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 Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) at 01:41, 25 October 2010 (→‎User:DinDraithou). 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:DDF19483 reported by User:Attilios

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

    This user (probably an Italian one from Teramo, as he edits only this article), is continuously reverting the article to this version, reverting all modifications made between this version and his first reverts.

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

    I tried to warn him to stop revert the article to his rather crude version, but he did not reply and continued in his reverting actions. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Warned Both of you are at 3R, so this pretty much needs to stop, the next revert will draw a block. Courcelles 09:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How can we be both at 3RR? My reverts are just the deletion of his ones! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And his are just the deletion of yours. See how this goes both ways? - CETTALK 10:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tintor2 reported by User:68.55.153.254 (Result: stale)

    Page: Cloud Strife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Tifa Lockhart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Barret Wallace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Vincent Valentine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Aerith Gainsborough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tintor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Basically, he continually adds the same 1Up.com article back that the consensus agreed to remove.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cloud Strife

    Comments: The majority of the issue can be found in the talk page listed above. Basically, I had found a fantasy casting article being included in several Final Fantasy 7 character articles about who should play them in a live-action movie. I believed them to non-essential to the pages, and in violation of various policies, which were brought up in the talk above. They were put back and I was asked to achieve a consensus before removing them again. Well, the discussion went on for about a week, with all other users who commented agreeing with my side of the discussion, so that makes it a consensus, and I removed them again, but the user has continually put them back up, sometimes trying to reword them to dodge the problem, but the problem is the article itself, not the wording. I've even tried the dispute resolution of asking for a comment from those outside of the issue. I've put them back several times on some of the pages, and when was warned of getting too close to violating 3RR myself, I consulted the user who warned me and he suggested using this page to help resolve the matter. As of reporting this, several of the edits are still up, but I know at least the ones for Cloud, Vincent, and Tifa have been reverted.68.55.153.254 (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As the discussion contined, the anon brought various issues such as crystal ball (the article says it is not happening so it is not), and being a selfpublished source (1UP is owned by UGO Entertainment and is listed as a reliable source by the video games wikiproject, so it's not). Other users brought reasonable issues such as being undue or trivia, and that's why I modified the article's sources to focus in the reception and keeping them in context with all the paragraphs. However, the anon keeps saying that a fan casting is useless and considers that there has been already a consensus although the current form from the sources do not violate any guideline. Moreover, apparently a sock kept removing the sources, while in later hours, the anon removed one from Vincent Valentine alongside another valuable source, that's why I reverted such edits.Tintor2 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional comments by Sven Manguard

    I was the person that added the 3RR tags to both users in this issue, and it spilled onto my talk page. User:Tintor2 is clearly at fault in this situation. I attempted to explain to him that he was acting against consensus in the matter discussed in the Cloud talk page, and he refused to even acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong. Whereas my interactions with 68.55.153.254 have shown me that he was acting in good faith and was simply unaware of the finer points of 3RR, my interactions with Tintor2 show me the opposite. Tintor2's refusal to be reasonable in the Cloud talk page, refusal to be reasonable in my talk page, and refusal to stop posting on my talk page when I stated that I did not want the arguments in the matter to be aired in my userspace (I believe the proper place for such arguments is here at EW or the cloud talkpage where the rest of the arguments are.) demonstrate that the user does not understand how to cooperate with others or act in a rational manner in content disputes. He was blocked in June for violating 3RR as well, which leaves him no excuse as to his actions.

    • I recommend that 68.55.153.254 not be punished (he has modified his behavior and acted in proper form since the warning, demonstrates remorse, and has no block history)
    • I recommend that Tintor2 be blocked for at least two weeks (he has not modified his behavior, demonstrates combativeness, and has a 3RR block history)

    Also of note, 68.55.153.254 mentioned on my talk page that Tintor2 has been making the same edits recently. I did not check on this, other than to see that he has been editing FFVII pages, but I explicitly warned Tintor2 that he needed to stop edit warring, both by way of the template, and in my talk page where I said it in plain words to his face. If he is indeed continuing to edit war, this concerns me. Sven Manguard Talk 02:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I already accepted my mistake when first adding the sources, but when I told Sven Manguard, he just ignored me and undid my comment from his talk page, not wanting to be involved. I have already stated in the talk page of Cloud Strife about such revision, but the anon keeps calling it "useless". I already explained the reasons for the revert in Cloud and Vincent above.Tintor2 (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not at all true. I undid one of your comments after asking for you to stop making the arguments on my page three times. The third time I explicitly stated that further postings on my page in regards to the issue would be removed. And that is exactly what I did. Your behavior in the issue wore out my patience, and I felt that the only way to get you to stop posting the arguments in my user-space was to remove them. Sven Manguard Talk 02:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If you seriously expect anybody to be sanctioned for edit warring here , you need to provide actual evidence of edit warring in the form of diffs. It is unlikely any admin is going to be willing to wade through all that extended back-and-forth across multiple pages. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I'd agree, but it's literally the most recent changes in every one of the listed articles, just click on history. Do I really need to do 20 diffs for you? You don't have to dig at all. Sven Manguard Talk 03:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that explanation helps. Even so, I looked at the histories and couldn't make out what is going on -- but I'll convert my decline into a comment so that somebody else may take a look at this. Looie496 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TLDR version: The IP is removing fantasy castings by 1UP, per clear consensus at talk:Cloud Strife that there are several issues with having them in the articles. Every time the 1UP castings are removed, Tintor2 puts them back in. Sven Manguard Talk 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I say again, I agreed consensus was right in the first time. As a result, I revised such sources to leave more in context than most of all the other sentences in reception and avoiding violation of undue and trivia, but the anon keeps saying they still violate such guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes, admins "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the page history. This is especially true when you give us half a dozen pages. Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cloud

    #1 #2 #3 #4

    • Tifa

    #1 #2 #3 #4

    • There are also 5 on Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), 3 on Barret Wallace, 5 on Vincent Valentine, and 3 on Aerith Gainsborough. Please do not make me do all of these links.

    Sven Manguard Talk 02:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The last I undo was in Vincent Valentine due to the fact the anon also removed another source. In Cloud's, as you see in his history there were some socks editing the article, removing the exact same source. Moreover, the anon kept saying there was consensus and cited guidelines even though the revised sentences didn't break such guidelines. Additionally, the anon first removed these sentences without even discussing. Even the last ones the users posted were the revised ones which the anon kept reverting saying they still violating guidelines although they were more in context that most of the ones used in the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added various diffs of examples of this happening, and I see they can probably be put in conjunction with Sven's examples as I think he may have done a few I missed. Also, I've noticed the accusations being put out by Tintor of me using sock puppetry or some such dealing, which I've never done during this whole time, nor has anyone else who was involved in the discussion on the talk page during this incident to my knowledge. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The same could be said for your accusations of edit war when there was no consensus regarding revising the sentences, and you removed them. All of those are included in the last diffs you added.Tintor2 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was said or explained to you various times in the talk page that the problem is the article in and of itself, no matter how you word it on the various pages. I'm not going to start arguing with you about this again over here as well. I've given the evidence to the admins that was asked for, and I'm going to let them handle it now. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my f**king god. Both of you have worn out my patience. Tintor2: Stop with the baiting, you're wrong on consensus, and if the 3RR doesn't get you blocked, the baiting will. IP: Stop taking the damned bait. You're going to be seen as being just as guilty if you keep falling into these petty arguments. I swear that if this continues, I will go to ANI and ask for both of you to be blocked for disruptive editing. I'm sure that had this been any number of other users, that step would have already been taken. Stop. Now. I mean it. Sven Manguard Talk 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale Reported user does not appear to have edited any of the articles reported since October 16. T. Canens (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah well. I don't intend on following this anymore anyways. In fact, I really don't enjoy the prospect of them ever showing up anywhere in my user space again. Their ignoring of the whole "keep the battles outside of my user talk" thing left an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Now in a week I won't be able to tell the difference between this IP and any other IP address, my memory isn't that great, but I don't ever want to see Tintor2 in my user space again. He was... unpleasant to deal with. I am so very glad this is now over. And as far as I am concerned, this is now over. Sven Manguard Talk 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, if it's over then don't comment and learn some wp:civility. Tintor2 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony in the above statement is appalling. Goodbye Tintor2. Sven Manguard Talk 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And you keep commenting... By the way, the anon keeps removing content from the articles here, here and here just pointing there is consensus and pointing to the talk page. The anon still does not state what is the guideline for such removal of content.Tintor2 (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, about some days ago, I started a discussion on the anon's talk page about the reason for such removal, but he did not respond. He just keeps saying it's because of consensus, but for what guideline?Tintor2 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted edits per invalid rationale per wp:consensus (the only reason was "consensus reached, but no guideline) and lack of discussion from anon in talk page makes it wp:disruptive editing.Tintor2 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    user:hamiltonstone reported by user:KBlott(Result: protected)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    This is ANEW. Please do not continue disputes here. Courcelles 10:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Previous version reverted to: HIV#AIDS denialism

    Since the FDA approval of AZT, there has been a lively debate within the HIV community about when to initiate antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection. The scientific questions surrounding this debate were settled long ago. However, the debate has continued within the HIV community. Anthony Fauci is a medical doctor who is a champion of the denialist side of this debate. Fauci is not a virologist. I have initiated a discussion of this debate on the HIV page and have revised the text many times in response to criticism from hamiltonstone. This issue was discussed exhaustively on the HIV talk page. No version of the text has satisfied this individual. [21]

    I am content to continue revising the text in response to legitimate concerns. However, it is apparent from hamiltonstone's behavior that no discussion of this debate is acceptable to him. I am uncertain as to the correct procedure for resolving this intractable dispute.

    Please advise me how to proceed.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:HIV#Treatment denialism

    Comments:

    KBlott (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • If anything you deserve a block, I see four reverts from you (I include the first edit a revert as you readded information that was reverted October 13). Hamiltonstone wasn't even warned, and his block record is clean. Recommend no block for him, block for KBlott. Secret account 18:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Page protected No one is getting blocked for this. Discussion is good... discussion and continued edit warring? Not so much. This will give you 48 hours to sort it all out. Courcelles 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the point in protecting a high profile article if it's two editors edit warring, one of whom knew the 3rr rules easily by posting here. Secret account 19:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Antiretroviral therapy is now offered to all people with HIV/AIDS who are ready to use these drugs responsibly. [26] (Irresponsible use of these drugs represents a public health threat, since these drugs can potentially select for multidrug resistant genotypes [27] which can be transmitted sexually.) The science of how to use these drugs properly was worked out long ago, however there continues to be considerable denialism among the HIV population. Secret would seem to belong to this (still quite large) group of (lay) denialists. It may be possible to convince him that his views are incorrect. We now know that individuals who delay therapy until their CD4 counts fall below 500 double their risk of mortality [28] and researchers now admit that the (thankfully) past practice of delaying therapy never had an empirical basis. [29] Fauci, Hamiltonstone, and (it would seem) Secret belong to a steadily shrinking group of people who believe that this practice had scientific rational. Denialists are very stubborn and I do not believe that Hamiltonstone is likely to change his mind. No one has violated the three revert rule as the four diffs listed above occurred overed a period of three days. It is apparent, however, that this discussion needs to be with Secret, not Hamiltonstone. KBlott (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not under the impression of your conspiracy theory, it's not my area of expertise so I don't care, all i saw was that you started an edit war, after edit warring a few days prior on a high-profile page and that Hamiltonstone wasn't even warned that he was violating 3rr. Secret account 00:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Response I thank User:Secret for drawing this discussion to my attention, and note that User:KBlott did not do so. Here's a narrative explanation of the history, which essentially shows (1) that I was willing to discuss at the talk page, while KBlott either did not, or when doing so did not address questions raised by other editors; (2) that there was no consensus for KBlott's changes, and despite both Scray and I showing some support for aspects of KBlott's edits, KBlott did not listen to our points and (3) in the final phase WP:BLP was involved, which is why I took a harder line at that point. I am distressed to think my good record as an editor with a strong commitment to NPOV and WP:RS would be questioned here because of my actions.
    On 10 October KBlott made some edits that revised the text and introduced material about when treatment should be commenced. Another editor, User:Scray, appeared to have some concerns about the wording and revised it somewhat. Seemingly not happy with that edit by Scray, KBlott left a brief statement on the article talk page (to their credit), then made a further change reintroducing a version of that material, in the form of a section that would then become the subject of discussion on the talk page, some reverting, and ultimately this complaint.
    At 8:42 on 11 Oct I left a detailed response to KBlott on the talk page, indicating that I intended to revert. Scray also commented at the talk page generally agreeing with my argument. KBlott then made a comment at the talk page that did not respond to our concerns and made some minor edits on the article that did not address then either. There was further discussion on the talk page for a few hours, which fundamentally did not address the concerns raised by Scray and myself, particularly regarding sourcing, and eventually at 15:44 I reverted the added section. Remember that at this point, the issue about when to commence treatment was, and still is, addressed in the "Treatment" section of the article. It was never anyone's argument that this should not be covered. KBlott added a couple more items on the talk page on the evening of 11 October, but they still did not address the issues raised by Scray and I. Scray said as much, and there that matter rested for a little while.
    KBlott then made further additions of detail to the treatment section of the article. I then copyedited this for style and length issues, but without removing substantive content - the point being, I have never shown an objection to appropriate coverage of these issues under "Treatment".
    Two days later, KBlott starts what looks like an attempt to reintroduce similar material, and promptly gets reverted by another editor, User:TechBear.
    Nothing happens for six days. Then, at 6:50 on 20 October, KBlott makes a heading change that looks like the start of the same thing again. I revert it at 9:09 with an edit summary saying "This has been addressed at the talk page - please don't reintroduce this again without consensus". KBlott reverts without any post at talk, but with an edit summary "Re-read the text. The definition of denialism includes "the validity of ... treatment methods." Consensus therefore exists, except among denialists (such as yourself).)" At 9:55 I explain at KBlott's talk page and at 9:57 on the article talk page, and after doing that, I reverted again, repeating in the edit summary a request that this be discussed. But KBlott does not discuss.
    At 13:55 on the 20th, User:Mastcell tightens the existing text in the AIDS Denialism section, leaving an edit summary "this section needs to be clearer". At 10:40 on the 21st, KBlott takes this as an invitation to reintroduce a version of the same objectionable material, once again with no attempt to discuss it on the talk page. This new material is much worse, because in addition to pushing a POV, not gaining consensus on the talk page, and not having references that actually back the text's claim, it also violates WP:BLP.
    KBlott is still not discussing on the talk page: I give a long explanation of why this text is problematic and revert it, warning in the edit summary that this needs proper discussion or I will bring the issue to a bulletin board. This single, irrelevant, sentence is all KBlott posts on the talk page, and then KBlott reverts to their own text. KBlott obviously read my post at the talk page, because they then made a change that looked like they were trying to address the BLP issue. Unfortunately, the ref didn't support KBlott's case at all, as I carefully explained on the talk page before reverting and stating in the edit summary that if this was changed without consensus at talk I would take this issue to WP:ANI or WP:BLPN.
    In summary - I have always explained my actions at talk and in edit summaries; KBlott has only occasionally engaged on the talk page, but in doing so has overwhelmingly not addressed the issues raised by either myself or Scray, nor appears to have seen TechBear's edit as another clue that s/he has a problem with gaining consensus for the changes. On a minor note, I never reverted three times in 24hrs, though I accept it is the broader editing pattern that is in question. Particularly given that there was a BLP issue involved in the last phase, I stand by my actions, with the exception that I wish I had brought it to ANI or BLPN sooner, rather than ending up with this here. Thank you to Courcelles for the temporary protection, but based on the content at Talk:HIV I'm not sure it is going to help in the long run. We will see. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Every word that I have added to the denailism section of the HIV page has been reverted by hamiltonstone. Most other users are willing to discuss. As hamiltonstone himself admits, he finds the "Hit early, hit hard" discussion in the context of denialism objectionable. It is not possible to couch this discussion in any way that would satisfy hamiltonstone. He demands silence on this subject.
    Hamiltonstone's denialism is very common. Secret's "conspiracy theory" comment is, ignorant, offensive, and unhelpful. KBlott (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have posted a copy of my proposed revisions to the Denialism section of the HIV page on Hamiltonstone's talk page. [30] So far, Hamiltonstone has not availed himself of an opportunity to edit the text. [31] This is not surprising, as Hamiltonstone objects to any discussion of Fauci denialism. I will give him another day to edit the text. Then I will copy the text to the HIV talk page to give other members of the HIV community an opportunity to edit it. KBlott (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This belongs on Talk:HIV, not here or on hamiltonstone's talk page. Your persistent attacks on a prominent (arguably 'the' most prominent) HIV researcher are unproductive. You seem to have great knowledge, but you need to gain a greater understanding of how WikiPedia works - particularly the laser-like focus on edits and their sources, not the expertise of the editor. -- Scray (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and as I said on my talk page some time ago, I will not comment on text there. Per Scray, this belongs at Talk:HIV, where all editors can comment on it. If and when that is done, I will express views there. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


    User:JCAla reported by User:Jrkso (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [32]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

    Comments: JCAla is very disruptive and annoying, he is damaging articles by writing all sort of political nonsense [40]. He completely removes sourced info that he doesn't like to see [41]. I tagged the article and the tags state not to remove until the discussion is over but he removes them without even bothering to explain [42]. He is manupilated the situation, he uses sources of no value and blames that on me. Me on the other hand, I'm using The World Factbook, Library of Congress Country Studies, Britannica, USAID, Center for Applied Linguistics, U.S. State Department, and other valuable sources. See example of how I organized the Afghanistan#Demographics section [43]. I also organized most of all the sections on this page from Afghanistan#Government and politics all the way down.

    JCAla's edits are wild and crazy POVs that don't belong in Wikipedia, not only confusing they are also misleading. He wants to make one particular group (Northern Alliance) as heros but all the rest (including US-allies Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others) as the evil and bad people. The Northern Alliance are widely known as terrorists, butchers, and warlords [44] but JCAla who I suspect is a member of this group is praising them in Wikipedia.

    OPTIONAL: There's also similarities between JCAla and User:Tajik as they both are opposing my edits and blaming me for "distortion" when in fact I'm doing the very opposit of that.

    There are many other similarities such as both being Afghan editors, the matching level of English and POVs, marking "minor edits", doing occasional edits, etc. I may be wrong but I think one is used as a proxy or a sock of the other, there sure is a connection. [45], [46].--Jrkso (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours I note that Jrkso could also have been blocked for personal attacks, such as "You are pushing uneducated stupid POVs and destroying the article.", in Talk:Afghanistan. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:85.211.77.113 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: Roger Scruton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 85.211.77.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 85.211.64.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • 1st edit 02:47, October 22, 2010. This edit does two things: (1) it removes "Jonathan Dollimore writes that Scruton's Sexual Desire (1986) attempts to ..." and (2) it changes "students at St Andrews University ... have expressed concern to "some students" etc.
    Comments

    An anon has arrived at Roger Scruton, a BLP, and is reverting against two editors. I've left two 3RR warnings for him, but it has made no difference. He may have some knowledge of 3RR, because after his first three edits, he continued to push the same point but in a different way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He has also added a snarky comment to talk, and has reverted to it three times. [47] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Semi-protection might be the next option if the problem resumes. Looie496 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Das Baz reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: 31h)

    Page: 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Das Baz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [48]


    This report is not about a violation of 3rr, but edit warring in general. This editor continues to revert even during active discussion on the talk page, which has indeed shown consensus is against them. Even further, they have called those that disagree with them vandals. Diffs for the latter can easily be added if required.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User being warned by admin that edit warring is not allowed.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The discussion is still ongoing, but only because the user persists in pushing for their edit. Consensus is against them.

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — Long-term; clear consensus against his edits; prior ANI incident. --slakr\ talk / 02:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.9.50.251 reported by User:Cosmopolitan (Result: 31h)

    Page: Steam (software) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 24.9.50.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [59]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]
    Diff of NPOV warning: [67]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

    Comments: User is anonymous, uncommunicative, and has been warned, but continues to add the same paragraph, after 3 different users have reverted his edits. The content he wishes to add is clearly questionable (bordering on vandalism), and uses a source that is not credible. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:111.220.221.191 reported by User:Lear's Fool (Result:Page semi-protected 90 days)

    Page: Patricia Petersen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is editing from a dynamic IP, so warning was given on article talkpage, see below.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Patricia Petersen

    Comments:

    The conduct of this editor does not constitute a violation of the three-revert-rule (the reverts have been over the space of a week or two), but a quick look at the history of this article will show that it is edit warring of a variety where administator intervention is neccessary. The editor (who is clearly editing from a conflict of interest) has been directed to the talkpage a number of times by a number of editors (see the article history), and has continued to revert without explanation, sometimes over a number of edits and sometimes with one. Similar conduct by the same editor led to a report to this noticeboard and subsequent semi-protection in June (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive132#User:111.220.249.29 reported by User:Lear's Fool (Result: Semi)). This has also been reported to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (see Wikipedia:COIN#Patricia Petersen).  -- Lear's Fool 10:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Given BLP Issues & dynamic IP (older IP's don't fit into the range of recent/reported ones), semi-protected for 90 days. Skier Dude (talk 17:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.114.188.40 reported by Eastcote (talk) (Result:4 day block )

    Page: Southern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 71.114.188.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 05:05, 21 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
    2. 18:28, 21 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
    3. 04:00, 22 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
    4. 19:16, 22 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
    5. 21:51, 22 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
    6. 06:43, 23 October 2010 (edit summary: "")

    Diff of warning: [69]

    Resolution has not been attempted on Talk Page. The user is deleting content without comments. Several editors have replaced the deleted text, with the addition of references and additional information, but the IP user continues to delete the content. Eastcote (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing & continued section blanking - 4 day block Skier Dude (talk 17:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xenophrenic reported by User:SpecialKCL66 (Result: Reporter blocked 48h)

    Page: ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy&oldid=392295653


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

    Comments:

    I'm not completely sure that this is a 3RR violation, but I think it pretty clearly is edit warring. I'm fairy sure it qualifies as a 3RR violation as well. Several days ago I endeavored to review the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy because there were a number of mistakes I noticed, and because I also wanted to review the general neutrality of the wiki page with many of those who had been interested in the page previously. I proposed a very methodical approach to going through the page and addressing its issues. I have discussed all proposed changes of any concievable significance before making those changes on the talk page in order to avoid controversy or editing conflicts. In every case of significance, I and others working with me have waited for responses before making changes. Most of the changes by far were very minor changes involving consolidating links, grammar, punctuation, minor wording changes, and the like. This process seemed to be going quite well. All of this can be viewed on the talk page here, which currently contains everything from the beginning of this process until now. One major hang-up, which I've noticed from the archives has also been a considerable hang-up in the past, is the issue of describing the undercover videos involved in the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, specifically with words like "misleadingly edited," "heavily edited," "selectively edited" etc., how those words should be presented and interpreted, and what weight should be given to them. After discussing this issue somewhat at length, I decided not to make changes regarding that issue and to come back to the issue later after working with the others on less controversial issues, which we did and made considerable progress. The current issue stems from the user in question's decision to make considerable edits in the lede regarding this heavily disputed issue without any kind of productive discussion or consensus. After he first made the changes with no discussion, I reverted, noted that the issue was heavily disputed, and requested that he work with me on the talk page regarding the changes he wanted to make. While trying to discuss the matter with him, I discovered that he was simply reinstating his original changes before any meaningful discussion had taken place. After making an initial comment, his actions made it clear he had little to no interest in discussing the issue in a productive fashion, as he continued to reinstate his changes at the same time he made whatever limited comments on the talk page that he has made on this issue. Eventually, he made it clear that his strategy would be to hold hostage all of the previous edits that had been made - a considerable number conisting overwhelmingly of minor edits, grammar, etc, as well as some relativey uncontroversial corrections of fact, etc., almost all of which were discussed on the talk page first, and to none of which he has made any objection, even now - unless he got his way on the current issue at hand. Though he had not made 4 reverts at the time of this change in strategy, I believe it constitutes obvious edit warring. However, he then eventually went on to make what I believe was his 4th revert anyway in the disputed section. He still shows litte to no interest in discussing much of anything on the talk page in a meaningful fashion. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not misrepresent this situation, SpecialKCL66. You, myself and AzureCitizen have made new edits to the relatively stable article over the past 3 days. AzureCitizen said his edits were "bold" and to revert them if necessary (see his edit summary). You also made bold changes, as did I. After you repeatedly reverted every one of my edits, I returned the article to its stable state pending more obviously needed discussion (see my edit summary here). Yet you still reverted, insisting that your edits must remain while we continue discussions. You are holding the article hostage. I encourage you to discuss the issues you have with our proposed edits, instead of just repeatedly reverting. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. The reporting (SPA) editor who was just recently blocked for violating 3rr did just the very same again and I find it quite stunning that they file a report that seems not to be as clear cut as they think unlike their own violation of the same indeed is. A quick look at User:SpecialKCL66's constributions [76] at ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy showes no less than four reverts in a very short time. The editor is also well aware of the 3rr rule as his talkpage history showes.TMCk (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is correct that I was previously blocked for violating the 3rr rule. I had just begun my account on wikipedia (I'm still relatively new, but I've been learning fast) and had little understanding of the rules. I believe if you look at my overall record since then you will see that I have been extremely methodical and cooperative in my editing approach, and I discuss everything very thoroughly on the talk pages. So far, there are only two pages that I have been working on; I figure that's a decent starting point. How have I made a 3rr violation? I'm pretty sure I have not... I explained the situation quite thoroughly above. You claim I have made "four reverts in a very short time." I believe the fourth revert to which you must be referring is my reverting of the massive deletions that Xenophrenic is "holding hostage" as I explained above. If you review the situation, I believe you will understand what Xenophrenic is trying to do. It is a thinly veiled effort at disguising his edit warring by threatening to remove all other work if he doesn't get his way.SpecialKCL66 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I see is that you're still in denial especially when referring to your last revert as "...my reverting of the massive deletions that Xenophrenic is "holding hostage"...". Besides that you forgot about wp:AGF, if not covered by BLP or vandalism a revert is a revert and you know that after it was explained on you talkpage before. One advise: Don't file any report about edit waring when sitting in a glass house. BTW, I saw your breach of 3rr this morning long before you filed your report here but I chose not to report but now you brought your own shovel to dig your own hole.TMCk (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, also, if you're looking at my user page, it may look like I've made a lot more reverts, but that is because the user in question's changes frequently involved making multiple changes at one time to he same portion of the wiki page, so I was simply reverting them in sequence. That is effectively one revert. If you examine more closely, you will see that it amounts to only 3 reverts of the same text. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't count the one's in sequense. I know the rules and counted right.TMCk (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The 4 diffs given above do not show 3 reverts. In addition, the editing (and the edit warring) on this article ceased more than 8 hours ago, so blocking individual editors would be punitive. However, similar activity could result in the page being protected, or one or both editors being blocked -- so now would be a good time to commit to discussion until the issues are resolved. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Was my initial assumption correct regarding what you were couting as a fourth revert? You must be referring to my reversion of what I have described as the content Xenophrenic is "holding hostage." That is not a revert of the same text. It was only an effort to restore what was considerable work over several says by multiple users involving pretty much completely non-controversial content, pretty much all of which was discussed on the talk page and resulted from cooperation from the users involved. Xenophrenic effectively makes it clear in the talk page that if he didn't get his way on one issue, he was going do destroy all of that other work and progress that had been made, even though he still hasn't made a single objection to any of it. I have specifically held off on correcting Xenophrenic's 4th revert. That is why I had to file this complaint. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for the 8 hour hiatus is because you made a 4th revert after I said I was going to bed. I would be happy to commit to discussion, but every time I do, you go ahead and make your own changes before any meaningful discussion takes place... SpecialKCL66 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, please. Wikipedia doesn't close when one goes to sleep. WP is open 24/7 :) TMCk (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he was pointing out that when he left, the edit warring stopped. ;-) I've seen no other editors making rapid-fire reverts of perfectly good edits (most were repairs of deadlinks, for monkeys sake!) on that article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - comment - I do so dislike such reports, A good report is like this ... you see your opposite editors has made three reverts and then you give him a warning template and then he reverts again so you go to his talkpage and say hey that is four reverts, please please self revert you last edit or I will be forced to report you. If the user refuses to self revert you havbe done your best in good faith and you can report him and it will be a strong case.

    I note this because, users are simply giving a warning as a part of the process but not acting on it correctly, after this warning was given there was no more reverting, so there should be no report, the warning was given because it was required but it was given and the report made out of process and as such the warning was worthless, a false warning so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Off2riorob, what you will see on the talk page is that I gave a warning there, which Xenophrenic saw, and then went on to continue reverting and continue his strategy of holding all other work hostage. Look at the talk page. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC) On top of that, it looks like Xenophrenic has kept on making major edits, including regarding disputed portions and over disputed issues (weight for example) without any interest in discussing, and less interest in consensus. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not as I can see, there is no clear 3RR warning on the talkpage ether, anyways, 3RR warnings are to be placed on a users talkpage so that he is sure to see it and it is clear. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim that "Xenophrenic is holding all other work hostage" was disproven above. SpecialKCL66, why not make it easy on the administrators and commit to resolving whatever issues remain on the talk page instead of resorting to edit warring? It is still possible for everyone to come out a winner here. With the warring (all edits, in fact) having ended a long time ago, this isn't the place to carry on editing discussions. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Off2riorob and Xenophrenic!
    Still for SIKL's understanding of what are considerd reverts, here are the diffs of your [SpecialKCL66's] reverts:
    1st row: [77]
    2nd row: [78]
    3rd row: [79]
    4th single rv.: [80]
    Any further questions?TMCk (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What I see here is that there is enormous obfuscation going on here, and I'm beginning to wonder if the strategy at work here is to fill up this page with as much obfuscation as possible to make it unreadable to any admin. I will therefore refrain from further comment within this complaint, and I will gladly speak with whichever admin reviews this situation and document what is going on here. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you withdraw the complaint and move back to discussion, there is a lot of discussion on the talk and it doesn't seem to have broken down, and I am sure the withdrawal of the complaint will be a sign of good will and benefit the discussion and outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your perogative. Or, we can commit to working out the problems on the talk page, instead of edit warring, and we can get back to some productive work here. Consider this my reiteration of intent to do the same. The warring has apparently already stopped, so now we just need the discussion part. Otherwise this just appears to be an exercise of retribution, or an attempt at getting everything locked down. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Damnit, Off2riorob keeps typing out my thoughts faster than I do... you're making me look silly!) -Xeno
    Do you need a new keyboard or set of fingers? You know, we could start a fundraiser for you, Xeno :) TMCk (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2riorob, I would, but while I have stopped edit warring, Xeno kept right on making his edits to the section in question with zero producive discussion on the talk page and no effort to reach consensus. I have repeatedly tried to encourage him to engage in the methodical, cooperative, and highly productive process that was previously taking place, but every time I try, he goes right on repeatedly inserting his own significant and/or disputed edits at will - even now - with no effort at consensus. He has made assertions that he doesn't want to edit war, or that he wants to cooperate previously, and they have all been phony. I don't think I have any choice but to wait for an Admin to review this and explain the situation to him. I felt I had to address that point, so I will now wait for an admin before making further comment. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, good luck then, although I don't think you'll get the result you're hoping for.TMCk (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SpecialKCL66, any admin can easily verify that neither of us have made edits to the article in the last 10 hours, and you were the one to abandon discussions in favor of repeated reverting last night. Even as I type this, you still haven't explained what specific issue you have with any of my edits that you reverted, so that those issues could be addressed. (Go ahead, I challenge you to provide a single diff from the talk page.) So again, please don't misrepresent the situation to whomever is reading this. I'm returning to the talk page now; it would be good to have your constructive input. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, actually you are correct that no one has made edits in 10 hours. I was mistaken. time zones... I will strike those comments. It is not remotely the case, however, that I haven't explained what issue I had with your edits. You've got to be kidding. I even noted it above in this complaint. I thought I should acknowledge where you were correct, however, and strike the comments of mine in this complaint that were incorrect. Then, previous policy reinstated. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the corrections. Thank you also for not continuing to edit war. However, since we still have content disagreements, it would be appreciated if you would help resolve them at the article talk page. As I noted above, you haven't yet explained what issues you have with my edits that you have reverted; you just reverted them, claiming they needed to be discussed first. Discussion is great, and I did my part by explaining the reason behind my edits, but discussion must be a two-way street. You still haven't (not on this noticeboard, nor on the article talk page) explained what issue(s) you have with my edits, so that I can work to address them. You claim you have explained the issues here and on the talk page, but I've double-checked and it simply isn't there. Every time I ask you for a diff of these explanations, you fall silent. If you aren't going to work with me on this, should I take that as an indication that it is okay with you if I return the edits to the article that you reverted away last night? A little help here, please. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, SpecialKCL66? Canvassing other Admins with whom you've previously interacted on related matters to comment here? The edits from everyone stopped last night. How about you just spell out what your goal is with all of this; maybe I can help you to achieve it. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not blocked The reporting editor, however, is blocked for 48 hours. Xenophrenic violated 3RR but was not warned until afterward, and did not revert again after being warned. However, SpecialKCL66 also violated 3RR and does not require a warning because the filing of this report demonstrates understanding of the 3RR rule in itself. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that decision. Clearly undoing without explanation. Good job. Minimac (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree whole-heartedly with that. Xenophrenic has thousands of edits over 3+ years, and blocks before. We don't give patronizing warnings for editors who know better. I ask you to reconsider that decision Looie. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have agreed with a block for both users but now it's too late, been over a day already. Secret account 17:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also disagree with the way the block was handled, but not for the reasons expressed above. By the time an Admin got around to issuing blocks, both editors had ceased editing that article for 21 hours, and were both engaged in discussions here. Frankly, blocks are not "preventative" at that point. As for Looie496's assertion that I also violated 3RR, he is incorrect. I did not, even under the broadest definition of "revert", exceed 3RR; but I am absolutely not defending myself as faultless during that incident. I did push right up to the "bright line" of 3 reverts before ceasing edits on that article, and we all know that can be considered edit warring just as sure as a 4th revert, so my conduct certainly could have been better. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The way that SpecialKCL66 handled this has been wrong in every respect, and I felt that it was necessary to give some clear feedback to that effect -- multiple messages on his talk page (from other editors) have basically been brushed off. I am determined that an editor cannot file a 3RR report when that editor himself has violated 3RR, and escape with no consequences. Whether you yourself violated 3RR is a moot point, since you have not been blocked. I looked over all the edits pretty carefully before making that statement, but I'm not going to spend another half hour going through them again when there is no consequence that depends on it. I'm glad that the discussions have been making progress, and I encourage you to continue with them. Looie496 (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ZingaZingaZinga and User:2.120.240.140 reported by User:Fæ (Result:48 hours)

    Page: Musicians Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ZingaZingaZinga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Second user being reported: 2.120.240.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    • Warning ZingaZingaZinga [81]
    • Warning 2.120.240.140 [82]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Musicians_Institute
    Comments:
    Note, this form is directed at being for one party involved in a revert war. I am not directly involved but reporting both parties who are at logger-heads and reverting each other to a ridiculous extent. Fæ (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wow that's alot of edit warring, page should be protected. Secret account 17:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think protection is necessary for this. Both editors need to be blocked because they're the only ones disrupting this article and not anyone else. Have a look at their contributions as well. Minimac (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours per Minimac. Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Crolladder reported by CharlieEchoTango (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Dispute on article talk page: talk

    Note that I am not directly involved in this in any way, but some users tried to reach consensus on talk page, and the user reported here continued reverting w/o trying to reach consensus.

    - CETTALK 18:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Warned — Looks like a new user; hasn't reverted since you informed him of this report. I tacked on an extra warning just to be sure. Feel free to update if he continues. --slakr\ talk / 21:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will do, thanks. CETTALK 21:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, as I noted here, Crolladder is making some rather false, inflammatory claims. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: With this latest revert after being warned, I have blocked Crolladder for 24 hours. Elockid (Talk) 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/75.47.145.81 and User:Stopde reported by User:Ajraddatz

    Both the IP and the user have been edit warring on Junior Vasquez (history). I don't have enough background knowledge to know whether or not the IP is vandalising, but at any rate they are warring. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note It's nearly impossible for somebody who isn't fully up on the topic to tell what is going on there. Looie496 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned Regardless of the debated issues (which I'll agree with Looie496 is impossible to tell what's going on), this is definitely edit warring. I added 3RR warning on both userpages. Hope it's okay even though I am not an admin. - CETTALK 05:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/76.173.247.200 reported by User:V7-sport (Result:12 hours )

    Page: List_of_Navy_SEALs
    User being reported: 76.173.247.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [83]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[92]

    Comments: I have made every effort to communicate with this individual and persuade them that the WIKI standard is verifiability yet they insist on putting Jesse Ventura on the List of Navy Seals in spite of the fact that I have documented that he was not with reliable sources. It would be great to get this page semi-protected for a period of time. Thank you for your consideration. V7-sport (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Courcelles 10:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks- V7-sport (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport[reply]

    User:Nezzdude reported by Eastcote (talk) (Result: 4 days)

    Page: Southern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Time reported: 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

    1. 17:52, 23 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
    2. 22:14, 23 October 2010 (edit summary: "why promote nationalism? it's dangerous. especially with the neo confederates")
    3. 22:39, 23 October 2010 (edit summary: "why promote nationalism? it's dangerous. especially with the neo confederates")
    4. 10:18, 24 October 2010 (edit summary: "fascism")
    • Diff of warning: here
    • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

    This is the second user blanking this same section of the article in two days. Possibly the same person. No explanation given for the deletions except "Why promote nationalism?" or "Fascism". Section is well-cited. Multiple editors have reverted the deletions and provided warnings.

    —Eastcote (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User should be blocked for 24 hours, while the first edit might not seem like a revert, the IP before that was removing the same content, so I consider it a revert and a 3rr. Secret account 17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 4 days The same length as 71.114.188.40 (talk · contribs). Normally this would be 24 hours. Given however that an inactive account suddenly became active again after a year of inactivity and reinstate the same edits as the IP is a bit too much of a coincidence for me. Elockid (Talk) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No autoblock given. What a surprise there. (Autoblock doesn't block already blocked IP addresses from what I know). Elockid (Talk) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DinDraithou

    Would someone please have a word with this editor? S/he is mass-removing images from five articles, out of some support for [[[User:Xanderliptak]]. I reverted the removals as unnecessary and inappropriate, and have attempted [94][95] discussion on the user's talkpage, as well as a warning for editwarring[96]. All comments have been summarily removed from the talkpage, followed by further reverts.

    This user appears to be under the belief that they somehow have some ownership of these pages do to their ancestry and having 'commissioned' these images. [97]

    This user further seems to be trying to turn this into a battle. [98] The words 'send the enemy scattering' are telling.

    This user doesn't appear to understand WP:BRD (despite attempts on both their talkpage and in edit summaries to educate them), nro WP:OWN. If someone uninvolved could have a word, that would be great.

    Yes, I reverted as well. Will do no further. → ROUX ₪ 23:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you should mention the ulterior motives to your revert. You have never edited the O'Donovan page before, and the only reason you have any interest here is because an image I painted appears on that page, you having some personal agenda against me. You attempt to find and cause issues surrounding me any chance you get, even threatening editors and suggesting to editors that they undo edits so you can better have cause against me, [99] and here. It has almost been a month since our content dispute, let it go. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Do I have to go through this fucking bullshit--because that is what this nonsense is--again? I honestly cannot be bothered once again to have to correct the blatant misrepresentations of reality that appear to spill forth every time your fingers touch a keyboard. I am sick and tired of this. Learn how to tell the truth. → ROUX ₪ 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please remain CIVIL. I know you have had edit disputes with me in the past, but no need to say someone is a liar when you disagree, I don't accuse you of being a liar when I disagree with you, and there is no reason to swear. You have been blocked for civility issues in the past, please don't make the same mistake. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The basic difference between us, Xanderliptak, is that my statements accurately reflect reality. yours do not. I find it interesting that you claim I follow you.. it was you who followed me here. Begone, shade. → ROUX ₪ 01:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to disappoint you, but I followed you nowhere, I was pointed to this direction. I don't have as much interest as you do with me. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RepublicanJacobite in Deadwood (TV series) (Result: protected)

    We've got a slight edit war in Deadwood (TV series)#Themes. Here's the relevant talk section: Talk:Deadwood_(TV_series)#No_way_to_contribute_to_this_article. Common sense and democracy failed. User:RepublicanJacobite won't let go. We need your help. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=392705829"