any admin may lift the block if they think the message has been received. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:StephenBortz reported by WuhWuzDat (Result: 31h)

    Page: Cincinnati Country Day School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 15:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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


    1. 15:07, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    2. 15:10, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    3. 15:15, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    4. 15:15, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    5. 15:16, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    6. 15:31, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    7. 15:37, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")
    8. 15:39, 29 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Notable alumni */")

    User:Lebronfan6 reported by User:Kuyabribri (Result: indefblocked)

    Page: Ron Klein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lebronfan6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [46]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None Comments: User insists on adding the same politically biased text that is not backed up by the source given. Has been informed multiple times that these edits violate WP:SYNTH. User has also been reported as a sock of User:Tarpon1.

    User:92.32.33.49 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Semiprotected)

    Page: List of Serbian monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 92.32.33.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [53]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

    Comments:
    I find it funny that the IP actually suggested that we discuss the issue in one of the summaries of his/her reversions. However, he/she never turned up on the talk page where four users (including me) agreed that a large part of the list needed to be removed. From then on, he/she never said anything in the summaries, not even after I warned him/her. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OX in the BOX reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Indef)

    Page: Gabriel Cousens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: OX in the BOX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [61]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]


    Comments:
    Whitewashing and Deleting well sourced content about homeopathic doctor. (malpractice case, pulled medical license). - MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the article has now been semi protected and the user given a short block due to sock puppetry. - MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.246.156.86 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: Jason Leopold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 76.246.156.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]


    Comments:
    Apparent single purpose account, making changes to Jason Leopold against consensus. User is not willing to discuss the matter civilly, and has claimed to be Leopold's lawyer. Issue goes back this far. Some sort of admin assistance would be appreciated. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Disruption is ongoing and repeated today, IP has a huge COI and simply wants to write his own BLP and is desire less to discuss with experienced users, laughable really. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC). Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    This guy has been asking and asking for a block and instead we protect the article, protect it again, and then add reviewed changes? I say take a look at all the last warnings on his talk page and block him accordingly. Yworo (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the account for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you muchly! 'Course, with his history, he'll likely have to be blocked again as soon as that expires, but we'll cross that bridge, and all that. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: Both blocked)

    Page: Epic of Gilgamesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 02:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 20:11, 28 July 2010 (edit summary: "rvv - see policy on switching articles from BC format to "BCE"")
    2. 00:27, 30 July 2010 (edit summary: "rv - once again according to the policy this should be a BC article, because BC was used from the beginning. It has changed back and forth a few times, but it started out BC. and the E is just stupid")
    3. 02:31, 30 July 2010 (edit summary: "I gave a valid reason. Your reason was "reverting to original format" which is erroneous, as BC is in fact the original and stable format. Find something better to do than date edit war")
    4. 02:47, 30 July 2010 (edit summary: "rvv - your math is wrong on two counts. 1) the original version dates to 2002 2) this is my third and last revert in the last 24 hours. If you continue to date war steps will be taken")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Comments: Please check the user's block log, as he's been repeatedly warned (and blocked) for edit warring on other articles. Thanks.

    —

    02:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

    I have many important things to do on wikipedia, but it is very sad to see that Mann Jess has nothing better to do than follow my contibs around and provoke date format wars etc.. The original format of the article is BC and has been for most of its history, and there is no consensus to keep changing it, and attempts to change it are supposed to be reverted. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no intention of engaging in any disruption here, so I'll leave my reply at this: The date format was apparently stable since at least 2006, until it was changed this year without discussion. Secondly, I was not the first to revert, Wilson44691 was. But most pertinently, you have been repeatedly warned for edit warring on numerous articles, and in fact have been blocked 3 times for just that. I warned you myself, twice, which you saw and ignored prior to your final revert on the article, amounting to 4 in 30 hours. Based on your history, I can only gather you were well aware this was a violation of policy, so I'm really not sure what action you expected on my part. If you have any issues with me or the content of the article in question, please bring them to the article talk page, my talk page, or ANI, as this noticeboard isn't really the place. Thanks. 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    Til's comment in the edit summary 'the e is just stupid' certainly suggests a pov edit. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Three-revert rule not technically violated, and this edit war is extremely stupid. -- tariqabjotu 10:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors blocked Both users were equally culpable in this lame edit-war. Mann's response to my initial decision to decline demonstrates an unsettling and puzzling approach toward edit-warring. For example:
    • "As a result, at this point I'm left with two options. One is to allow him to make the change without establishing consensus (and against policy on date formats), or two, I can engage in an edit war."
    • "I wasn't the initial revert, nor was I asked to discuss on talk."
    -- tariqabjotu 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Windyhead reported by User:Taivo (Result: 24h per ANI)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [64]

    • 1st needless tag: [65] (started adding unnecessary tags here)
    • 2nd needless tag: [66]
    • 3rd needless tag: [67]
    • 4th needless tag: [68]
    • 5th needless tag: [69]
    • 6th needless tag: [70]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71], [72] Editor has also been told multiple times by multiple editors that until he actually reads the sources I have cited, he has no basis for placing these tags or complaining: [73], [74], [75]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76] (last half of that discussion)

    Other editors telling user how to proceed: [77], [78]

    User stubbornly unwilling to check sources: [79]

    User forum shopped to find someone to agree with him (unsuccessfully): [80], [81], and now [82]

    Comments:

    This editor is unwilling to check reliable scholarly sources on his own because they are books rather than websites. Instead he is engaged in a slow-motion edit war adding unnecessary and malicious tags to the paragraph he doesn't like. The paragraph is completely NPOV since it cites both points of view (and well-sourced with both citations and quotations), but based on his own nationalistic POV, he objects to one of the described points of view. Rather than citing his own sources or checking the printed sources, he is simply adding repetitive tags to the article while forum shopping for a willing ear. Multiple editors and administrators have told him that the paragraph is NPOV and that he needs to actually read the books that I have cited, but he continues to tag this paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi, it was actually the reporter who performed numerous reverts for the last few days.

    Previous version reverted to: [83]

    The reporter occupied the page being discussed and reverted every my single edit for the last few days. He is also acting against Wikipedia:Assume good faith by posting everywhere (and here) that his opponent "has not read the sources", degraded to uncivil personal arguments like "his nationalistic POV" (and other personal epithets which I will not report on Edit Warring board), and harassed his opponent by various empty accusations like "forum shopping" and posting an "edit warring" report which contains no single revert diff. Is this how things get moving here? --windyhead (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    None of my reverts violate the 3RR rule. Indeed, the issue is not about me removing malicious tagging without supporting evidence, but about Windyhead wasting time with repetitive, baseless tagging of verifiable, reliably sourced material written in a NPOV way. He is POV pushing without bothering to check sources. --Taivo (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AhMeD BoSS reported by User:Sandman888 (Result: )

    Page: FC Barcelona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AhMeD BoSS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: The diff's are completely equivalent. He reverts to the same version each time.

    • 1st revert: diff
    • 2nd revert: diff
    • 3rd revert: diff
    • 4th revert:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

    Comments: This is not the first time he does this, see his talkpage for more. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    24.224.195.28 reported by Modernist (Result: 72h)

    Page: Steve McQueen (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 24.224.195.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [93]

    Talk page:[111] - This is a clear indication that the IP does not understand wikipedia. I came on this edit war rather late, but this diff indicates the IPs lack of understanding...Modernist (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: IP clearly does not respond to any warning, except to continue the edit war...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Phoenix79 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )

    Page: Bose Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Phoenix79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [112] – First time THX Commercial certification sentence appears in article.

    • 1st revert: [113] 05:32, July 23, 2010
    • 2nd revert: [114] 19:29, July 23, 2010
    • 3rd revert: [115] 10:44, July 27, 2010
    • 4th revert: [116] 11:07, July 27, 2010
    • 5th revert: [117] 22:06, July 27, 2010
    • 6th revert: [118] 05:11, July 29, 2010
    • 7th revert: [119] 10:50, July 29, 2010
    • 8th revert: [120] 07:58, July 31, 2010
    • 9th revert: [121] 08:50, July 31, 2010

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

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bose_Corporation#THX_references, three entries from me, no response from Phoenix79.

    Comments:

    Slow but sure edit war involving this URL:

    Phoenix79 continually removes the URL which establishes that Bose Commercial audio products are not THX certified. It is not a positive statement but it is a true one, so it is neutral and accurate. This is a specific THX "Commercial" webpage where people can look up all commercial audio products which are certified, and there is no Bose. (Note that there is a separate "Home Entertainment" webpage published by THX that has been allowed to stay in the article.) The latest removal of this reference follows three attempts by me to engage Phoenix79 in discussion about the THX bit, but he has not taken part. Even though the above diffs do not include four reverts in any one 24 hour period, I believe they demonstrate a willingness by Phoenix79 to engage in edit warring each time it appears, and a refusal to discuss on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I will point out that I didnt realize the last one was a revert as like I said I was giving this one last shot. I thought I save it twice. My intention was to take this to the WP:RS/Noticeboard if reverted again and allow them to resolve this. The problem is we are both culpable. I have previously stated that the opions section also holds this chritism and it is not needed here. But you have also revered other cited sections from reliable sources
    1. 23:18, 21 July 2010
    2. 22:20, 22 July 2010
    3. 15:11, 23 July 2010
    4. 21:35, 23 July 2010
    5. 15:08, 27 July 2010
    6. 02:40, 29 July 2010
    7. 10:11, 29 July 2010
    8. 22:29, 29 July 2010
    9. 08:35, 31 July 2010
    I still hope that this can be taken up by 3rd parties. Last time I did that my record will show that I waited until the converation ended before making any edits ot the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 71#Bose References. If I wont be allowed, can someone take this to them to get this silly disagreement over? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not characterize the dispute as silly. Not being THX certified is a serious factor in the world of commercial audio. Your removal of this unflattering fact and its reference is a violation of neutral point of view. My insistence that it be in the article is neutral and accurate. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:GabeMc (Result: )

    Page: The Autobiography of Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)



    Diff of edit warring: [132]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138]

    Comments:
    Since June 25th, User:Malik Shabazz has reverted these edits 9 times, the first three are within 24 hours of each other, and the first 6 within about 51 hours. He refuses to engage in the talk page discussion, has ignored talk page RfC consensus, and has supplied scant sources for his claims:


    Reverts from June? Really? Maybe you should re-read WP:EDITWAR, Gabe. This should be closed as stale. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: This isn't the page to bring a content dispute, Gabe. Nice try, though. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale? The edit war is ongoing. In fact, everytime someone has changed the lede to co-author you have reverted them, since June, every time. Also, you made a substantive revert today, here, [139]. So no, this is not stale. It's also not a content dispute Malik, you know that, it's an edit war, but nice try, though you need some work on your red herrings, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be instructional for the closing admin to look at this where nearly every uninvolved user agreed that the author of the Autobiography of Malcolm X was, shockingly, Malcolm X. An editor who was part of that discussion continues editing contrary to an established consensus and then files a report on edits going back over a month should be facing a block. nableezy - 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Reverts from June?" - 9 out of the last 42 edits to The Autobiography of Malcolm X are reverts by Malik, all within the past 35 days, [140].
    @ Nableezy, thanks for that suggestion to the reviewing admin, the link you provided will support my assertion. — GabeMc (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Nableezy, you should look here [141], where I provided 182 WP:RSs that consider Haley a co-author, including Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, UCLA, Stanford, etc...
    There seems to be an RfC open at Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X#Request for Comments: Authorship. If this is the same issue that is causing the reverts, it might be worth it for the RfC participants to ask for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC pertains to the same issue and its 30-day period has elapsed. I'll post a message at WP:AN asking somebody to close it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nableezy, the only two uninvolved editors to comment on the discussion since the it's page protection, [142], and RfC tag, [143], agreed with me, here, [144], and here, [145]. — GabeMc (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here an "uninvolved editor" said Malik's "approach to this situation is not becoming of an admin in my opinion" — GabeMc (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ancient history, Gabe. This complaint is stale. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He is talking about the same edit war in which you made a revert today, how is that stale? It only shows how long you have been warring. — GabeMc (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Here Malik seems to be threatening an edit war to hold up GA status for Roger Waters in retaliation for good-faith editing I have done at The Autobiography of Malcolm X. He made this comment at 16:24 (UTC), and then, this edit, less than four minutes later. His second edit ever to Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gabe, Gabe, Gabe. You've never made any good faith edits. You came to the article to "have the back" of an editor who was blocked for edit warring there. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think what I wrote speaks for itself. If you read all of it, and get a feel for what I was saying in a bigger picture and not focus on that one sentence. I wished I hadn't used that phrase after I typed it, as I knew it would likely confuse Mk, and it did, he missed the whole point, as have you. I can tell you it was not about you, it was about him, it was not personal, it had to do with a good point that could be illustrated by showing him to source and gain concensus to sway opionions versus edit warring. I was trying to convince him to make some friends, a good idea for a disruptive editor I think. — GabeMc (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You should read this edit I made to the same page one hour earlier. — GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @GabeMc: Given the book itself states "as told to" your edits/reverts are little more (if even that) than vandalism and your reporting Malik here is speaks to your conduct, not Malik's. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vecrumba, have you read any of this yet? I provided 182 WP:RSs to support my arguement, Malik provided three. — GabeMc (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vercumba, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." — GabeMc (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Here, are two more editors who think Malik is behaving in a way unbecoming an admin. Here, and here. Here is an editor who thinks Mailk is lying about his threats to edit war. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    user:195.50.69.30 reported by User:mbz1 (Result: Warning, ARBPIA notification)

    Page: Halamish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:195.50.69.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] There's no use.

    Comments: The user is engaged in slow motion edit warring on every article they edit. They add POV, slanderous information, and vandalism [152]. They just got back from a week long block, and again edit warring.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    User:MakmoudHassan reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: indef)

    Resolved
     – blocked for disruption by Toddst1. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Page: Medical University of Łódź (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: MakmoudHassan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [153]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

    Comments:
    Unsourced assertions repeatedly added. I'm surprised no-one gave any WP:OR-warnings... User reverts both vandalism and 3rr warnigs, as well as advice from his talk page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User vandalized this report twice. Reported at AIV Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pointless slander by the above users, if you see my edits you will have seen no cases of vandalism whatsoever. This is case of slander on the part of the above users. My history speaks for itself! MakmoudHassan talk —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    This board is not for vandalism, it is for cases of edit-warring. Your vandalism (to this board) has been reported separately at WP:AIV (by Jusdafax). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I reverted the page once or twice via Huggle and thus am kind of involved. As I told the user via my talk page, replacing promotional wording with wording that makes the school looks subpar is just a violation of WP:NPOV, especially if those assertions are unsourced. 23:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

    Blocked indef as a suspected sockpuppet of ProfessorJane. Elockid (Talk) 00:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ari89 reported by User:Noloop (Result: )

    Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ari89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    [159]

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


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [166]

    Comments:

    None of the above breaches 3RR and all edits were a result of extensive discussions on the talk page. (1) They were over a period of three days and (2) they were not all reverts. For example, the final so-called revert was the fusion of the consensus version and a bold version by another editor. This is part of the consensus building process. It should also be noted that this is not the first time that user:Noloop has made a dubious 3RR report of myself. On the last occasion, user:Noloop was actually blocked. --Ari (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ari89 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result:Blocked for 2 weeks )

    Page: Christ myth theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User reported: Ari89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I added the following before seeing someone else had already reported it; see above. I'll leave this here anyway for background.

    I'd appreciate some help with serial reverting at the above, which has been going on for many months. Ari89 is avoiding 3RR by engaging in partial reverts, and stopping short of the 24-hour deadline. He otherwise does nothing to contribute to the article, and the reverting is making article development close to impossible. Ari has a strong religious POV, and has been blocked five times this year for edit warring on articles related to religion, the last time in May for one week. I offered him the opportunity to self-revert before reporting this, but he engaged in a partial self-revert that made the edit even worse. [167]

    The following is just a snapshot of his reverting at that article. As far back as you look in the history for many months, it's the same story, combined with no actual contributions to the article.

    • Version reverted to: 20:04, July 29, 2010, I removed from the lead that the Christ myth theory has no support among classical historians, after multiple objections to it on talk.
    • Version reverted to: 18:56, July 31, 2010, I removed "classical historians" and added material from a Swedish scholar, Alvar Ellegård

    I asked him on his talk page to self-revert. He said in the edit summary that he was partially self-reverting by removing "classical historians," but he made the edit even more inaccurate by removing "classical" but retaining "historians," and he did not restore Ellegard. [168]

    SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I looked into this and believe that a block of Ari89 for edit-warring is necessary. However, I am not going to block him myself because I have been unable to come a satisfactory decision regarding the most appropriate duration for a block and so prefer to leave this to another admin. CIreland (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a single-purpose account, maybe something topic-related is in order. Noloop (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A singe-purpose account that edits articles from every conceivable area? --Ari (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I went back a year and saw mostly edits about Christianity. Noloop (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no breach of 3RR, and my reverts were on the basis of extensive discussions. This report sounds much more like a misleading attack. For example, there are claims that I have a strong religious POV yet this is not demonstrated. There are claims that I have not contributed to the article, oddly missing out facts that I have written entire sections of the article and am always contributing to the talk page discussions. Furthermore, the so-called reverts from today were not reverts but the fusion of a consensus version and SlimVirgin's non-consensus bold version. This was done to build consensus, implementing both SlimVirgin's bold edits and the consensus version. Abusing the 3RR reporting because SV has a content dispute is not appropriate behaviour, especially from an administrator. --Ari (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes two to tango. Someone had to be restoring the material that Ari was removing. Looking at the page history, looks like SlimVirgin was doing at least 2 reverts. I'd say block them both, and/or protect the page. There is no excuse for edit warring. None. If you don't like that someone reverted you, SlimVirgin, don't restore the content, but discuss it. If you don't like new content, Ari, don't keep removing it. Both of you should know better. -Andrew c [talk] 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ari89 has a warring approach to things, as is seen on Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus, for a long time. Noloop (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean those articles where much of the talk page content is me discussing many issues? Noloop, your personal distaste for me was noted on the various noticeboards that rejected your allegations against myself and other users. --Ari (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks I'm not going to block SlimVirgin, because she didn't toe the 3RR line. To Ari; avoiding the 3RR by a matter of minutes is not a defence to edit warring, and your edits, while not classical undos, clearly meet the relevant definition of reverting, "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Courcelles (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AgadaUrbanit reported by User:Nableezy (Result: )

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

    Each rv explained

    1. 01:04, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376224881 by Cryptonio (talk) Ooops") --labeled a rv
    2. 02:16, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 376358512 by Cryptonio (talk) Per Talk:Gaza_War#POV_tag")--labeled a rv
    3. 03:12, 31 July 2010 (edit summary: "Since the dispute was not resolved it is inappropriate to remove the tag. Removing the tag will not cause the dispute to disappear. Some article are special, no shame about it.")--reinserts pov tag as before
    4. 00:43, 1 August 2010 (edit summary: "per Nableezy, avoid WP:WEASEL. Still without solid evidence we can not state is as fact. Sometimes reliable source claim.")--reinserts "commentators claim" as in this edit


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [169]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gaza War#POV tag

    Comments:
    nableezy - 01:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Guess this is reaction to wacky discussion. Cryptonio was clearly wacky warring. Changes with Nableezy are incremental improvement effort with phrasing coined via discussion and balancing his remarks. It is sad that Nableezy prefers notice board festival to sources discussion on article talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=376530717"